in defence of astrotheology

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by MrMacSon »

Ulan wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote: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.
It's the discrepancy between the claim that these astrotheological themes in the NT are "obvious" and the provided "evidence", which doesn't amount to anything more than a free association game.
The themes are hard to 'bed down', too.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Stephan Huller »

But again it all comes back to the same basic question. Why is the fucking title of this thread 'a defence of astrotheology'? What exactly is being questioned here? That astrotheology is 'true' or that Christians 'believed in astrotheology'? I think the ambiguity is deliberate. Then the next question - what kind of 'astrotheology' did the Christians 'believe in' if indeed they 'believed in' anything to do with the stars? The particular 'astrotheology' of this little group of modern deviants? Why isn't the thread then laid out honestly for the reader - i.e. a defence of Murdock's astrotheology and its application to earliest Christianity'? This is the real issue being debated here - i.e. should we believe in Murdock? Has she 'figured it all out'? Are the beliefs of this insignificantly small group of internet deviants the same as or identical with the first Christians? This is really what is being smuggled into the discussion. Indeed the following line of logic:

1. the first Christians 'believed in' astrotheology
2. they shared this in common with all pagans
3. as such we can borrow ideas randomly between otherwise unrelated cultures
4. these beliefs 'died out' with the rise of orthodoxy (a community who 'persecuted' and effectively 'wiped out' the true beliefs of the world)
5. these beliefs and understandings were resurrected by Murdock through 'inspiration' or an inspired revelation (so described because there is no real evidence to support assertions 1 - 4 individually or collectively).

This is just a laughable state of affairs. Why not start with what we actually know about the Christian interest in the heavens (i.e. from the actual evidence from the period)? In that case we see very little that resembles what Tulip and Murdock talk about. Instead we see evidence for 'watchers' or gatekeepers on each one of the seven planets and the initiate being told 'the keys' to get past the heaven watchers to 'make his escape' into the eighth heaven (or 'third' depending on how you 'count').

I fail to see why we have to start with Murdock's ideas. I can see in her forum this is how things are carried out. But this is an early Christian forum. Shouldn't we start with what the early Christians said and practiced and believed? Why do we have to 'defend' or 'attack' Murdock's ideas? It's not like she is a recognized authority on any of this stuff (other than with a particularly love sick member of this forum). Baffling.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Stephan Huller »

Indeed sticking with the actual evidence of the early Christians let me put it to Robert Tulip - what evidence can you come up with for 'astrotheological beliefs' that could serve as a better guide for what the Christians believed and practiced in the earliest period that stronger, more convincing, more relevant than the material related to the so-called 'Ophite diagram' in Origen's Against Celsus Book Six? If you can't find anything more relevant or exact why shouldn't we define 'Christian astrotheology' by the 'escape from the watchers' narrative that emerges from those rituals and those of the Marcosians in Irenaeus (which seem to be related in my mind).
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Stephan Huller »

Silence.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Stephan Huller »

Since Robert cannot reasonably explain why Dorothy Murdock's particular brand of 'New Age astrotheology' is a more reasonable candidate for what Christians believed was awaiting them when they ascended to the heavens than what is reported in Origen's Against Celsus, let me move forward and make a general statement for WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT Christians to have believed if - indeed they developed some sort of 'astrotheology.' Any candidate would undoubtedly have reflected a general hostility to the 'world' as such which is clearly seen in the writings of Paul (i.e. against the world rulers etc). Anyone claiming to 'know' what the Christians believed or practiced with respect to 'astrotheology' better be pitching a doctrine of hostility to the world rulers - even physicality itself i.e. matter. We see this in a number of different ways - for instance Eusebius's citation (and the overlaps in Methodius and De Recta in Deum Fide) where matter is seen as the root cause of evil. Of course the position was ultimately rejected by the orthodoxy but something of the general sense of the Pauline negative association with 'the world' and the 'world rulers' 'princes of this age' surely survives here.

If we compare what we know of the so-called Ophite Diagram (and parallel references in Irenaeus about the Marcosians) we find a good fit. What the New Age cult people are pitching doesn't fit the tone of the Pauline letters and in fact agrees with the very people they pretend 'persecuted them' in antiquity viz. Irenaeus and the rest of the heresy hunters.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by neilgodfrey »

Stephan Huller wrote:Since Robert cannot reasonably explain why Dorothy Murdock's particular brand of 'New Age astrotheology' . . .
You would be best advised not to call her Dorothy. I once made that mistake and was blasted for arrogantly attempting to demean her by pretending to know her first name when in fact no-one knows it. The Acharya even drew a comparison of such male and hostile lying arrogance with "internet terrorism".

