Ancient Cosmology: Many Heavens, Gods and the One [God]

[Leucius Charinus]

Gday,

There seems to be a problem with this 3rd diagram (and the 4th in the OP) in that the firmament is being placed in the second heaven between the first and the third which in the Ptolemaic system corresponds to the planet Venus or Mercury ruled by Venus and Hermes respectively. Additionally the firmament is generally viewed as the fixed background starts which are out beyond the furthest planets Jupiter (ruled by Zeus) and Saturn (ruled by Saturnus).

It's not clear that the Pauline heavens were exactly the same thing as the heavenly spheres. Around Paul's time there were various views on how many heavens existed from 2 to 10. I assumed Paul was a 3-heavener, as he mentioned the 3rd heaven in a way that made it sound of a high level. But he could just as easily have been a supporting of the 10 layer Ptolemaic system.

1. Luna
2. Mercury
3. Venus
4. Sun
5. Mars
6. Jupiter
7. Saturn
8. The Firmament
9. 9th Crystal Sphere
10. Primum Mobile

In which case Paul's vision was from the 3rd heaven meaning Venus.

I agree - either way Paul was a 3-heavener.

But with this in mind, back to your diagram ... how can the firmament be between the 2nd and 3rd heaven unless we assume Paul was NOT following the Ptolemaic model. IOW can your diagram make sense of the Pauline 3rd heaven and still retain the firmament above the furthest planetary heaven?

What could Paul have been thinking to make such a divergence from the cosmology of his time? Surely those who provided astronomical advice to the Roman Emperors and other rulers already recognised a substantial body of work in which the Ptolemaic heavens were essentially recognised by most.

Well, in that period we had writers with such a varied number of heavens, 2,3,7, or 10 (not counting the Gnostic 365) so I conclude that heavens were not necessarily the same thing as the heavenly spheres. And I had Paul pegged as a 3-heaven man.

The Gnostic 365 seems to be something to do with the days of the year, while most other Gnostic systems seem to follow Ptolemy.

What model can we suppose Paul to have drawn upon (assuming he was not just making up his own 1st and 2nd and 3rd heaven)?

I will have to re-read the 2 and 3 heaven examples you earlier listed.


Thanks Kapyong.

[Leucius Charinus]

Hi GDon,

So you appear to be arguing that the Christians reattributed the motivations of the "daemons" from motivations which were both good and bad, to motivations which were exclusively bad. I don't understand this argument, can you elaborate. The citation you have provided is an example of a Christian source in which the daemons are the "bad guys".

FWIW I see the idea of the "daemon" as the "life spirit" or the "spirit of life" which animates living things. I don't see this as always 'evi'l.

FWIW all references on this page to "demons" may need to be perceived in context of the Greek term "daemon" which IMHO was subverted by the Christian ideology.

Perhaps not so much subverted as a word, but motivations reattributed. The Christians of the day believed the pagans when they talked about daemons, and believed that they were the same creatures, except that only the Christians knew the truth about such creatures: they were liars. As Justin Martyr wrote:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

• For the truth shall be spoken; since of old these evil demons, effecting apparitions of themselves, both defiled women and corrupted boys, and showed such fearful sights to men, that those who did not use their reason in judging of the actions that were done, were struck with terror; and being carried away by fear, and not knowing that these were demons, they called them gods, and gave to each the name which each of the demons chose for himself. And when Socrates endeavoured, by true reason and examination, to bring these things to light, and deliver men from the demons, then the demons themselves, by means of men who rejoiced in iniquity, compassed his death, as an atheist and a profane person, on the charge that "he was introducing new divinities;" and in our case they display a similar activity. For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ; and in obedience to Him, we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods, but assert that they are wicked and impious demons

[GakuseiDon]

Hi GDon,

So you appear to be arguing that the Christians reattributed the motivations of the "daemons" from motivations which were both good and bad, to motivations which were exclusively bad. I don't understand this argument, can you elaborate. The citation you have provided is an example of a Christian source in which the daemons are the "bad guys".

