in defence of astrotheology

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Ulan »

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Ulan wrote:Greek religion is based on Earth worship, not the sky.
CHECK Uranus as "Father Sky": [wiki]Uranus_(mythology)#Genealogy_of_the_Olympians_in_Greek_mythology[/wiki]

Uranus (/ˈjʊərənəs/ or /jʊˈreɪnəs/; Ancient Greek Οὐρανός, Ouranos [oːranós] meaning "sky" or "heaven") was the primal Greek god personifying the sky. His equivalent in Roman mythology was Caelus. In Ancient Greek literature, Uranus or Father Sky was the son and husband of Gaia, Mother Earth.
Note from your quote that Uranus was the son of Gaia. Earth was much more important than the sky, thus my statement you quoted. Even the famous Apollo temple of Delphoi was originally a chthonic sanctuary, probably of Gaia.
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Ulan wrote:Roman religion is based on spirit worship, not sky.
The Romans copied the Greeks. Both had places for spirit worship.
That's not what I am referring to. Roman religion copied Greek mythology. However, their own gods were originally not anthropomorphic, but nature spirits. Jupiter, Faunus, Mars, Janus, etc., they all were just the spirits of the things they stood for. Note the absence of sun worship, as the sun, sol, was not revered, unlike the weather, Jupiter.
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Ulan wrote:It's one of the major distinguishing traits of Greek religion how little value it placed in the sky.
I don't think that is necessarily true. I think they tried to cover all the bases, including the heavens, the planets, sun, moon and stars. Sure they certain had terrestrial deities and gods, but they also had the cosmic crew as well.
They had that crew, yes. They were not worshiped though. They just existed.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Ulan »

Leucius Charinus wrote:What about Apollo and his temples, shrines and oracles?

Apollo (Attic, Ionic, and Homeric Greek: Ἀπόλλων, Apollōn (GEN Ἀπόλλωνος); Doric: Ἀπέλλων, Apellōn; Arcadocypriot: Ἀπείλων, Apeilōn; Aeolic: Ἄπλουν, Aploun; Latin: Apollō) is one of the most important and complex of the Olympian deities in classical Greek and Roman religion and Greek and Roman mythology. The ideal of the kouros (a beardless, athletic youth), Apollo has been variously recognized as a god of light and the sun, truth and prophecy, healing, plague, music, poetry, and more.
Sure, Apollo usurped Helios' position in hellenistic times. However, it's only in Roman religion that Apollo was really sometimes depicted as the sun itself. For the Greek, he was more of the god of light, in direct and indirect ways. He was never relegated to the duty of driving the sun chariot across the sky, which would be something you need to for an astrotheological concept.

The problem with this is also that there is absolutely nothing about Apollo that lends itself to Christian ideas. You sure have some early Christians with reference to Apollo in their names, but that doesn't mean anything if there is nothing from the Apollo cult or mythology that has any relevance to Christian ideas.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Stephan Huller »

The term 'superficial understanding' (of the Patristic writers) cited immediately comes to mind. Why does Robert continue to cite this woman as some sort of expert on early Christianity when she is clearly not? Is he in love with her or something? I have no problem with being in love (I am something of a romantic). But can't he keep his affection for her to himself or express himself in poems or paintings - maybe knit a quilt in honor of her beauty? It's a bit ludicrous to cite an inferior source like this as being 'authoritative' in a forum where most of the participants have superior knowledge to Ms Murdock (or at least use superior sources).
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Ulan wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Ulan wrote:Greek religion is based on Earth worship, not the sky.
CHECK Uranus as "Father Sky": [wiki]Uranus_(mythology)#Genealogy_of_the_Olympians_in_Greek_mythology[/wiki]

Uranus (/ˈjʊərənəs/ or /jʊˈreɪnəs/; Ancient Greek Οὐρανός, Ouranos [oːranós] meaning "sky" or "heaven") was the primal Greek god personifying the sky. His equivalent in Roman mythology was Caelus. In Ancient Greek literature, Uranus or Father Sky was the son and husband of Gaia, Mother Earth.
Note from your quote that Uranus was the son of Gaia.
WIKI: According to Hesiod's Theogony, Uranus was conceived by Gaia alone, but other sources cite Aether as his father.

