Both Paul and Minucius Felix had a problem with euhemerizers

[Secret Alias]

You should learn about history. Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam ... That is you at this forum.

[Giuseppe]

Well, 10000 times better being a Cato redivivus than a modern Ignatius:

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... onger.html

[Secret Alias]

I still don't think you get the reference ... or that people were laughing at you.

[perseusomega9]

Ok with the joke , Ben and GDon, but please read here.


The following words are of the Cardinal Danielou:

The sign of the cross is seen to have its origin, not in an allusion to Christ's passion, but as a signification of His divine glory. Even when it comes to be referred to the cross on which He died, that cross is regarded as the expression of the divine power which operates through his death. and the four arms of the cross are looked on as the symbol of cosmic significance of that redeeming act.

https://books.google.it/books?id=dXWXBg ... ry&f=false



How many Christians still believe that the cross of Christ was a witness to his crucifixion! How many would admit that it denied that witness?

ARGUMENT THAT JESUS NEVER EXISTED BASED ON THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE CROSS:

• 1) The cross of the early Christians was (conceived by themselves as) a cross of glory

• 2) a cross of glory can't be (conceived as) a Roman cross of passion

• 3) therefore: Jesus didn't exist.

Self referential satire, true comedic genius

[Giuseppe]

Ignoring the usual insults addressed against my person by the usual "modern judaizers of old gentilizers" here at forum, I am able now to know why Robert M. Price detected in the intersection of the ecliptic and the equinox the precise place where the early Christians placed the cosmic crucifixion of glory.

One of the most controversial aspects of Christ Mythicism is that the crucifixion of Jesus was originally conceived as a celestial event, not an historical one. Jesus was executed on the “cross” of the ecliptic and the equinox, done in by fiendish Archons, Principalities and Powers (1 Cor. 2:8; Col. 2:14-15). The saving death was eventually historicized. Personally, I hold to this theory. It puzzles me that some ridicule this notion as an “outer space crucifixion” when the mytheme is well known from ancient Gnosticism, where it was believed that the Primal Man of Light was dismembered by the Archons in the heavenly realm (“outer space” if you want to call it that). Mythicists are not nuts who think this actually happened. You could jeer at that, but the real point is that these ancient nuts believed it— and a good number of other nutty things.

Price, Robert M. . The Journal of Higher Criticism: Volume 13 Number 2 (p.151). Kindle edition.

I am comforted because it is not astrotheological bullshit at all.

The answer is given by the same cardinal Danielou quoted above:

Is it possible to determine more precisely the origin of this theme of the Cross-Limit? There do not seem to be any grounds for suggesting the image of an erect pike or of a palisade, and such a symbolism would in any case be misleading. The best suggestion is that the Platonic X of the Timaeus underlies the Gnostic Stauros, and that this was thought of as a great cross of light traced in the sky. For Plato the cosmic X was constituted by the intersection of the sphere of the planets and the sphere of the fixed stars at the ecliptic, and thus formed a cross marking the boundary between the planetary world and the heaven of the stars. Now the Gnostics regarded the planetary world or hebdomad as the sphere of the Demiurge, who was a stranger to the Pleroma, and it is, therefore, easy to see how on this view the Cross could come to be regarded as separating the lower world from the world above. The reference to the Timaeus appears, therefore, to be by far the best explanation of the definition of the Cross as the Limit. But are there sufficient grounds for linking these ideas in this way? Gnostic texts make no allusion to the Platonic X, but on the other hand, this was identified with the Cross of Christ by second century writers of the Great Church. Thus the Demonstratio of Irenaeus states: 'He has imprinted the sign of the Cross on the universe,' which is in fact a scarcely altered quotation from the Timaeus of Plato (26 B-C), which Justin had seen as a prefiguration of the Cross in his First Apology: 'Plato, in the Timaeus, seeks to discover, in accordance with the laws of Nature, what the Son of God is, and puts it in these words: "He has marked Him in the form of a X on all things" (LX, I). Justin then explains that Plato borrowed this symbolism from the episode of the brazen serpent, and continues: 'which Plato reading, and not accurately understanding it, and not apprehending that it was a figure of the Cross, but taking it to be a X, he said that next to God the first principle, the second power, was traced in the form of a X upon the universe' (LX, 5-6). There is another detail in the text of the Timaeus which permits a still more definite conclusion. Plato explains that the function of the sphere of the fixed stars is to restrain (pedan) the movement of the planets. Now in the Acts of Andrew a eulogy of the Cross includes the following words: '0 Cross that hast restrained (pedesas) the moving sphere of the world' (JAMES,p. 360). It is impossible to avoid seeing in this an allusion to the Timaeus; moreover, the fact can be quite definitely established, thanks to a passage in Hippolytus on the disciples of Mark: '(The eighth heaven) has been added to the planetary sphere to restrain its rapid movement .... Hence it is an image of Horos ' (Elench. VI, 41; cf. also Irenaeus, Adv. haer. I, 17:I). Here the Gnostic Stauros-Horos is explicitly identified with the Platonic X.