For example, Romans kept shrines in their houses to offer respect to their ancestor spirits, whom the Romans thought could be invoked for protection -- to heal the sick, etc. Christians wouldn't have argued that such spirits didn't exist; they would have argued that they DID exist, but that they weren't really the spirits of their ancestors but actually demons trying to trick them. So same creature, same results, but different motivations. Daemons were the bad guys. Good daemons were angels.

FWIW I see the idea of the "daemon" as the "life spirit" or the "spirit of life" which animates living things. I don't see this as always 'evi'l.

Not sure if you are talking about your own actual views here, or the beliefs of the Romans or the Christians 2000 years ago. Nowadays we don't think of "spirit" as something tangible or corporeal. But they seemed to have thought that way back then. The last breath a man lets out at death was the actual spirit -- as air -- leaving the body. In modern times, if we think of a physical state for spirit, popular belief tends towards the spirit being electrical energy or magnetic fields. Really it's the same concept, but reinterpretted through the worldviews of 'how things work'.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi GakuseiDon,

Yes, the idea of spirit being breathe and air is very important. This explains the evil spirits theory of disease that Christians made popular. You simply breathed in bad air. That is how you became sick. Simply name the bad air and tell it to leave and it would. Exorcism, that's the ticket.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi GDon,

So you appear to be arguing that the Christians reattributed the motivations of the "daemons" from motivations which were both good and bad, to motivations which were exclusively bad. I don't understand this argument, can you elaborate. The citation you have provided is an example of a Christian source in which the daemons are the "bad guys".

For example, Romans kept shrines in their houses to offer respect to their ancestor spirits, whom the Romans thought could be invoked for protection -- to heal the sick, etc. Christians wouldn't have argued that such spirits didn't exist; they would have argued that they DID exist, but that they weren't really the spirits of their ancestors but actually demons trying to trick them. So same creature, same results, but different motivations. Daemons were the bad guys. Good daemons were angels.

FWIW I see the idea of the "daemon" as the "life spirit" or the "spirit of life" which animates living things. I don't see this as always 'evi'l.

Not sure if you are talking about your own actual views here, or the beliefs of the Romans or the Christians 2000 years ago. Nowadays we don't think of "spirit" as something tangible or corporeal. But they seemed to have thought that way back then. The last breath a man lets out at death was the actual spirit -- as air -- leaving the body. In modern times, if we think of a physical state for spirit, popular belief tends towards the spirit being electrical energy or magnetic fields. Really it's the same concept, but reinterpretted through the worldviews of 'how things work'.

[Leucius Charinus]

Hi GDon,

I have responded to your point on Roman Household shrines: and the lares, penates and genii.
The healing of the sick was often conducted at the Asclepian temples: Asclepius son of Apollo, the sun god.

Hi GDon,

So you appear to be arguing that the Christians reattributed the motivations of the "daemons" from motivations which were both good and bad, to motivations which were exclusively bad. I don't understand this argument, can you elaborate. The citation you have provided is an example of a Christian source in which the daemons are the "bad guys".

For example, Romans kept shrines in their houses to offer respect to their ancestor spirits, whom the Romans thought could be invoked for protection -- to heal the sick, etc.

That's not quite correct. The following is taken from my notes of an ancient history unit at MQ Uni ....

"...the fact is that religious activity formed part
of every other activity in the ancient world;
and so far from placing it in the margin of our accounts,
it needs to be assessed at every point, in every transaction."

J. North, Roman Religion (Oxford, 2000), p.1.




Images associated with religion were frequent throughout the Roman world.
The Latin concept of religio was very different to our understanding of
the word 'religion'. Religio placed an emphasis on rituals and actions,
ie. what a person did rather than what a person believed. For elite Romans
such as the orator and politician Cicero, the large empire conquered by Rome
was the result of the piety shown by the Romans towards the gods, as
demonstrated by the rituals and rites performed in their honour.

