Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I don't know, it just seems to me like it would be wise for the critics to actually study the subject of astrotheology before jumping to any preconceived assumptions. One of the best ways to do that appears to be to actually read Murdock's books since she compiles loads of history on it and provides primary sources and scholar commentary on them.

"This book is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation entitled “Solar Worship in the Biblical World” which was submitted to the Graduate School of Yale University in the Spring of 1989. As may be judged from the title of that work, I had at one time planned to cover more territory than sun worship in ancient Israel, but found the material pertaining to ancient Israel so vast that I never got beyond it."

- Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor, "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" (1993)

"At Stonehenge in England and Carnac in France, in Egypt and Yucatan, across the whole face of the earth are found mysterious ruins of ancient monuments, monuments with astronomical significance. These relics of other times are as accessible as the American Midwest and as remote as the jungles of Guatemala. Some of them were built according to celestial alignments; others were actually precision astronomical observatories ... Careful observation of the celestial rhythms was compellingly important to early peoples, and their expertise, in some respects, was not equaled in Europe until three thousand years later."

- Dr. Edwin Krupp, Astronomer and Director of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles

Star Worship of the Ancient Israelites

2,750-year-old solar-aligned temple discovered in Israel

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"

- Dr. Robert Price, book review of Christ in Egypt

I have been studying precessional cosmology for a long time. About ten years ago, I wrote this essay on The Twelve Jewels, which is a key precessional motif. Since then my understanding has developed further, for example in recognition that Jesus Christ Himself is a fictional character rather than an historical person. Here is a more recent blog post on Christ as Avatar of the Age of Pisces.

My study of specific precessional images that define the real meaning of the Christ Myth has continued.

These include
• Loaves and fishes as Virgo and Pisces axis of Christian precessional age, as symbols of creative abundance resulting from cosmic attunement
• Virgin Standing on Moon as description of 4 BC lunar eclipse
• Tree of life as zodiac
• River of life as galaxy
• Holy City as observable sky
• Alpha and Omega as beginning and end of Great Year
• Seven Days of Creation as 3.5 zodiac ages over 7000 years (with Psalm/Peter line that 1000 years are as a day for God).
• Day of Rest as Millennium of peace in first half of the Age of Aquarius
• End of the Age when gospel has been preached to oikoumene as transition from Age of Pisces to Age of Aquarius
• Dragon tail sweeping 1/3 of stars as historic observed movement of north celestial pole
• Dragon giving ‘seat, power and authority’ to Leopard-Bear-Lion as shift of the north celestial pole from Dragon to Bear/Lion
• Man with water jug as Dawn of the Age of Aquarius
• Fish imagery as Age of Pisces
• Moses/Joshua imagery of symbolic transition from Age of Taurus (Adam/Noah/Golden Calf) to Age of Aries (Ram symbols)
• Transition from covenant of law to covenant of grace as precession of September equinox from Libra (law) to Virgo (grace) at time of Christ.
• Chi Rho Cross as shift of sun path/equator X across first fish of Pisces in 21 AD

That is all such a wrenching departure from conventional thinking, and has such an odour of imaginative fiction, that it does not surprise me that there has been little traction with what really is a new paradigm in Biblical studies. Nonetheless I consider all the coded references listed here to be simple and clear and factual, and am happy to defend them in detail. The first challenge for the reader is to understand that it was historically possible for the authors to hide all this material in the Bible. The key question is how the methods and motives that gave rise to the abundant presence of this concealed accurate cosmology in the Bible are explicable against the real events of religious evolution at the time of composition of the New Testament and before.

But you aren't citing Christian exegesis to support your assertions. You're just asserting that the texts SHOULD be read that way.

But isn't that pretty much what everyone in the field is doing?



LC

The big mystery here is how it could be possible that this precessional material is abundant, coherent and hidden. My view on how that came to be is that this ‘as above so below’ source code was only understood by a small number of people. Its flagrant conflict with the literal story of the Historical Jesus meant the orthodox could not understand it, and condemned it as heresy, within the Docetic framework.

Mystery societies, including early Christianity, were highly secretive. As a result, when the church set about extirpating all heresy, material relating to this observational basis was a primary target, and its contents were only referenced obliquely by heresiologists. So Irenaeus mentions the idea that there were twelve ages in mocking the Gnostic concept of the duodecad of the Aeons, and Hippolytus condemns the interest of the Gnostic Peratae in the dragon symbolism of the North Celestial Pole. My essay on the Peratae discusses this problem.