(Danielou, The Theology of Jewish-Christianity, Darton, Longman & Todd, p.285-286, my bold)

[Joseph D. L.]

I am comforted because it is not astrotheological bullshit at all

That's exactly what it is, Giuseppe. Any and every inference you make about celestial/heavenly/outer space events, is unambiguously astrotheological.

What was Plato's cross? The points where the equator and the elliptical meet. Thus a celestial cross.

Where was Jesus, Horos-Stauros crucified according to you? On this same celestial cross.

So astrotheology, according to your own theory, is the correct method to interpret Christianity and Jesus.

A rectangle is a square, but a square isn't a rectangle. You're just arguing semantics as usual.

What exactly is your prejudice against astrotheology? Is it because Acharya, a scholar whom you have repeatedly shown unfounded contempt for, popularized it before you or that charlatan Carrier had the chance to capitalize on it?

And people don't accept your arguments, Giuseppe, because they are nonsensical and recursive. You make the same posts over and over and over again, drawing attention to some small and irrelevant detail as someone say "but" instead of "and" and act as if this is of some great importance. It's honestly tiring. I read the headers for your posts and I am immediately exhausted, not because they're right, but because it is baffling how someone can be so sure of themselves yet offer very little of substantive arguments.

[Giuseppe]

What exactly is your prejudice against astrotheology? Is it because Acharya, a scholar whom you have repeatedly shown unfounded contempt for, popularized it before you or that charlatan Carrier had the chance to capitalize on it?

sorry, it is not astrotheology. The term "Zodiac" is not mentioned, in any quote above, to prove where is the cosmic cross in the mind of the early Christians.

Hence my contempt for Acharya (peace to her soul) remains all, while my admiration for Carrier/Doherty/Price/Couchoud increases vertiginously becoming quasi an authentic worship.

[GakuseiDon]

Hence my contempt for Acharya (peace to her soul) remains all, while my admiration for Carrier/Doherty/Price/Couchoud increases vertiginously becoming quasi an authentic worship.

Doherty and Dr Price thought there may have been something to her theories.

Earl Doherty's review of Acharya S's "The Christ Conspiracy":
https://www.amazon.com/Christ-Conspirac ... 0932813747

Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together this rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion. She grabs the reader from the first page and doesn't let go. --Earl Doherty

From Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", page 153:

A heavenly location for the actions of the savior gods, including the death of Christ, would also have been influenced by most religions' ultimate derivation from astrotheology, as in the worship of sun and moon. For this dimension of more remote Christian roots, see the books of Acharya S, especially "Suns of God".

Dr Robert M Price's view of Acharya S's use of astrotheology:
https://stellarhousepublishing.com/what ... m-murdock/

To me, the most interesting aspect of Acharya’s work is her pursuit of old, now ignored theories by comparative religionists and mythologists suggesting that Christianity embodies a perennial theology of the heavenly bodies, their motion and the common reflection of this astrotheology in the myths of all nations...

First, Acharya has made me rethink the astrotheology business...

And how else do we explain the occurrence of the cross as a religious symbol all over the ancient world unless it was based on something all races had access to: the phenomena of the night sky? Makes sense!

Also, from Dr Price's review of her "Christ in Egypt":
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... _egypt.htm

It is almost as important in Christ in Egypt to argue for an astro-religious origin for the mythemes, and there, too, I agree with the learned author. Let me outline the main argument that persuades me, some of it learned here, some already assimilated and facilitating my acceptance of much that Acharya offers...

I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock: “we assert that Christianity constitutes Gnosticism historicized and Judaized, likewise representing a synthesis of Egyptian, Jewish and Greek religion and mythology, among others [including Buddhism, via King Asoka’s missionaries] from around the ‘known world’” (p. 278).