1.Explain the role of the lares, genius and penates in Roman religion.

Lares

(1) Metropolitan Museum of Art's Guide to Roman Art: 'Roman Myth, Religion, and The Afterlife' [2007]

Lares were Roman guardian spirits, possibly the ghosts of ancestors. They were worshipped as the protecting spirits of crossroads, in the city as guardians of the state, and most importantly as protectors of the house and its inhabitants (the lares familiares). Lares had no clear personalities or mythologies associated with them. Nearly every Roman household possessed statuettes of the lares, usually in pairs that were placed in a lararium, or shrine, that was built in the central court (atrium) of the home or in the kitchen. These shrines sometimes contained paintings rather than statuettes of the deities. Offerings, sacrifices, and prayers were made to the lares and to other household gods (the penates, guardians of the cupboard, for example). The lares of the crossroads, associated with the emperor’s household gods beginning in the era of Augustus, were worshipped publicly.

(2) Classical Mythology, Morford, Mark P. O. Lenardon, Robert J; CH24 - Nature of Roman Mythology, p.532-533

The agricultural origin survived in the Compitalia (crossroads festival), a winter feast celebrated when work on the farm had been completed. A crossroads in primitive communities was regularly the meeting point of the boundaries of four farms, and the Lares honored at the Compitalia were the protecting spirits of the farms. At each crossroads was a shrine, with one opening for each of the four properties ....

Transferred from farm to city, they kept this function, and each house had its "Lar familiaris" to whom offerings of incense, wine, and garlands were made. In Plautus' play "Aulularia", the Lar Familiaris speaks the prologue and describes how he can bring happiness and prosperity if he is duly worshiped; if he is neglected, the household will not prosper.

(3) Plautus (Titus Maccius Plautus) [254–184 BCE], Aulularia, or The Concealed Treasure, Henry Thomas Riley, Edition [1912]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Ascene%3D0

(4) According to Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso) [43 BCE–17/18 CE], the Lares ...
"protect the crossroads and are constantly on guard in our city" (Fasti 2. 616).

(5) Classical Mythology, ibid p.533

The Lares were also protectors of travelers by land (Lares viales) and by sea (Lares permarini). In 179 BCE a temple was dedicated to the Lares Permarini to commemorate a naval victory over King Antiochus eleven years earlier.


Penates

(1) Metropolitan Museum of Art's Guide to Roman Art: 'Roman Myth, Religion, and The Afterlife' [2007]

Roman Household gods: "guardians of the cupboard" (p.97); "guardians of the kitchen" (p.199)

(2) Religion and Politics in the Late Second Century B. C. at Rome: Elizabeth Rawson [1974]

"the rites of the Penates were sacra publica populi Romani in the fullest sense".

(3) Week 1 Tutorial Images: Aeneas sacrificing to the penates on the Ara Pacis Augustae Roman, 13-9 B.C.

Detail from the west side of the great Augustan "Altar of Peace," the front of the altar. detail, sacrifice; detail, shrine with two seated male divinities. This scene is usually interpreted as Aeneas, shown bearded and wearing a toga pulled up over his head, sacrificing a sow to the Penates (nb: alternatives exist, eg: Numa)

(4) "The origins of Rome"; Cornell, Tim; ex "Beginnings of Rome Italy and Rome From the Bronze Age to the Punic War", p.66

The cult of the ancestral gods of the Roman people, the Penates, was located there [Lavinium (modern Pratica di Mare), and even in the time of the emperors the Roman chief priests and magistrates were obliged to attend in person at the annual celebrations of the cult. The Penates were at one stage identified with the mysterious sacred objects which Aeneas had rescued from Troy, and which play such an important part in the developed legend (see e.g. Virgil, Aeneid 2.293,717; 3.12,148-9).