[wiki]Aether_(deity)[/wiki]
  • Aether or Aither (Æthere, Ancient Greek: Αἰθήρ, pronounced [aitʰɛ̌ːr]), in ancient Greece, was one of the primordial deities. Aether is the personification of the upper air.[1] He embodies the pure upper air that the gods breathe, as opposed to the normal air (ἀήρ, aer) breathed by mortals. Like Tartarus and Erebus, Aether may have had shrines in ancient Greece, but he had no temples and it is unlikely that he had a cult.
Aether is also seen as the 5th element of nature - the "cosmic element" which fills the space between the stars.
The Romans copied the Greeks. Both had places for spirit worship.
That's not what I am referring to. Roman religion copied Greek mythology. However, their own gods were originally not anthropomorphic, but nature spirits. Jupiter, Faunus, Mars, Janus, etc., they all were just the spirits of the things they stood for. Note the absence of sun worship, as the sun, sol, was not revered, unlike the weather, Jupiter.
The "spirits" represented the things they stood for. The world was full of spirits. I agree with you that the Greek's were not overly religious. They were sceptical and their gods had human attributes and emotions. The Greeks advanced a large number of "Intellectual traditions" simultaneously, including Astronomy, mathematics and Medicine for example. Most if not all of these Greek intellectual traditions were extinguished by the rise of the Christian state and did not resurface for a thousand years.



LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Image

PS-- Apparently there is some kind of "reference," but not what you'd expect. The reference is to Catholic Encyclopedia, "Christmas." Consulting this can lead the reader to find the actual references and some of their wording.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

...
Already Tertullian (Apol., 16; cf. Ad. Nat., I, 13; Orig. c. Cels., VIII, 67, etc) had to assert that Sol was not the Christians' God; Augustine (Tract xxxiv, in Joan. In P.L., XXXV, 1652) denounces the heretical identification of Christ with Sol.
Cheers Peter.

and the rest of that section -
Natalis Invicti

The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism, see Cumont's epoch-making "Textes et Monuments" etc., I, ii, 4, 6, p. 355. Mommsen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 12, p. 338) has collected the evidence for the feast, which reached its climax of popularity under Aurelian in 274. Filippo del Torre in 1700 first saw its importance; it is marked, as has been said, without addition in Philocalus' Calendar. It would be impossible here even to outline the history of solar symbolism and language as applied to God, the Messiah, and Christ in Jewish or Christian canonical, patristic, or devotional works. Hymns and Christmas offices abound in instances; the texts are well arranged by Cumont (op. cit., addit. Note C, p. 355).

The earliest rapprochement of the births of Christ and the sun is in Cyprian, "De pasch. Comp.", xix, "O quam præclare providentia ut illo die quo natus est Sol . . . nasceretur Christus." — "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born."

In the fourth century, Chrysostom, "del Solst. Et Æquin." (II, p. 118, ed. 1588), says: "Sed et dominus noster nascitur mense decembris . . . VIII Kal. Ian. . . . Sed et Invicti Natalem appelant. Quis utique tam invictus nisi dominus noster? . . . Vel quod dicant Solis esse natalem, ipse est Sol iustitiæ." — "But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December . . . the eight before the calends of January [25 December] . . ., But they call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord . . .? Or, if they say, that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice."

Already Tertullian (Apol., 16; cf. Ad. Nat., I, 13; Orig. c. Cels., VIII, 67, etc) had to assert that Sol was not the Christians' God; Augustine (Tract xxxiv, in Joan. In P.L., XXXV, 1652) denounces the heretical identification of Christ with Sol.

Pope Leo I (Serm. xxxvii in nat. dom., VII, 4; xxii, II, 6 in P.L., LIV, 218 and 198) bitterly reproves solar survivals — Christians, on the very doorstep of the Apostles' basilica, turn to adore the rising sun. Sun-worship has bequeathed features to modern popular worship in Armenia, where Christians had once temporarily and externally conformed to the cult of the material sun (Cumont, op. cit., p. 356).

But even should a deliberate and legitimate "baptism" of a pagan feast be seen here no more than the transference of the date need be supposed. The "mountain-birth" of Mithra and Christ's in the "grotto" have nothing in common: Mithra's adoring shepherds (Cumont, op. cit., I, ii, 4, p. 304 sqq.) are rather borrowed from Christian sources than vice versa.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Mar 17, 2015 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Ulan wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:What about Apollo and his temples, shrines and oracles?

