in defence of astrotheology

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Peter Kirby »

Robert Tulip wrote:Peter Kirby really does need to invest in some asbestos underpants
Robert Tulip wrote:This claim of weak sourcing is itself sloppy
While the question of whether I was sloppy or not in attributing sloppiness to a sloppy reference to ancient writers made through mention of an encyclopedia article is surely a riveting and important one (to which the answer might be that you are sloppy in claiming that I'm sloppy in claiming that the third party is sloppy... what fun), I am left wondering if you might return to these questions and help the "defence of astrotheology" along a bit more directly.

Does "Hipparchus’ observation of precession" imply that people were, in a religious sense, "refashioning their beliefs according to their observations of the changing night sky"? If so, how? If not, does anything else imply it?

And there was something said about 1 Corinthians, Romans, Hebrews, and the Gospel of Mark. Very little, actually, but the intention was to write more.
The Crow wrote:Man! This thread still going? When is the trial? I think the inquest has lasted long enough.
Unfortunately, there has been tangent, after tangent, after tangent. Apparently the various claims regarding "astrotheology" are too obvious to bother proving for some, and too unproven to bother with at all for others, leading to a rapid deterioration of the exchange.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote: Just a few questions at this time:
(1) Outside of Christianity, what do we know regarding people in the general period of 200 BC to 300 CE, the period of the origins of Christianity, who are supposed to have been refashioning their beliefs according to their observations of the changing night sky? What is the milieu of this type of organization? Who were they, where were they, and why were they doing what they were doing? What sources do we have?
This context is the rise of Hellenistic science. The refashioning of beliefs in the Common Era involved the development of modus vivendi, ways of living together, where formerly separate mythologies were put together.

The invention of Serapis is a primary example in this period of how beliefs were deliberately refashioned, and we know that Serapis was routinely depicted as surrounded by the twelve signs of the zodiac. I find the stories of the Greek thinkers Euclid and Hipparchus instructive in terms of defining the cultural mileau that placed precession at the secret centre of a logical worldview, with Hipparchus’ observation of precession a key to “refashioning their beliefs according to their observations of the changing night sky.”

Ancient religions which were based on pure traditional fantasy could no longer be literally believed by well informed people, as Socrates found to his cost with his execution for impiety. Rational veneration of the role of Socrates in promoting the shift from mythos to logos as the basis of understanding is behind the rise of western science. In this context, Euclid’s geometry and Hipparchus’ astronomy brought new logical understanding of reality which could not be ignored by serious thinkers.

It makes sense to explore Christianity as a serious scientific cosmology, emerging from the synthesis of Jewish myth and Greek logic upon a broad Eastern cultural framework, with the popular myths of Jesus serving as introduction to deeper teachings. The coherent framework of these deeper teachings, especially within the Gnostic Hermetic milieu of Alexandria that produced the Gospels of Mark and John and the imagery of the Apocalypse, was alas largely lost in the turmoil of the mass appeal of the popular story. We can now work to continue the reconstruction of these deeper teachings, seeing further by standing on the shoulders of neglected giants such as Charles Dupuis and Alvin Boyd Kuhn.
Peter Kirby wrote: (2) The earliest theological accounts of Jesus Christ are considered to be letters such as Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Hebrews. How much of it can be found in them, I wonder?
A lot. I will come back later to discuss Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15 and Hebrews 1 as embedding important elements of solar myth.
Peter Kirby wrote: (3) The earliest narrative account of the life of Jesus Christ is widely regarded as the Gospel of Mark. How much of it can be found in the Gospel of Mark, I wonder?
I presented detailed analysis of the solar tropes in Mark’s two accounts of the loaves and fishes miracle. The link between the empty tomb and the sunrise is a key to how the deep teachings behind the Gospel of Mark are solar in essence, with Jesus Christ as allegory for the sun.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Stephan Huller »

And the irony is that I have complimented Robert Tulip on some of his own research (i.e. when he goes off the script of praising the Enlightened One Acharya S) in the past.