Even Dr Richard Carrier thought it might be worth reviewing her more recent work:
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2009 ... 6076284692

I recommend even greater caution in reading Murdock. She is not as qualified as Price, and has in the past gone way beyond what the evidence renders plausible. But I agree it looks like her more recent work (no longer under her past pseudonym) is more cautious and worth a review.

Giuseppe, some of your ideas do seem to be consistent with the ideas of Acharya S. Don't you believe that "Christianity constitutes Gnosticism historicized"? Maybe there is something in her works that might add to your theories? Acharya S also writes a lot about euhemerism. She may become your muse. For surely, the essence of euhemer is being a mused!

Take some time off from posting, read through her books, taking all the time you need; and then, when you come back here to post again, your theories will be all the stronger!

[Giuseppe]

I am a bit skeptical about the sincerity of their positive claims about Acharya. Afterall, they talked so in a period when the mythicists were considered in toto crazy people even by myself, and they (Price, Doherty and Carrier) were attacked by the same fans of Acharya. I think that they are still attacked by them.

Giuseppe, some of your ideas do seem to be consistent with the ideas of Acharya S. Don't you believe that "Christianity constitutes Gnosticism historicized"? Maybe there is something in her works that might add to your theories?

The great German Mythicist Arthur Drews had a distorted love for astrotheology, also. But he applied the astrotheology to decipher the Earliest Gospel, not, absolutely not, to decipher Paul. For example, he was the first to detect that Galil (for 'Galilee') is the Jewish term for 'Zodiac'. The vernal equinox, according to Drews, was found in the point of Balance (hence: the need of a Judgment by human judges). Drews talked also about Pilate being the euhmerized Homo Pilatus, a constellation.

Since the Earliest Gospel can be easily explained by appealing to Jewish midrash, and especially by the simple need of a life "in the last times" to prove, "beyond any reasonable doubt", the Jewishness of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah (expected precisely "in the last times") against his deniers (see the case Barabbas), I don't need astrotheology to decipher the gospels, pace Drews.

Hence, it is "poisoning the well" the idea that serious mythicism has to share something with astrotheology.

About your last question, GDon:

Don't you believe that "Christianity constitutes Gnosticism historicized"? Maybe there is something in her works that might add to your theories?

The answer is simple, but I can only thank Couchoud, Doherty and Carrier to give it.

So Richard Carrier proves that Christianity is not Gnosticism historicized, despite of the fact that the cosmic cross was exalted by a lot of Gnostics (and haters of YHWH):

And my view, the Doherty thesis view, is that the Hebrews theology is actually the origin of the faith. It’s not a later development.

(source)

Without Hebrews, we would have no evidence of Jewish-Christians placing Jesus in Outer Space. Without Hebrews, the copy-right about the crucifixion in Outer Space would be exclusive property of Gnostics and haters of YHWH, and the historicists may have, in that case, a good point against mythicists:

you see, only later Gnostics and Haters of YHWH talked about crucifixion in Outer Space, it is not a Jewish thing and we know that the early Christians were Jews.

hence only if we hadn't Hebrews, we should talk about Gnostic origins of Christianity.

Robert Price is aware of this importance of Hebrews to decide about the Origins, and since he wants to think about Gnostic and anti-YHWH origins of Christianity (as opposed to Jewish origins), Bob Price goes against Carrier in his interpretation of Hebrews. According to Price, Hebrews places the crucifixion of Jesus on earth, not in Outer Space.

Hence the great merit of Couchoud, Doherty and Carrier: to have proved that Hebrews places the crucifixion in Outer Space, therefore the early Christians were Jews, they adored YHWH, but they placed the cross in Outer Space.


ADDENDA: GDon has added in the post above:

Take some time off from posting, read through her books, taking all the time you need; and then, when you come back here to post again, your theories will be all the stronger!

I have already explained why astrotheology doesn't work but I explain it again for you. If I have already a good reason to explain why and how Jesus was euhemerized (to place him "in the last times" in order to prove that he is the expected Jewish Christ, against the rival adorers of Jesus Son of Father ("Jesus Bar-Abbas") who was enemy of the evil demiurge YHWH), then Occam prohibits astrotheological speculations, sic et simpliciter.

[perseusomega9]

So this is more about riding Price's, Doherty's, and Carrier's nuts than anything else eh?