Both Paul and Minucius Felix had a problem with euhemerizers

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Both Paul and Minucius Felix had a problem with euhemerizers

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:04 am

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.
This is the source of your ignorance Giuseppe. Astrotheology is not limited to Zodiac worship, but incorporates all aspects of celestial worship irrespective of its specific purpose.

What's more, by even basic Christian hermeneutics, the disciples were interpreted as being represented by the Zodiac. The reason for this goes back to Jewish views of the Twelve Tribes of Israel were represented in the Zodiac.

Hell, even as a rank comparison, Herakles's labours were interpreted as being emblematic of the sun's course through the Zodiac, and Justin, Ignatius and Clement call Christ a Hercules, a great athlete who runs his course.

There is supplemental comparisons, such as the soul's of saints and patriarchs being stars, and angels being stars (see Theophilus of Antioch).

Hell, didn't Irenaeus even accuse the Valentinians of redubing the Zodiac as their Aeons?

Even Stuart's (and consequently my own) interpretation of the eclipse of 118 ad is astrotheological. It's viewing the celestial realm as a reflection of the earthly realm. What happens it it will happen on earth.

You are continuously pushing on a door that reads 'pull'.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Both Paul and Minucius Felix had a problem with euhemerizers

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:07 am

perseusomega9 wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:58 am
So this is more about riding Price's, Doherty's, and Carrier's nuts than anything else eh?
IN GEORGE TAKEI VOICE: Oh my!

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7455
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Both Paul and Minucius Felix had a problem with euhemerizers

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:24 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:04 am
Astrotheology is not limited to Zodiac worship, but incorporates all aspects of celestial worship irrespective of its specific purpose.
Plato talked about vernal equinox where the Logos was "crucified" and that was the origin of the Christian belief of the Limit/Horos/cosmic Cross, per the academic quotes above. I find the term "vernal equinox" usually in a book of astronomy, not of astrology. Hence, it is not astrotheology.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Both Paul and Minucius Felix had a problem with euhemerizers

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:50 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:24 am
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:04 am
Astrotheology is not limited to Zodiac worship, but incorporates all aspects of celestial worship irrespective of its specific purpose.
Plato talked about vernal equinox where the Logos was "crucified" and that was the origin of the Christian belief of the Limit/Horos/cosmic Cross, per the academic quotes above. I find the term "vernal equinox" usually in a book of astronomy, not of astrology. Hence, it is not astrotheology.
Again, semantics. Astrotheology is the worship or religious expression of celestial objects and phenomena. Plato is directly invoking astrotheology.

Also Giuseppe you should actually take the time to read Plato, if not for philosophy than to know what he actually says. Plato didn't say that the Logos was crucified at the point the equator meets the ecliptic. What he did say is that it was at these two points that the BENEVOLENT demiurge created the material sphere with both celestial and earthly material. There is absolutely zero inference of a crucifixion here. To say so is the grossest form of dishonesty, so I don't put it beyond you for saying not.

So it is astrotheological-celestial worship.

And you wonder why people bad mouth you here? Because you are incredibly dishonest and shady.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Both Paul and Minucius Felix had a problem with euhemerizers

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:54 am

It's like Goedel having to explain what 2 and 2 is to someone. It's not that complicated Giuseppe.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7455
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Both Paul and Minucius Felix had a problem with euhemerizers

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:39 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:50 am
Plato didn't say that the Logos was crucified at the point the equator meets the ecliptic.
But it is a FACT that the first Christian who adored a cosmic cross called Limit/Horos derived this same same idea from the reading of a crucifixion in Plato. This is proved in this quote of a Catholic Cardinal and academic Danielou. Evidently, Joseph D.L. the fact that you don't read my previous posts in this thread makes you not a good interlocutor.

I show the mentioned quote again for Joseph D.L., in the (vain) hope he will learn something after its reading:
Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Apr 23, 2020 11:28 pm

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)



I can't allow that you enter in an ongoing discussion ignoring any my previous post and moving me to explain again for you any single point. I can't waste my time with you in this way. More attention, please.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

robert j
Posts: 739
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Both Paul and Minucius Felix had a problem with euhemerizers

Post by robert j » Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:28 am

There seems to be some confusion around just what natural phenomenon Plato was describing with his heavenly X. I think the most likely candidate by far is the intersection of the “zodiacal light” with the Milky Way.

The zodiacal light is so-named because it occurs along the plane of the ecliptic, that is, approximately the plane on which the planets orbit around the sun. The zodiacal light is not a familiar sight to most modern people for a variety of reasons, but light pollution is certainly a factor. The zodiacal light —- interplanetary dust illuminated by the sun —- is best visible in mid to mid-southern latitudes, and only in the spring and autumn and only for a period of time before dawn or after sunset, depending on the season.

