Loaves and Fishes

[neilgodfrey]

Robert, in 50 words or less, why did the Romans hate precession?

[Robert Tulip]

To repeat, In terms of Neil’s question, the “evil Romans” had to suppress discussion of precession because understanding the real origins of Christianity in Gnostic cosmology undermined the ability of the Christ Myth to provide political legitimacy for imperial stability.

[neilgodfrey]

To repeat, In terms of Neil’s question, the “evil Romans” had to suppress discussion of precession because understanding the real origins of Christianity in Gnostic cosmology undermined the ability of the Christ Myth to provide political legitimacy for imperial stability.

Before Constantine why did the evil Roman emperors not expose to the world the precession origin of Christianity as part of their efforts to put an end to what they saw as fanatical devotion to the "Christ Myth"? (In 50 words or less, please!)

[Robert Tulip]

The precession story is complex. The Romans viewed the Jews as inferior barbarians. The Gnostics kept the precessional basis of the Christ Myth an oral secret within their cult, making it vulnerable to near complete suppression. They presented Christianity to the public on the basis of the literal story of the Gospels, with cosmology only mentioned parabolically. Once the Jesus story became popular, anyone drawing attention to Docetic cosmology was tarred with the brush of heresy.

[neilgodfrey]

The precession story is complex. The Romans viewed the Jews as inferior barbarians. The Gnostics kept the precessional basis of the Christ Myth an oral secret within their cult, making it vulnerable to near complete suppression. They presented Christianity to the public on the basis of the literal story of the Gospels, with cosmology only mentioned parabolically. Once the Jesus story became popular, anyone drawing attention to Docetic cosmology was tarred with the brush of heresy.

But wasn't it the Greeks and gentiles who were being converted to Christianity and making nuisances of themselves in the eyes of the Roman emperors?

Besides, what's so complex about saying we are moving into a new age? It can be told as a parable and a parable can be explained very simply. It is conceivable that the Mithras cult could be based on the idea of precession told in mythical language, so why couldn't the Romans simply tell at least the Greeks.

Why did the Gnostics keep it secret?

[Robert Tulip]

All the mystery religions of the ancient world had a policy of requiring their initiates not to reveal their esoteric teachings. Part of the reason for this is seen in Pope's line that a little learning is a dangerous thing. The Synoptic Gospels explain the secrecy agenda clearly as regards Christianity with the statement that everything Jesus said to the general public was conveyed in parables, while the initiates were taught the secrets of the kingdom. It is likely that secrecy was viewed as a means to maintain organisational power, but with Christianity it backfired, since the orthodox were able to isolate and destroy the Gnostics.

[neilgodfrey]

All the mystery religions of the ancient world had a policy of requiring their initiates not to reveal their esoteric teachings. Part of the reason for this is seen in Pope's line that a little learning is a dangerous thing. The Synoptic Gospels explain the secrecy agenda clearly as regards Christianity with the statement that everything Jesus said to the general public was conveyed in parables, while the initiates were taught the secrets of the kingdom. It is likely that secrecy was viewed as a means to maintain organisational power, but with Christianity it backfired, since the orthodox were able to isolate and destroy the Gnostics.

So there was no need for the evil Romans to do anything about discussions of precession as the cause of Christianity because they were always in secret and none of the "orthodox" knew about them anyway. Yes?

But what about your other point about the Romans not thinking the Jews were very bright when in fact most Christians were Greek or non-Jews?

[The Crow]

The precession story is complex. The Romans viewed the Jews as inferior barbarians. The Gnostics kept the precessional basis of the Christ Myth an oral secret within their cult, making it vulnerable to near complete suppression. They presented Christianity to the public on the basis of the literal story of the Gospels, with cosmology only mentioned parabolically. Once the Jesus story became popular, anyone drawing attention to Docetic cosmology was tarred with the brush of heresy.

The precession story is complex.

Hi Robert. Precession is not really that complicated. Any one versed in Astrology will have some idea of it. I believe where it becomes complicated is when you start applying it to human nature and lives in general. Here you are applying it to the "Christ Myth" theory which in all honesty is not much more than a theory. My question is, is why would the Gnostics want to keep the precessional basis of the Christ Myth a secret? I mean the Romans had some idea of it. In the ancient Roman mystery cult of the Mithra's (1st-4th Century AD) they produced some quite accurate star maps and constellations and if anything would have been contemporaries of this jesus. Do you believe that the bull slaying scene is a depiction of a star map? Trying to figure out how exactly was Christ seen in the stars?