Genius


(1) Perseus Digital Library Search Index for "genius":
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/sea ... rch=Search

(2) Classical Mythology, Morford, Mark P. O. Lenardon, Robert J; CH24 - Nature of Roman Mythology, p.533

The Genius represented the creative power of a man, seen most especially in the "lectus genialis", or marriage bed, symbol of the continuing life of the family. It was associated more generally with the continued well-being of the family. Slaves swore oaths by the Genius of the head of the family, and offerings were made to it on his birthday. For women, the equivalent of the male Genius was her Juno.

(3) "From the Gracchi to Nero", H. H. Scullard [1982]

Later, in the time of Augustus - the genius of the Emperor (i.e. not the Emperor himself but his "spirit") was reverenced and worshipped:

"his Genius, perhaps in 12 BCE, was inserted in official oaths between the names of Juppiter and the Di Penates; in 13 CE an altar was dedicated by Tiberius in Rome to the Numen Augusti; and, his Genius had been linked with the worship of the Lares"

To some extent, this practice may have a precedent in the "deification" and worship of the "genius" of Alexander the Great.


The Greek "daemon" - the personal "Guardian spirit"

Of these Roman "spirits" which were worshipped by rituals, the "genius" comes closest to what the Greeks termed "daemon" but was not the same. The Greeks as you are no doubt aware had a great philosophical tradition and within this, both the Stoics and the Platonists viewed the "daemon" as the inner "guardian spirit" of each person. I have collected and posted a series of quotes from the sources above.

The Christians appear to have done away with the philosophy of the inner divinity or "guardian spirit" as soon as the Holy Spirit (of Jesus) was released into the world. To me this looks like some sort of corporate takeover of the spiritual realm by the Christian propagandists.

Christians wouldn't have argued that such spirits didn't exist; they would have argued that they DID exist, but that they weren't really the spirits of their ancestors but actually demons trying to trick them. So same creature, same results, but different motivations. Daemons were the bad guys. Good daemons were angels.

The Greek idea was that the daemon was the inner spirit - bad daemons were the bad guys and the good daemons were the good guys (angels).

This idea got changed by the Christians who viewed all daemons (personal individual "guardian spirit") as bad, which is IMO quite sick.

FWIW I see the idea of the "daemon" as the "life spirit" or the "spirit of life" which animates living things. I don't see this as always 'evi'l.

Not sure if you are talking about your own actual views here, or the beliefs of the Romans or the Christians 2000 years ago.

The Romans and Greeks. Certainly not the Christians who seem to defer to books and scriptures in order to obtain views on what is "life spirit".
My views are similar to the Romans and Greeks. Most indigenous peoples recognise the spirit of life in all things.

[Leucius Charinus]

@Kapyong and anyone else ....

From another thread I am reminded that another text mentions "heavens" and that being "Pistis Sofia" ('The Books of the Saviour')

See the INTRO here: http://gnosis.org/library/pistis-sophia/ps003.htm

The whole setting is post-resurrectional.

In Divv. i.-iii. Jesus has already, for eleven years after the crucifixion, been instructing his disciples, men and women, in the Gnosis. The scene now depicts the disciples as gathered round the Saviour on the Mount of Olives on earth. The range and scope of this prior teaching may be seen in Div. iv., where the introductory words speak of it as taking place simply after the crucifixion. In this stratum the scene is different. The sacramental rite is solemnized on earth; it takes place, however, on the Mount of Galilee and not on the Mount of Olives.

But the scene is not confined to earth only, for the disciples are also taken into some of the regions of the invisible world, above and below, have vision there conferred upon them, and are instructed on its meaning.

Now in Divv. i.-iii. Jesus promises to take the disciples into the spheres and heavens for the direct showing of their nature and quality and inhabitants, but there is no fulfilment of this promise in the excerpts we have from 'The Books of the Saviour.'

Surely this is one of the most explicit references to some sort of cosmological statement:
[The Resurrected] "Jesus promises to take the disciples into the spheres and heavens".


So far in this thread I have been most impressed by Kapyong's (K) efforts in actually digging out of all the extant literature all those texts which make references to the heavens in a cosmological (proto-scientific) sense.