For many ancients that spent much more time under very dark skies --- especially astrologers, mystics, diviners, and goat herders --- the phenomenon would have been quite well known.

At the times when the zodiacal light happens to intersect with the Milky Way, a giant “X” is visible across the sky. This is most likely the celestial X that Plato was referring to in his Timaeus. Here’s a decent article that presents that point of view, and even includes a photograph of the phenomenon (scroll down the linked page for the article) ---

“Plato’s Cosmic X: Heavenly Gates at the Celestial Crossroads”
https://www.academia.edu/1536305/Platos ... Crossroads

I strongly suspect that this cosmic X was only later associated with the cross of Jesus as described in the citation from Cardinal Danielou in which he cites Irenaeus and Justin --- posted by Giuseppe above.

And on a somewhat related issue, I have great respect for Earl Doherty (Carrier not so much). I respect Doherty’s herculean efforts in his work on a mythical Jesus, but I think his concept of a celestial crucifixion was perhaps his most significant error.

As for Carrier, I think his unfortunate terminology of a crucifixion in “outer space” --- besides not the best fit for the evidence --- invites ridicule.
Last edited by robert j on Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:16 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7455
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Both Paul and Minucius Felix had a problem with euhemerizers

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:35 am

robert j wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:28 am
There seems to be some confusion around just what natural phenomenon Plato was describing with his heavenly X. I think the most likely candidate by far is the intersection of the “zodiacal light” with the Milky Way.
What matters here is not Plato at all, but what is the more probable explanation for the Christian belief about a cosmic Cross in Outer Space, the Limit/Horos. Danielou explains that that belief is based very probably on Plato.

robert j wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:28 am
I have great respect for Earl Doherty (Carrier not so much). I respect Doherty’s herculean efforts in his work on a mythical Jesus, but I think his concept of a celestial crucifixion was perhaps his most significant error. As for Carrier, I think his terminology of a crucifixion in “outer space” --- besides not the best fit for the evidence --- is also most unfortunate.
You are justified in your belief insofar you are obliged to assume a Paul's Jesus lived in a distant past.
But note that I agree with Ben, and contra Robert_J, about the Paul's Jesus being a contemporary of Paul, hence Ben can't be sincerely mythicist (or even a Jesus Agnostic) with the same right as you are, assuming an earthly Jesus in Paul.

Hence I have nailed Ben between the two horns of the beast:

Outer Space crucifixion in Paul AUT historical Jesus

Tertium non datur.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Both Paul and Minucius Felix had a problem with euhemerizers

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Apr 25, 2020 3:09 pm

But it is a FACT that the first Christian who adored a cosmic cross called Limit/Horos derived this same same idea from the reading of a crucifixion in Plato.
No it is not a fact. The celestial chi that Plato refers to is pre-existing in Greek and Egyptian mythology and religion. Plato's philosophy is itself likely based on this, and this would make any Christian belief only a syncretism between the earthly crucifixion of Jesus and this celestial cross. The Acts of John does precisely that. And numerous iconography exists depicting this same cross on the celestial globe. More and more the cross that Plato describes is CELESTIAL.

THERE IS NO CRUCIFIXION IN PLATO. Period. Full stop. Quote where Plato says this. I have actually given what Plato says elsewhere, while you seem content to just quote Justin Martyr, who is not being accurate in what he says.

And I didn't respond to you quoting Danielou because it is not relevant. The relevance is astrotheology. You didn't address the points brought up and then act like you've made some great refutation.

If you want to use Plato for your argument that Christians got the idea of a crucifixion from the celestial chi, then you have to admit that it is astrotheological, because that's exactly what it is.

Celestial = astrotheology

Jesus Christ.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Both Paul and Minucius Felix had a problem with euhemerizers

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Apr 25, 2020 3:24 pm

Ancient Greek boundary markers.
Attachments
cda417dec06d27f1573bfae57ac7bc51.jpg
cda417dec06d27f1573bfae57ac7bc51.jpg (38.71 KiB) Viewed 1301 times
387252276ed679ae4dc1f94748f2977d--hermes-greece.jpg
387252276ed679ae4dc1f94748f2977d--hermes-greece.jpg (7.53 KiB) Viewed 1301 times
55179165123fea7cdf352d9b8f05bb33.jpg
55179165123fea7cdf352d9b8f05bb33.jpg (266.56 KiB) Viewed 1301 times

Post Reply