The reality is that this is an interesting subject. Did the Christians take an interest in the heavens? Yes. Did they see some sort of 'drama' unfolding in the highest realms? Yes certainly. If you look at Against Celsus Book 5 (from memory) you will see that they developed a map of the heavens with seven gates and all sorts of circles. The heavens are referenced. It's obviously 'theological.' So in some sense it qualifies as being 'astrotheology.'

But my issue with these dogmatists is that they want to force THEIR ideas into the mouths of ancient Christians by taking bits and pieces of reference and then ram through an agenda that has nothing to do with what early Christian groups actually believed.

If we could change the subject from Robert's stupid community to something of more substance it might be interesting to speak about the so-called 'Ophite Diagram' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophite_Diagrams

I don't think the diagram was specifically 'Ophite.' There are reasons to believe that Origen knows more than he is letting on. There are even more reasons for thinking Clement knew something about them too so I see them as Alexandrian rather than specifically associated with a 'snake cult' of some kind. But if early Christianity had an interest in astrotheology the place to start is where the evidence leads us and that spot - I am afraid - is the so-called Ophite diagram unfortunately for the New Age bullshit artists.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by MrMacSon »

Stephan Huller wrote:The reality is that this is an interesting subject. Did the Christians take an interest in the heavens? Yes. Did they see some sort of 'drama' unfolding in the highest realms? Yes certainly. If you look at Against Celsus Book 5 (from memory) you will see that they developed a map of the heavens with seven gates and all sorts of circles. The heavens are referenced. It's obviously 'theological.' So in some sense it qualifies as being 'astrotheology.'
^ Good points.
Stephan Huller wrote: But my issue with these dogmatists is that they want to force THEIR ideas into the mouths of ancient Christians by taking bits and pieces of reference and then ram through an agenda that has nothing to do with what early Christian groups actually believed.
I don't think it's a case of verballing as much as it's a case of being hard to define 'who believed what; when, and where'.

"who believed what; when, and where" would be good to tabulate, but a huge task.
"Scientists have discovered that an ancient Roman fort/castle built by Emperor Hadrian in the second century AD/CE near Hardknott Pass in Cumbria, England, is aligned astronomically to the winter and summer solstices. Physicist Amelia Carolina Sparavigna of the Polytechnic University of Turin “used online software and satellite imagery to calculate the angles at which the solstice sun rises and sets at the fort.” In her analysis, Sparavigna determined that 'during the summer solstice, the sun would rise in rough alignment with the fort’s northeastern and southwestern gates, and set in alignment with its northwestern and southeastern gates.'

"Furthermore, the southeastern and northwestern gates were built to align with the sunrise at the winter solstice, while its southwestern and northeastern portals mark the sunset during that time. Also, 'the four towers of the garrison seem aligned to cardinal directions'.”

http://astrotheology.net/roman-castle-i ... inter-sun/
As we know well, numerous other sites globally are aligned to astronomical milestones such as those of the sun, moon, Venus and others. These sites include “several Roman towns in Italy that have alignments with the solstice sun,” as well as the North African town of Timgad, which is “aligned with the direction of the sunrise on the birthday of the Roman Emperor Trajan, who reigned from A.D. 98 to 117.”

http://astrotheology.net/roman-castle-i ... inter-sun/
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by GakuseiDon »

MrMacSon wrote:
"Scientists have discovered that an ancient Roman fort/castle built by Emperor Hadrian in the second century AD/CE near Hardknott Pass in Cumbria, England, is aligned astronomically to the winter and summer solstices. Physicist Amelia Carolina Sparavigna of the Polytechnic University of Turin “used online software and satellite imagery to calculate the angles at which the solstice sun rises and sets at the fort.” In her analysis, Sparavigna determined that 'during the summer solstice, the sun would rise in rough alignment with the fort’s northeastern and southwestern gates, and set in alignment with its northwestern and southeastern gates.'