[Robert Tulip]

So there was no need for the evil Romans to do anything about discussions of precession as the cause of Christianity because they were always in secret and none of the "orthodox" knew about them anyway. Yes?

The orthodox agenda was to mock and discredit Gnostic teachings, in order to dumb Christianity down to a mass faith. So for example Irenaeus in Texts of Holy Scripture Used by These Heretics to Support Their Opinions states that for the Gnostics, “The production of the Duodecad of the Aeons, is indicated by the fact that the Lord was twelve years of age when He disputed with the teachers of the law, and by the election of the apostles, for of these there were twelve.”

Irenaeus here recognises that Gnostics taught a theory of twelve ages, something that emerges quite simply from ancient knowledge of precession. But the reason the writings of Irenaeus survived and those he criticised did not is that the Gnostic theory of ages was incompatible with the literal magic of Christian eschatology, with Christ sitting at the right hand of the father, so the Gnostic cosmology would only be presented in distorted form by Christian attackers. To become a Church Father, Irenaeus had to be stupid enough to take the Gospels literally and regard the precessional allegory as devilish. Christianity represents the tragic triumph of the thick.

Similarly, Clement of Alexandria comments on the Valentinian association between the twelve apostles and the signs of the zodiac, saying in The Stromata that The twelve stones, set in four rows on the breast, describe for us the circle of the zodiac, in the four changes of the year and in http://gnosis.org/library/excr.htm that the Gnostics call the Aeons Logoi and say the Apostles were substituted for the twelve signs of the Zodiac. This matches directly to the idea that each different zodiac age has a different character.

But what about your other point about the Romans not thinking the Jews were very bright when in fact most Christians were Greek or non-Jews?

Clearly Gnosticism developed within a Hellenistic culture. But in the Bible, we find quite amazing Gnostic ideas such as the snake on a pole in Numbers repeated in John 3, an image that matches the Mithraic God Aion. The coherence of this imagery illustrates that we only have fragments of the worldview that created it. In particular, the view that the messianic idea of Logos was in Paul’s terms, “born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3) does not indicate that Jesus Christ was flesh and blood, but rather that messianic monotheism was a Gnostic idea found in Jewish tradition.

[neilgodfrey]

So there was no need for the evil Romans to do anything about discussions of precession as the cause of Christianity because they were always in secret and none of the "orthodox" knew about them anyway. Yes?

The orthodox agenda was to mock and discredit Gnostic teachings, in order to dumb Christianity down to a mass faith. . . . .

Irenaeus here recognises that Gnostics taught a theory of twelve ages, something that emerges quite simply from ancient knowledge of precession. . . . . To become a Church Father, Irenaeus had to be stupid enough to take the Gospels literally and regard the precessional allegory as devilish. Christianity represents the tragic triumph of the thick.

But precession was secret knowledge. Irenaeus didn't know anything about it. He only knew the allegorical front. If he did see some discussion of precession somewhere else, say among astronomers, he would have no reason to connect it with the gnostics. So you haven't explained why the evil Romans would want to suppress any talk of precession.

Similarly, Clement of Alexandria comments on the Valentinian association between the twelve apostles and the signs of the zodiac, saying in The Stromata that The twelve stones, set in four rows on the breast, describe for us the circle of the zodiac, in the four changes of the year and in http://gnosis.org/library/excr.htm that the Gnostics call the Aeons Logoi and say the Apostles were substituted for the twelve signs of the Zodiac. This matches directly to the idea that each different zodiac age has a different character.

So it was quite okay for the Fathers to talk about the basis for the 12 signs that "match directly to the idea that each different zodiac age has a different character" -- so long as precession wasn't mentioned. What was the problem Irenaeus had with the gnostics again?

But what about your other point about the Romans not thinking the Jews were very bright when in fact most Christians were Greek or non-Jews?

Clearly Gnosticism developed within a Hellenistic culture. But in the Bible, we find quite amazing Gnostic ideas such as the snake on a pole in Numbers repeated in John 3, an image that matches the Mithraic God Aion. The coherence of this imagery illustrates that we only have fragments of the worldview that created it. In particular, the view that the messianic idea of Logos was in Paul’s terms, “born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3) does not indicate that Jesus Christ was flesh and blood, but rather that messianic monotheism was a Gnostic idea found in Jewish tradition.

You've lost the point of the question. You first of all indicated that the Romans didn't bother exposing the origins of Christianity in precession because the Christians, being Jews, were too dumb to grasp that concept. So now I've reminded you that they were mostly Greeks and other non-Jews what was the reason the Romans did not put an end to troublesome Christianity in the first and second centuries by exposing it as a sham allegory for precession?