Let's count the number of unsubstantiated assertions in one - relatively short - post from Robert. I have highlighted 'it' which Robert takes for granted is his solar myth but no one on God's green earth before him has done so (otherwise one would expect him to have cited those people):

The big mystery here is how it could be possible that:

[Assertion #1] this precessional material is abundant, coherent and hidden. [where is the evidence for it - ? - being 'abundant' 'coherent' and 'hidden']

[Assertion #2] My view on how that came to be is that this ‘as above so below’ source code was only understood by a small number of people. [again what is 'it' - you haven't even defined the 'it' that is at the heart of all the subsequent assertions. A 'source code' where is the evidence that it represents a 'source code' of all things?]

[Assertion #3] Its flagrant conflict with the literal story of the Historical Jesus [where is the evidence that the allegorical was in conflict with the historical or literal]

[Assertion #4] meant the orthodox could not understand it, [where is the evidence that the orthodox didn't understand 'it' - again undefined]

[Assertion #5] and condemned it as heresy, [again you have defined 'it' in any way so how can you assert that the heretics were punished by the orthodox for 'it']

[Assertion #6] within the Docetic framework. [now out of the blue the term 'docetic' is introduced with no explanation or preparation but it is still asserted that the framework 'is' or is defined by the undefined or unqualified terminology]

Mystery societies, including early Christianity, were highly secretive. As a result, when the church set about extirpating all heresy,

[Assertion #7] material relating to this observational basis was a primary target, [where the fuck is this evidence please? another magical rabbit pulled out of your magical hat of assertions]

[Assertion #8] and its contents were only referenced obliquely by heresiologists. So Irenaeus mentions the idea that there were twelve ages in mocking the Gnostic concept of the duodecad of the Aeons, and Hippolytus condemns the interest of the Gnostic Peratae in the dragon symbolism of the North Celestial Pole. My essay on the Peratae discusses this problem [but the Valentinian mysteries related by Irenaeus are not explicitly related to astrotheology. Another baseless assertion, another magical rabbit pulled from your magical hat]

Your tactic is just to keep moving toward the end goal - i.e. arguing that your quasi-religious beliefs are found in the writings of the early Christians - without actually providing any fucking evidence that supports that assertion. Please spend some bloody time on the whole point of the exercise. No one is interested in what YOU BELIEVE TO BE TRUE (except in that little cult of yours). Provide us with fucking evidence for WHY or WHAT SHOULD MAKE US THINK that your assertions are grounded in actual evidence.

Why doesn't Robert provide some specific EVIDENCE that the gnostics like the Valentinians persecuted by Irenaeus were promulgating a solar myth or astrotheology? This is how we operate here at the forum. EVIDENCE not assertion.

Leucius Charinus wrote:In my post above I have asked for textual evidence from the NT which might support Robert's (and other peoples) ideas, and AFAIK there are some textual references. Let them be listed! Let them be evaluated! Let the sources be discussed!

This is, in principle, the right approach, and it's not limited to NT texts, but should come from texts that are close (in space, time, or philosophy). Ideally, the person presenting the idea also already presents a hint of why he thinks this reference shows what he claims it shows. FInding a mention of the "sun" or "age" is useless if this is not accompanied by evidence that shows that this is more than a figure of speech and means something very specifically different in this specific context. At least more than an "it is obvious". No, there isn't anything obvious about this connection of the NT text with astrotheology.

And let's put it another way here for the rest. There is a threshold to proving or at least supporting Robert Tulip's assertions:

1. can Christianity be demonstrated to be centrally focused on 'astro-theology' (i.e. that 'something specific' in the heavens at the heart of their mysteries)?
2. if so what was the specific 'secret doctrine' at the heart of their mysteries? And how can that be demonstrated?

one might also add the further clarification:

3. was this mystery 'original' to the religion or was it added later - i.e. was the gospel written in the first century under one set of assumptions and the 'mysteries' added in the second century or later by another community entirely?

I am not sure how far Robert Tulip can go with his arguments. I suspect not far. But it is simply laughable the manner in which he plows through to assume that Christianity was a mystery religion focused on the specific 'secret doctrine' Robert Tulip propose without doing any of the required leg work to prove or even argue on behalf of that assertion.