Loaves and Fishes

[stephan happy huller]

But you realize that the earliest Jewish commentaries understand there to be two 'men' in Genesis. The heavenly man made in the image and like the likeness (Genesis 1) and the earthly man of Genesis 2. Adam is not a heavenly or astral being.

[ghost]

My reading explores this conflict of religious visions in terms of the role of faith in supporting political security. Israel sought to distinguish itself from its large neighbours and to base its political security upon an ethical doctrine of God as revealed in transcendental patriarchal language. So the power faction developed a theory of male supremacy and hostility to nature, as a way to focus the community on the law of God, in terms of obedience, unity and social control. But this power faction was not representative of religious identity within Israel, which included ancient traditions of gender equality in which nature was venerated.

Show the evidence.

[ghost]

The "natural scientific meaning" of Biblical texts exclusively supports astro-theology?

By "natural" is meant "gynocentric". I.e. Acharyan astrotheology leads to femitheism, and anything that leads astray from femitheism is supposedly wrong.

[Robert Tulip]

But you realize that the earliest Jewish commentaries understand there to be two 'men' in Genesis. The heavenly man made in the image and like the likeness (Genesis 1) and the earthly man of Genesis 2. Adam is not a heavenly or astral being.

When you say "the earliest Jewish commentaries" you mean the earliest extant commentaries. As another commenter mentioned here recently, the extant sources suffer from the selection bias imposed by many centuries of religious dogma, and are not a reliable guide to what the earliest views actually were. We have to analyse their logical coherence to assess to what extent these surviving documents express the original intent. The big question for coherence is 'Could this be based on a description of something real?'

To challenge your blank assertion that Adam is not astral, Adam is sometimes interpreted as the avatar of the Age of Taurus, with Abraham/Moses as the avatar of the Age of Aries, Jesus Christ as avatar of the Age of Pisces, and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as avatar of the Age of Aquarius. This time frame is not explicitly announced in ancient texts, but the point I am making here, which also applies to the loaves and fishes, is that a coherent implicit reading can be extracted from the surviving documents.

This is a temporal model which could well have been understood in very ancient times. It coheres with the equation between the day/millennium code of the Psalms and Peter and the seven days of creation described in Genesis, broadly understood as the basis of orthodox eschatology.

The earliest surviving texts were censored to remove astral religion, along the lines of the Deuteronomistic cult view that worship of nature was evil. So we should look for the traces of earlier natural thought patterns concealed in what they do say.

[neilgodfrey]

To challenge your blank assertion that Adam is not astral, Adam is sometimes interpreted as the avatar of the Age of Taurus, with Abraham/Moses as the avatar of the Age of Aries, Jesus Christ as avatar of the Age of Pisces, and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as avatar of the Age of Aquarius.

Can you avoid the passive voice and be more explicit and avoid the vagueness that invites ambiguity? Instead of "X is sometimes interpreted as. . . " -- how about: So and so/such and such sometimes interpreted Adam as the avatar of the Age of Taurus, etc etc.

That would be much clearer to the rest of us instead of leaving the subject vague and contextless to the point of meaninglessness for the rest of us who don't have this esoteric knowledge.

This is a temporal model which could well have been understood in very ancient times.

Ditto for this, too. Who, exactly, and where and when, could well have understood this model etc?

The earliest surviving texts were censored to remove astral religion, along the lines of the Deuteronomistic cult view that worship of nature was evil.

Again, who censored these texts? Which cultures? Which groups? Where? When?

[stephan happy huller]

To challenge your blank assertion that Adam is not astral, Adam is sometimes interpreted as the avatar of the Age of Taurus, with Abraham/Moses as the avatar of the Age of Aries, Jesus Christ as avatar of the Age of Pisces, and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as avatar of the Age of Aquarius.

You see, this is complete bullshit. I could argue your case for you. I could have a better conversation with myself debating this topic. Why? Because I have actually read some of the early commentaries. That's your problem. You're just making stuff up. It's not even worth arguing with you because quite frankly, you don't know what you are talking about. You have no feel for the language. You can't read Hebrew. Without Sprachgefühl in a tradition like Judaism you are destined to be hopelessly flailing about as you are now. This is a pointless endeavor for you. You lost me at hello.

[neilgodfrey]

Astral meaning is not the only meaning in the Bible. But cosmology is a big part of the meaningful content in terms of the Biblical vision of objective order.