Apollo (Attic, Ionic, and Homeric Greek: Ἀπόλλων, Apollōn (GEN Ἀπόλλωνος); Doric: Ἀπέλλων, Apellōn; Arcadocypriot: Ἀπείλων, Apeilōn; Aeolic: Ἄπλουν, Aploun; Latin: Apollō) is one of the most important and complex of the Olympian deities in classical Greek and Roman religion and Greek and Roman mythology. The ideal of the kouros (a beardless, athletic youth), Apollo has been variously recognized as a god of light and the sun, truth and prophecy, healing, plague, music, poetry, and more.
Sure, Apollo usurped Helios' position in hellenistic times. However, it's only in Roman religion that Apollo was really sometimes depicted as the sun itself. For the Greek, he was more of the god of light, in direct and indirect ways. He was never relegated to the duty of driving the sun chariot across the sky, which would be something you need to for an astrotheological concept.

The problem with this is also that there is absolutely nothing about Apollo that lends itself to Christian ideas. You sure have some early Christians with reference to Apollo in their names, but that doesn't mean anything if there is nothing from the Apollo cult or mythology that has any relevance to Christian ideas.
One of the greatest Apollo *related* cults in antiquity for the first three centuries of the common era was that of Apollo's son, the Healing God Asclepius Extensive archaeology even including the "Pool of Bethsaida". Jesus was supposed to be a Healer. In the Acts of Pilate, Pilate informs the Jews that Jesus heals by the power of Asclepius. Eusebius writes many books against the comparison of Hierocles between Apollonius (a former priest of Asclepius) and Jesus. Constantine orders his army to take out the largest and most ancient temples to Asclepius - which arguably represented the pubic hospital system of antiquity.

This has nothing to do with astrotheology either. As I mentioned earlier, I can defend the use of astrotheology from the rule of Constantine to popularise the Christian State religion. For the earlier period (and the NT books), the evidence suggests a small relative influence, analogous to providing a small piece in an extremely large jigsaw puzzle. It has its place.

How would any one in antiquity explain resurrection? People did not return back to life after they went to the Underworld. It was and is a one way trip. OTOH the metaphor or theme or allegory for the resurrection (after going to the underworld) is given naturally by the [geocentric] sun. I see this question as being related to astrotheology but I do not see it addressed specifically anywhere. Does this aspect get mentioned in the astrotheology literature?



LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ulan wrote: The problem with this is also that there is absolutely nothing about Apollo that lends itself to Christian ideas.
For what it's worth Apollo's birthday was the 7th day of the "pre-spring month of Bysios" (Kerenyi, "Dionysos", p. 208)
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by neilgodfrey »

Peter Kirby wrote:(Of course that wouldn't address another problem, of people getting huffy if anyone doesn't bow deeply in the general direction of this stuff and its most esteemed hierophant, which also is a consideration for why I do not care to comment extensively, and indeed don't like making this very small comment. Oh well. I will go looking for my flame suit again.)
I fully expected to be napalmed for a similar criticism of a passage in Christ in Egypt but it never came. Presumably that was because I buttered them up by preceding my criticism with something positive about Murdock and holding out a constructive comment on her work at the end. No doubt they recognized I am not the hostile bigot they had previously taken me for. :thumbup:
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by MrMacSon »

neilgodfrey wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:(Of course that wouldn't address another problem, of people getting huffy if anyone doesn't bow deeply in the general direction of this stuff and its most esteemed hierophant, which also is a consideration for why I do not care to comment extensively, and indeed don't like making this very small comment. Oh well. I will go looking for my flame suit again.)
I fully expected to be napalmed for a similar criticism of a passage in Christ in Egypt but it never came. Presumably that was because I buttered them up by preceding my criticism with something positive about Murdock and holding out a constructive comment on her work at the end. No doubt they recognized I am not the hostile bigot they had previously taken me for. :thumbup:
I agree it's a pity she doesn't use or cite primary sources.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Ulan »

neilgodfrey wrote:
Ulan wrote: The problem with this is also that there is absolutely nothing about Apollo that lends itself to Christian ideas.
For what it's worth Apollo's birthday was the 7th day of the "pre-spring month of Bysios" (Kerenyi, "Dionysos", p. 208)
Sure. To put this into perspective would require some investigation about what came first. If I see this correctly, this had to do with the fact that the Delphian oracle was closed during the three winter months and re-opened in March. I would assume practical reasons, as Greek winters can become harsh, and the location is 700 meters up on a mountain.
Post Reply