I have added "Pistis Sofia" ('The Books of the Saviour') to this list in group K3 as follows ...


Group K1: 1-5 heavens - non Ptolemaic Model

1 Enoch - one heaven
Clementine Recognitions - two heavens
Testament of Solomon - three heavens
3 Baruch - five heavens


Group K2: 7 or 8 heavens - Ptolemaic Model

2 Enoch - seven heavens - fourth is sun and moon
Life of Adam and Eve - seven heavens, 3rd is burial of Adam
Testament of the 12 Patriarchs - seven heavens
Vision of Isaiah - seven heavens
Hypostatis of the Archons - eight heavens
On the Origin of the World - eight heavens

Group K3: More than 8 heavens or an undertermined number
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul - ten heavens
"Pistis Sofia" ('The Books of the Saviour') - Unspecified number of heavens ???? <<<<======== NEW ADDITION to tabulation
{{{WHICH TEXT ??}}} - 365 heavens


I have not had the time yet to read through the text of "Pistis Sofia" ('The Books of the Saviour') for the source references and whether there are any specific references to any number of heavens, or whether the text just puts forward an unspecified number. Does the text mention a specific number of heavens?

[GakuseiDon]

Hi GDon,

I have responded to your point on Roman Household shrines: and the lares, penates and genii.
The healing of the sick was often conducted at the Asclepian temples: Asclepius son of Apollo, the sun god.

Hi GDon,

So you appear to be arguing that the Christians reattributed the motivations of the "daemons" from motivations which were both good and bad, to motivations which were exclusively bad. I don't understand this argument, can you elaborate. The citation you have provided is an example of a Christian source in which the daemons are the "bad guys".

For example, Romans kept shrines in their houses to offer respect to their ancestor spirits, whom the Romans thought could be invoked for protection -- to heal the sick, etc.

That's not quite correct.

Sorry, what's not quite correct?

[Leucius Charinus]

Hi GDon,

So you appear to be arguing that the Christians reattributed the motivations of the "daemons" from motivations which were both good and bad, to motivations which were exclusively bad. I don't understand this argument, can you elaborate. The citation you have provided is an example of a Christian source in which the daemons are the "bad guys".

For example, Romans kept shrines in their houses to offer respect to their ancestor spirits, whom the Romans thought could be invoked for protection -- to heal the sick, etc.

That's not quite correct.[/quote]

Sorry, what's not quite correct?[/quote]

It was just a nit pick really ..... The usual backstreet Roman household spirits were not specialists in healing. The Roman empire and beyond contained a strong network of "Healing temples to Asclepius", operated and administered by the "Therapeutae (worshippers, followers) of Asclepius", son of Apollo, son of Zeus. The archaeology of these healing centres covers 500 BCE - 500 CE.

But back to the discussion of the Greek "daimon", we must be arguing past each other.
Because I have re-read your notes, and your conclusion at point 3 ...
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseid ... view4.html

3.Daemons lived in the area. They passed down messages from the gods to humans, and passed up prayers from humans to the gods.
They could be good or evil, and were thought to be made mostly of 'spiritual' substances like air and fire.

So we agree that they could be good or evil, and that they were never depicted as always evil.

Good.

Conclusion

We actually have quite a lot of information about ancient thinking around the time of Paul available to us. Views differed, but from the literature available we can see:



1.The upper heavens varied in number, but they were the domain of the true gods. The Middle Platonic/Neo pythagorean views had them as unchanging and undefiled. No evil could enter into this realm.

2.The area beneath the moon -- the sub-lunar realm stretching down to earth -- was the area of temporality and decay. This was the area inhabited by humans, animals and daemons.

3.Daemons lived in the area. They passed down messages from the gods to humans, and passed up prayers from humans to the gods. They could be good or evil, and were thought to be made mostly of 'spiritual' substances like air and fire.

4.The myths of the gods were set on earth. Some thought that the stories were mythologized accounts of actual people; others that they were fictional accounts; and others that the myths held an allegorical meaning, and shouldn't be taken literally.