What does this mean? What do you mean by "the meaning of the Bible"? The Bible is a collation of disparate texts from various sources and with various purposes. How can the "Bible" have a meaning?

What is a "Biblical vision of objective order"? What does that mean? Again, how can "the Bible" have a vision given that it is a collection of various books with different visions. What is meant by "objective order" exactly?

We know from Qumran that what we consider "biblical" books were even into the first century bce and beyond still in flux with various versions of them being developed and with some of them of lesser authoritative status than books that did not make it into the Bible.

A core function of religion is to explain reality.

What do you mean by this and where did you get it from? What do you mean by "reality" here? What anthropological studies confirm your idea of religion's "function"? Religions I know of are about explaining what is imaginary, not reality -- though they serve to convince believers the imaginary is reality.

In the ancient world, that meant explaining how events on earth could be understood within the encompassing objective context of the visible ordered patterns of the cosmos. It also meant explaining things within a cultural heritage that was nested within but did not always directly relate to the bigger picture of cosmology.

Do you mean it meant explaining events according to some form of calendar or dating system? If not, what do you mean exactly?

Astrotheology is grounded in the scientific observation that human life is governed by a single orderly structure of time defined by observation of the heavens, seen in the patterns of the day, the week, month, seasons, year and precession. Observation of the temporal structure of the cosmos provides an all-encompassing reality, the ground of our being and the origin of reason.

Do you mean to say that human life is governed by the cycles of the seasons, day an night, and calendars? What's a week? Where does nature give us a 7 or 5 or other day week?

Do you think anything else is important for "governing" human life or just the seasons and calendar?

Did humans have any being before it became aware of seasonal cycles?

Did humans not develop reason until they first observed regularities in the seasons and planetary movements? This is what you seem to be saying.

The question of how and why Judaism veered away from its astral origins is fascinating and difficult. As testament to the Jewish tradition of veneration of nature, the high priests in the temple in Jerusalem through into the common era wore a holy breastplate symbolising the twelve signs of the zodiac.

What is your evidence for Judaism having astral origins? Or was it all suppressed and lost? How do you define Judaism? What is the earliest evidence for its appearance? What is your evidence for the breastplate symbolizing the zodiac? Philo? Josephus?

As well, the ‘snake on a pole’ motif from Moses suggests an esoteric cosmic idea of temporal cycles linked to both the snake in the tree in Eden and the snake on the pole used to lead in to the central Christian text of John 3:16.

Do you keep up with the scholarship that is opening up new questions and insights into when the Adam and Eve story first appeared compared with the Moses stories?

However, the Yahweh cult, in its separation from the feminine Asherah tradition, was explicitly and violently opposed to all perception of divinity within nature. The Josiahite school sought to eliminate worship of nature in favour of belief in a wholly transcendental Father God.

How do you know the Yahweh cult had any concept whatever of "divinity within nature"? What grounds do you have for thinking the Josiah story was historical? Where do you get the idea that it was seeking to advance a "wholly transcendental Father God?

. . . . Israel sought to distinguish itself from its large neighbours and to base its political security upon an ethical doctrine of God as revealed in transcendental patriarchal language. . . . . But this power faction was not representative of religious identity within Israel, which included ancient traditions of gender equality in which nature was venerated.

What evidence is there for any of this? This sounds like nothing but ideological fantasizing. You certainly are not keeping up to date with the scholarship on the origins and meanings of the biblical and related texts.

There is nothing here for anyone to discuss in relation to specific evidence -- archaeological or literary-critical. This is all ideological and religious or New Age or pantheistic speculation. Just trying to tell us that we should embrace your religion because it is the one true religion and because you can "prove" it by scientific methods sounds to me SOOOOO sooo SO like the line pushed by so many cultic groups I have encountered.

[Robert Tulip]

Adam is sometimes interpreted as the avatar of the Age of Taurus

You can't read Hebrew.

So what? That is irrelevant. What existing Jewish books may say explicitly about Adam is only a superficial part of the story, and has to be combined with analysis of the cultural context. To assert that only those who read Hebrew can comment on this material smacks of methods I would rather not mention. Anyone who sees knowledge of original languages as conferring membership in an exclusive chosen guild is likely to lack the breadth of understanding required to consider such material properly.