Please don't call her Dorothy or the Acharya may seek to have you put on the national terrorist list.
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 »

Stephan Huller wrote:Silence.
The series of your three posts, of which this quoted one is the middle-2nd post, were from 12.55am to 5.06am in eastern Australia where, I think, Robert lives.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Stephan Huller »

You would be best advised not to call her Dorothy
Hasn't it occurred to these people that for the sake of clarity one should write in one's own name? Of course as we've noticed, these people cultivate obscurity rather than clarity at almost every turn so I guess it's par for the course.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by neilgodfrey »

It's all part of the persecution complex. DM Murdock sometimes speaks about the way "men" have persecuted her in the past supposedly over "family issues" and this has extended to the "terrorism" she has regularly experienced "on the internet" over "the truths" that her books are "exposing" about Christianity and the morally and intellectually corrupted world today.

The point is that the further one digs into astrotheology from these sources the more certain one is to hit this wall in the discussion. It is a topic that is best examined with the personal supporters for the author left outside the room. They seem to be quite incapable of tolerating critical analysis of their views.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Stephan Huller »

For those who are interested, there is an interesting reference somewhere in the surviving fragments of Porphyry's anti-Christian work where he basically attacks the Christian claim to uphold the monarchia simply because God was 'remote' from everything and had no equal.
But let us make a specific inquiry about the single rule of the only God, and the multifaceted rule of those worshipped as gods.You do not know how to articulate the concept of monarchy. For a monarch is not one who is alone, but is someone who rules alone. Clearly he rules over those who are like him just as emperor Hadrian was a monarch. Not because he existed alone, nor because he ruled over cattle and sheep (over which cow-herders and shepherds rule), but because he ruled over men who had the same nature. Likewise, God correctly would not be called a monarch unless he ruled over other gods for this would befit his divine greatness and his great heavenly dignity.
This is what Robert has to come to recognize - namely that by the third century (but already evident in the late second) a palpable 'effort' to reconfigure Christianity so that it was seen to venerate the 'one ruler' of the universe. All the 'astrotheological elements' he takes interest in can be associated with that effort (Irenaeus, a man who boasts of the number of 'orthodox' Christians in the Imperial court is front and center of this effort and then it is picked up by close associates viz. Callistus, Hippolytus etc) derive from that transformation to become 'a respectable religion.'

Any effort to define how the Christians viewed the heavens has to take into account that the whole religion underwent a 'monarchian makeover' starting at the end of second century.

Indeed if you manage to read the fragments of Porphyry correctly he questions 'which Logos' Jesus is to be identified with:
If the Son of God is the Logos, he is either an outward Logos [prophorikos] or an inward Logos [endiathetos] (https://books.google.com/books?id=f3t_n ... 22&f=false)
The point of all of this is to say that as Christianity integrated itself into the Roman Empire mainstream it necessarily came up against a number of different currents which aren't properly appreciated in your rather two dimensional interpretation. Whatever Christianity was originally (let's suppose for argument sake - something like the 'watcher formulation') it came up against what we might call 'contemporary science' - in this case the Platonic reasoning about the godhead. Perhaps Christianity had a Platonic element to it originally. Yet we see over and over again in the third century a battle within Platonism between Christian and pagan Platonists over whether or not the Christian 'worldview' contradicted the accepted principles governing the universe. Yes the physical observation of the planets, stars and zodiac were one part of contemporary 'science' but so were the intellectual conception at the heart of Platonism.

Origen clearly represents and attempt to demonstrate that Platonism and Christianity 'agreed' - perhaps Clement was an even stronger advocate no less Ammonius Sacca initially. But this notion that we can look at drawings of Jesus as the solar charioteer and we can ignore the influence that third century culture was having on Christianity as it 'integrated' into greater Roman society is downright silly. Christianity was adapting itself to the broader culture and as it did so it was changing what it believed.

I still don't see any evidence of your 'astrotheology' being brought forth. But clearly we can see it abandoning the 'escape from the watchers' narrative that seemed to define it (at least to Celsus) in the mid to late second century.
Post Reply