The following about the Christian usage of the Greek term "daemon" ....
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseid ... view4.html

Early Christians used the same Greek word (though nowadays we spell it “demon”), but for them the daemons were deceivers [1],
actually fallen angels pretending to be the Greek and Roman gods and demanding sacrifices. Their purpose was to lead men away from God by confusing them with talk of myths and gods. [2]
Demons, they said, copied stories found in the Old Testament in creating the Greek myths, in order to deceive Christians later on.

Demons were evil 'spiritual' creatures – that is, made up of 'spiritual' elements of fire or air, weighed down by their own lusts. The Second Century Christian apologist Tatian writes:

But none of the demons possess flesh; their structure is spiritual, like that of fire or air. And only by those whom the Spirit of God dwells in and fortifies are the bodies of the demons easily seen, not at all by others,--I mean those who possess only soul; for the inferior has not the ability to apprehend the superior. On this account the nature of the demons has no place for repentance; for they are the reflection of matter and of wickedness. [3]

QUESTIONS:

[1] Why did the Christians think that the "guardian spirits" of people were deceivers?

[2] The notion of the Greek "daimon" contains the notion of a divinity. It was thought to be related to Greek's concept of divinity - of some god.

[3] What does Tatian mean about the superior Spirit and the inferior soul?


Thanks for any info. Or your opinions.

[GakuseiDon]

Sorry, what's not quite correct?

It was just a nit pick really ..... The usual backstreet Roman household spirits were not specialists in healing.

OK.

The following about the Christian usage of the Greek term "daemon" ....
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseid ... view4.html

Early Christians used the same Greek word (though nowadays we spell it “demon”), but for them the daemons were deceivers [1],
actually fallen angels pretending to be the Greek and Roman gods and demanding sacrifices. Their purpose was to lead men away from God by confusing them with talk of myths and gods. [2]
Demons, they said, copied stories found in the Old Testament in creating the Greek myths, in order to deceive Christians later on.

Demons were evil 'spiritual' creatures – that is, made up of 'spiritual' elements of fire or air, weighed down by their own lusts. The Second Century Christian apologist Tatian writes:

But none of the demons possess flesh; their structure is spiritual, like that of fire or air. And only by those whom the Spirit of God dwells in and fortifies are the bodies of the demons easily seen, not at all by others,--I mean those who possess only soul; for the inferior has not the ability to apprehend the superior. On this account the nature of the demons has no place for repentance; for they are the reflection of matter and of wickedness. [3]

QUESTIONS:

[1] Why did the Christians think that the "guardian spirits" of people were deceivers?

Not sure they did, as a class. I suspect that they thought there were good "guardian spirits" as well.

[2] The notion of the Greek "daimon" contains the notion of a divinity. It was thought to be related to Greek's concept of divinity - of some god.

OK.

[3] What does Tatian mean about the superior Spirit and the inferior soul?

I think that Tatian explains that earlier:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... dress.html

• Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works. I refuse to adore that workman ship which He has made for our sakes. The sun and moon were made for us: how, then, can I adore my own servants? How can I speak of stocks and stones as gods? For the Spirit that pervades matter is inferior to the more divine spirit; and this, even when assimilated to the soul, is not to be honoured equally with the perfect God.

[Leucius Charinus]

[3] What does Tatian mean about the superior Spirit and the inferior soul?

I think that Tatian explains that earlier:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... dress.html

• Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works. I refuse to adore that workman ship which He has made for our sakes. The sun and moon were made for us: how, then, can I adore my own servants? How can I speak of stocks and stones as gods? For the Spirit that pervades matter is inferior to the more divine spirit; and this, even when assimilated to the soul, is not to be honoured equally with the perfect God.

Thanks for that, but this sounds just like the Platonic trinity: One, Spirit, Soul.
These three are not equal as in the Christian trinity.
In the Platonic trinity, the One (sometimes called 'God') was supreme, the spirit after and then after the soul.