A book bearing nihil obstat and imprimatur relates that John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople in the fourth century AD, tells a story of the extremely repressive culture regarding diversity of thought at that time. This story should be considered to indicate evidence of much older and continuing repressive attitudes. The fourth century saw destruction of classical wisdom on such a scale that the Euphrates allegedly ran black with the ink of dumped books. Our records of social debate on religion in the early Christian times are scant, reflecting the Orwellian reality that the history was written by the victors, who assiduously destroyed all work deemed heretical. Gnosticism was a primary heresy, and so was targeted, much as the kulaks later were for liquidation as a class.

“The Emperor Valens tried to fight against paganism as much as he could. In the year 374 he also decided to begin the fight against the superstitions which had remained deep in the hearts of the people since pagan times, and which were fostered and played upon by charlatans and impostors. He commanded that all books of magic should be burned and that all magicians and sorcerers, as well as authors of books on magic, should be punished by death. An author or possessor of any such book would rid himself of his dangerous treasure by the simplest method, namely by throwing it quickly into the Orontes River. If he was seen doing this, he was convicted of magic practices and punished by death. Once Chrysostom was walking along by the Orontes with a friend, on the way to divine service at a nearby martyr's shrine. They saw something white floating on the water, and thought it was a piece of linen. The friend jumped into the water and pulled out a book. He saw at once that it was one of the forbidden books on magic. In the same moment a soldier passed by. If he had seen the book in their hands, both of them would have been lost; for who would have believed them if they had said that they took it out of the river? Pale with fear, his companion hid the book under his garments. By the Providence of God, the soldier did not notice them. He passed on and they were able to throw the book back into the water unnoticed.'”

So, people may well ask, why would anyone imagine that content in religious books that could be deemed to relate to magical claims might be censored? And why would anyone imagine that such censorship may have had a long history, beginning well before the late empire?

The Edict of Theodosius in 380 resulted in all non-orthodox people in the Empire losing the right to meet, ordain priests, or spread their beliefs. Scientists living under such a dispensation would have motive to conceal their views. The actual context of the Biblical war zone and the ancient world more broadly was that scientific groups such as the Pythagoreans were renowned for concealing their knowledge, as Copernicus attests in his discussion of precession.

The destruction of Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Jews from Israel was one of the biggest social upheavals of the ancient world. The Arch of Titus commemorating it in Rome is among the biggest triumphal monuments in the world. The military war accompanied a cultural war. The suppression of secret mystery groups was part of the Roman agenda wherever such groups were considered potentially seditious. Christians became renowned for communicating in code, such as the famous legend of the half fish symbol drawn in the sand.

Imperial stability required uniformity of doctrine. When totalitarian bigots actually rule the world, anyone who thinks differently has to be careful. What on earth could 'bigots' do to them that would make it worth the effort required to present messages in concealed form? How about burning the text, killing the authors and spreading intimidatory fear about discussion of heresy?

[neilgodfrey]

Adam is sometimes interpreted as the avatar of the Age of Taurus

You can't read Hebrew.

Robert, you're a good one for ripping phrases from people's replies and reconstructing them as direct quotes in response to specific points. -- You did the same misleading trick to me, too. I do wish you would stop doing that. Anyone reading such a post will naturally assume you are being honest and directly quoting what was said with no omissions or interpretation on your part. Please don't mislead them to think you are honestly presenting direct exchanges.

Stephan's "you can't read Hebrew" was not directly aimed at that one point of yours but was clearly expressed in a wider rejoinder.

But now that you have resurfaced this point, can you give us the evidence that Adam was sometimes interpreted as the avatar of the Age of Taurus? By whom? When? In what context? What did they understand by "age of taurus", etc. Thank you.

[Robert Tulip]

You did the same misleading trick to me, too.

I did not mislead in the slightest. Anyone who can parse English grammar can see that my quotes extracted the key intent of their authors, from posts which are readily available in the thread for context.

Neil is referring to my explanation that he said his description of my work as "wilfully evil" is "harmless or mild".

Of course he doesn't like me pointing out his exuberances like this, since they don't make much sense. I encourage interested readers to review that exchange. Calling someone evil just for raising scholarly arguments is not a mild comment.

It is no great worry for me if Neil says such things, since that comment only reflects badly on his methods of argument, and does not engage with anything real. The relevance here is that Neil claims to be methodical, but is not.