in defence of astrotheology

[neilgodfrey]

I think we need to clarify what is meant by "astrotheology" compared with "astrology" and "astronomy" and even "cosmology".

[Leucius Charinus]

I think we need to clarify what is meant by "astrotheology" compared with "astrology" and "astronomy" and even "cosmology".

Astronomy - a natural science which is the study of celestial objects

Astrology - several systems of divination based on the premise that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world. Throughout most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition. It was accepted in political and academic contexts. In the modern world it is often viewed as pseudo-scientific. In 321 Constantine issued an edict threatening all Chaldeans, Magi, and their followers with death. Astrology now disappeared for centuries from the Christian parts of Western Europe.

Cosmology - the study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientific laws that govern these realities.[1] Religious cosmology (or mythological cosmology) is a body of beliefs based on the historical, mythological, religious, and esoteric literature and traditions of creation and eschatology.

Astrotheology: "Theology founded on observation or knowledge of the celestial bodies" such as the sun, moon, planets, stars, constellations and milky way etc." Or perhaps more simply, using the above definition of astronomy, "theology founded on astronomy".



LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Those that believe in Astrotheology believe only in what they want to believe, regardless of the historical evidence.

Here is a reconstruction of the historical evidence ...



So what should be believed or what should be disbelieved about this evidence?

Over.




LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Did the authors of the canonical books incorporate astrotheological motifs (besides the 12 apostolic boneheads)?

LC

There is Revelation 12:1

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars

Thanks arnaldo. What about the birth and death of the Jesus figure? Were these momentous events associated with any astronomical events? Was there agreement or contradiction between the apostles on these events?




LC

[neilgodfrey]

Did the authors of the canonical books incorporate astrotheological motifs (besides the 12 apostolic boneheads)?

LC

There is Revelation 12:1

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars

Thanks arnaldo. What about the birth and death of the Jesus figure? Were these momentous events associated with any astronomical events? Was there agreement or contradiction between the apostles on these events?

I'm not arnoldo so I squeak this response from the back row: Bruce Malina believes the woman giving birth is to be related to one of the constellations representing Isis -- i.e. Virgo. I don't think these are "astrotheological" motifs, however. Astrological or astronomical symbols, yes.

[John T]

Those that believe in Astrotheology believe only in what they want to believe, regardless of the historical evidence.

Do you express doubt about the stones bearing the image of the ζoδιακoς κύκλος ?
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/zodiac.htm

Do those stones not represent "historical evidence"?

I fail to see a point but instead only a confirmation of what I already said.

"The term zodiac derives from Latin zōdiacus, which in its turn comes from the Greek ζoδιακoς κύκλος (zōdiakos kuklos), meaning "circle of animals". http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/zodiac.htm


I found nothing in your link that changes anything I wrote. However, I actually found several items that confirm what I already posted. So, what is your point? Is it to agree or perhaps a harmless opening move to switch tracks and replace Astrology with Astrotheology?

Those that believe in Astrotheology see what only they what they want to see, and believe in only what they want to believe.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."...Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)

John T

[Leucius Charinus]

Those that believe in Astrotheology see what only they what they want to see, and believe in only what they want to believe.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."...Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)

John T

I did ask you (above) what Augustus may have thought about astrotheology but you haven't answered the question.



LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Jesus was born at midwinter and died at the Vernal Equinox.

Do these events have any astrotheological significance at all?



LC

[Bertie]

Price, Robert (2013-06-22). The Historical Bejeezus (Kindle Locations 1241-1249). American Atheist Press. Kindle Edition:

Personally, I find it more natural to suppose, with many myth scholars, that raw myths treated stellar entities as direct characters in symbolic myths, but that in subsequent retellings and reinterpretations, the sun , moon , and stars were transformed into anthropomorphic gods and heroes. Hercules must first have been the sun, period. But then people tended to forget that and to imagine that there had been a demigod hero named Hercules. One can still sniff out his solar origins from clear vestiges of it, like the lion’s mane he wore (the sun’s rays), the Twelve labors he performed (the zodiac), and the deadly arrows he shot (sunstroke). But you do have to make the connection, because it is no longer overt. Later, à la Euhemerus, people begin thinking of these figures as real historical individuals whose memorable greatness led to their mythic exaggeration. This seems like a realistic reading of the history of mythology to me. So I doubt that any hierarchy in the Church (or Buddhism, etc.) remained aware of the origin of their faith and its symbols.

That "Mythicism Files" blog that recently emerged had a similar take:

Imagine the problem of the historical Jesus as a whodunnit scenario. Countless detectives (mythicist and historicist and agnostic) are there on the scene sleuthing around, diggin' up all the evidence they can, trying to figure out what's going on. There is a body on the ground. Some people are discussing a possible murder weapon. Some the possible motives. Some people are whispering and pointing fingers. Along comes Acharya S, who walks by and takes a look at the chalk outline on the ground and proclaims, 'Aha! It's elementary, my dear Watson ... what we have here is clearly a vertebrate creature of some kind ... a pretty large one ... possibly a simian or an anthropod,' as if this were at all relevant to the case at hand.

That's pretty much what I think, too. Here's another analogy, one from etymology. Open up a good English dictionary and look at the etymology of various words. Some of them will be quite close to their present-day usage and the etymology of such words may still be useful in getting at the current meaning of the word. But at the other extreme, some words will have completely diverged from their etymology, such that etymology of the word is of no value whatsoever in determining the current meaning of the word.

In so far as they history of religion extends back to primordial astronomical observations (and I'm probably less willing to concede that point than the two authors quoted above) the relevance of astronomy to the beginning of Christianity is like a word whose meaning has long left behind its primordial origin, a word whose etymology says essentially nothing about its latter meaning.

It does make for good "atheist apologetic", though ("your god is just a sun/son god" or whatever), and that combined with the fact that "parallels" are among the easiest mythicist arguments for the untrained to understand insures there will always be an audience for this stuff as long as Christianity has such importance that people are motivated to debunk it.

[Robert Tulip]

That "Mythicism Files" blog that recently emerged had a similar take:

Imagine the problem of the historical Jesus as a whodunnit scenario. Countless detectives (mythicist and historicist and agnostic) are there on the scene sleuthing around, diggin' up all the evidence they can, trying to figure out what's going on. There is a body on the ground. Some people are discussing a possible murder weapon. Some the possible motives. Some people are whispering and pointing fingers. Along comes Acharya S, who walks by and takes a look at the chalk outline on the ground and proclaims, 'Aha! It's elementary, my dear Watson ... what we have here is clearly a vertebrate creature of some kind ... a pretty large one ... possibly a simian or an anthropod,' as if this were at all relevant to the case at hand.

That's pretty much what I think, too.

But Bertie, do you not see the simple point that a range of contributors here are doing the equivalent of saying "No, it is not a human body".

The forensic analogy to the Christ mystery is apt, but when people deny pagan parallels and astral links they are throwing everyone entirely off the scent. In the case of True Believers in a miraculous explanation this conduct is deliberate since they want to avoid rational explanations of Holy Mystery, but for people with rational pretensions the motives are far harder to fathom.

I think a big part of it is the perceived association that pagan and astral analysis has with unacceptable social movements. Freud explained this scientific hostility towards analysis of myth quite well when he said such analysis is perceived by the scientist as like a choking tide of mud and he had an irrational fear of it.

Basic facts, such as the solar attributes of Christ, are essential to understanding the evolution of the myth. But there are people, even on this board which is meant to be devoted to a patient and courteous analysis of evidence, who decry claims of solar mythology in the Gospels as insane.