"Furthermore, the southeastern and northwestern gates were built to align with the sunrise at the winter solstice, while its southwestern and northeastern portals mark the sunset during that time. Also, 'the four towers of the garrison seem aligned to cardinal directions'.”

http://astrotheology.net/roman-castle-i ... inter-sun/
Okay, that's the 'astro' part down. What about the 'theology' part? That's what's missing from this example. It does seem that the 'theology' part is modern interpretations by Robert Tulip and other astrotheologists that don't appear to be evidenced in ancient sources. Perhaps later Christians destroyed that evidence, which might well be possible. (For example, Acharya S suggests that the 'British took over pertinent places' in India, 'possibly with the intent of destroying' evidence about crucified gods.) If the modern interpretations could be stated as speculation, then that may help lower the animosity towards the idea. Problem is that 'astrotheology' is often presented by proponents as so obvious that anyone who disagrees must be motivated by misogyny and bias.

So what does the fact that Roman castles are aligned to the winter and summer solstices contribute to astrotheology? That's the fluffy bun part. But...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by MrMacSon »

GakuseiDon wrote: Okay, that's the 'astro' part down. What about the 'theology' part? That's what's missing from this example. It does seem that the 'theology' part is modern interpretations (by Robert Tulip and other astrotheologists) that don't appear to be evidenced in ancient sources. Perhaps later Christians destroyed that evidence, which might well be possible. (For example, Acharya S suggests that the 'British took over pertinent places' in India, 'possibly with the intent of destroying' evidence about crucified gods.)
There's some food for thought there. It seems likely that the theology in/of astro-theology has been superceded by other theology; maybe more so than theology of astro-theology being suppressed. Perhaps the 'theology' of astro-theology was relatively weak theology: the objects of worship (eg. the sun) would have been real and less in need of being speculated about, or less in need of description or attribution of powers, compared to nebulous gods.
Problem is that 'astrotheology' is often presented by proponents as so obvious that anyone who disagrees must be motivated by misogyny and bias.
I can understand a charge of bias, but misogyny? b/c Acharya S is or has been a predominant proponent of astrotheology?
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Stephan Huller »

My issue is the 'she has all the answers' bullshit. I have moderately active intellect and I don't think anyone has 'all the answers.' I thought the purpose of the discussion here was to arrive at the right answer by listening, arguing etc. Whenever the dumbos come onto the forum they want everyone to listen to what they have to say. 'I/she has all the answers.' I think it is an interesting question - WHAT WAS the Christian interest in the heavens all about? (QUESTION MARK). But these guys come on like gangbusters with their 'BELIEVE IN WHAT WE BELIEVE OR ELSE YOU ARE THE ENEMY' bullshit. I don't mind being enemies with people. I'd rather make friends. But the bottom line has to be, why would I want to join any group let alone a group of losers? I mean that sincerely. When you go a mosque, synagogue or church you see prominent members of society live and in the flesh. You can meet athletes, bankers, doctors, lawyers, politicians. If I don't want to join the better people why would I tag along with a bunch of dopes who hound discussion forums trying to lure random idiots to join their newly fashioned cult? Doesn't make sense.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by MrMacSon »

I get the impression 'astrotheology' was more a feature of fore-runners to Christianity.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote:I get the impression 'astrotheology' was more a feature of fore-runners to Christianity.
Speaking of "forerunners to Christianity" (evoking the title of a two-volume work by F. Legge), the list of relevant public domain books is growing quite large:

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=7&t=1338

I of course welcome further additions to the list, but even just taking the cream of this crop would occupy anyone for quite a while!
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote:I get the impression 'astrotheology' was more a feature of fore-runners to Christianity.
and that may even include Tertullian's commentary: I contend Christianity was not established when Tertuallian was writing and commenting: his writings seemed to help shape Christianity.
  • Tertullian had to assert that Sol was not the Christians' God (Apol., 16; cf. Ad. Nat., I, 13; Orig. c. Cels., VIII, 67, etc);
    Augustine also had to denounce the heretical identification of Christ with Sol (Tract xxxiv, in Joan. In P.L., XXXV, 1652).
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Stephan Huller »

Why do you continue to cite this pointless summary of 'what a Church Father says.' The information is readily available on line. Make reference to the original sources!!!!!@!
Post Reply