in defence of astrotheology

[Stephan Huller]

I don't think that Robert or his friends have ever read the original sources regarding the various pagan divinities. It is this fantastic ignorance of what the actual sources say - choosing instead to build their belief structures on 'summaries' or 'modern descriptions' of the ancient cults that is so laughable. To be sure, by the time of Macrobius virtually every religion was being reinterpreted in terms of solar imagery. But one would be hard pressed to find any of this which pre-dates the fourth century - perhaps the third. Dionysus was not originally a fucking solar divinity. Nor Adonis, nor Osiris and the rest.

[MrMacSon]

Are any of these dying and resurrecting gods solar gods in the Greek and Roman mythologies? I don't think so.

The myths that I recall have the sun god riding his chariot through Ocean on the underside of the world and returning again, or similar -- not dying and returning from death to life.

The Dying and Rising God. Because crops die in winter and return in spring, Dionysus was seen as a symbol of death and resurrection. In another story about his birth, Dionysus was the son of Zeus and Demeter, the goddess of crops and vegetation. Hera was jealous of the child and convinced the Titans to destroy him. Although Dionysus was disguised as a baby goat, the Titans found him, caught him, and tore him to pieces. They ate all of his body except his heart, which was rescued by Athena *. She gave the heart to Zeus, who gave it to Semele to eat. Semele later gave birth to Dionysus again. The story represents the earth (Demeter) and sky (Zeus) giving birth to the crops (Dionysus), which die each winter and are reborn again in the spring.

Read more: http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Cr-Dr/D ... z3UP397fvk

"The cult of Dionysus is epigraphically attested to beginning in 187 BC*; included in the epigraphic evidence is the famous 'testament of the Thessalonicean priestess'. As one looks at the Dionysiac mysteries in general, there are several components in which are of particular interest ... The hope of a joyous afterlife is central ..."

Paul, Thessalonica and Early Christianity By Karl P. Donfried, 2003

• * Edson, Cults of Thessalonica ( Edson, 'Cults of Thessalonica', H TR 41/3 (1948): 188-204 ??)

[Stephan Huller]

But don't you understand that it wasn't a solar cult originally? Just like Christianity wasn't a solar cult originally. What you guys really like is the Imperial cult. That's where all your 'astro-theology' comes from and the same patterns emerge in late Roman religion generally because the Imperial government imposed them on the other religions. Why not read a book on the subject by someone who doesn't 'support' whatever beliefs you already have? Read a book by a good scholar. It is amazing how it all starts to make sense when you aren't forcing yourself on the subject matter. Love doesn't come to rapists.

[Robert Tulip]

Dionysus was not originally a fucking solar divinity. Nor Adonis, nor Osiris and the rest.

I find your use of profanity to be highly offensive Mr Huller, leaving aside any imaginative thoughts regarding what Zeus might think and do to you.

You have a right to your opinions, stupid, insulting and false as they are.

But inflicting your degraded mentality in a board of this nature through constant use of profanity is not something that the moderator should allow, in my opinion. Your swearing is a clear example of bullying, and is unethical and intimidating, implying that you have superior knowledge when actually you are a fool.

[Leucius Charinus]

Do any of the Roman and Greek myths speak of a sun god -- Helios, Hyperion, Sol, Apollo -- dying and rising?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and- ... he_concept

Pagan Parallel "Saviors" Examined

Adonis | Attis | Baal | Bacchus | Balder | Beddru | Devatat | Dionysos | Hermes | Horus | Krishna | Mithras | Orpheus | Osiris | Tammuz | Thor | Zoroaster

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Jesu ... .htm#Pagan

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexami ... ng-savior/

Can you just tell me which Greek and Roman sun god myths featured a dying and rising sun-god? I'm not doubting they exist, by the way. Just that the myths I know of don't bring the dying/rising theme to mind at the moment.

The Geocentric Sun Myth was deeply embedded in the psyche of the ancients. To avoid presentism we need to throw the Copernican_Revolution away and go back to the way the ancients viewed their Sun. Their view of the "Earth System" was centred on the Earth (not the "Solar system"). This may have been treated as a "Great Mystery".


Julian is late. We all know that. But as I see it mistakes can easily be made when stepping back into antiquity because we often carry our 21st century education (about modern myths like the Big Bang and the Higgs Boson etc) with us. We must discard our own hypotheses no matter how learned they may be to understand the ancients. I look therefore upon Julian as a stepping stone back to the earlier centuries. Julian summarises how people thought back then ....


Julian the Apostate, " Julian the Emperor" (1888). Oration upon the Sovereign Sun. Addressed to Sallust
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... _1_sun.htm

• My own belief is, if philosophers be entitled to any credit, that the Sun is the common parent of all men, to use a comprehensive term.
  
  
  ////
  
  
  That divine and all-beauteous World, which from the highest vault of Heaven down to the lowest Earth is held together by the immutable providence of God, and which has existed from all eternity, without creation, and shall be eternal for all time to come, and which is not regulated by anything, except approximately by the Fifth Body 3 (of which the principle is the solar light) placed, as it were, on the second step below the world of intelligence; and finally by the means of the "Sovereign of all things, around whom all things stand."4 This Being, whether |222 properly to be called "That which is above comprehension," or the "Type of things existing," or "The One," (inasmuch as Unity appears to be the most ancient of all things), or "The Good," as Plato regularly designates Him, This, then, is the Single Principle of all things, and which serves to the universe as a model of indescribable beauty, perfection, unity, and power. And after the pattern of the primary substance that dwells within the Principle, He hath sent forth out of Himself, and like in all things unto Himself, the Sun, a mighty god, made up of equal parts of intelligible and creative causes. And this is the sense of the divine Plato, where he writes, "You may say (replied I) that I mean the offspring of the Good, whom the Good has produced, similar to itself; in order that, what the Good is in the region of intelligence, and as regards things only appreciable by the mind, its offspring should be the same in the region that is visible, and in the things that are appreciable by the sight." For this reason I believe that the light of the Sun bears the same relation to things visible as Truth does to things intelligible. But this Whole,5 inasmuch as it emanates from the Model and "Idea" of the primal and supreme Good, and exists from all eternity around his immutable being, has received sovereignty also over the gods appreciable by the intellect alone, and communicates to them the same good things, (because they belong to the world of intelligence), as are poured down from the Supreme Good upon the other objects of Intelligence. For to these latter, the Supreme Good is the source, as I believe, of beauty, perfection, existence, and union; holding them together and illuminating them by its own virtue which is the "Idea" of the Good. The same things, therefore, does the Sun communicate to things intelligible, over whom he was appointed by the Good to reign and to command: although these were |223 created and began to exist at the same moment with himself. And this, I think, was done, in order that a certain principle which possessed the "Idea" or pattern of the Good, and exercised the principle of Good towards the intelligible gods, should direct all things according to intelligence. And in the third place, this visible disk of the Sun is, in an equal degree, the source of life and preservation to things visible, the objects of sense; and everything which we have said flows down from the Great Deity upon the intelligible gods, the same doth this other visible deity communicate to the objects of sense. Of all this there are clear proofs, if you choose to investigate things non-apparent by the means of things that are visible. For example, first take his light----is it not an incorporeal and divine image of what is transparent in its action? and the very quality that we term " transparence," what else is it, to speak generally, but the property that goes with all the elements, and is their approximate form? and which is neither corporeal, nor composite, and does not destroy the natural properties of the body with which it goes. For this reason it is wrong to call heat a property of it,6 or cold its opposite; or to hardness, softness, or any other distinction perceptible by the touch, nor, again, must we attribute to it either scent or taste. For the quality in question is the object of the sight alone, which is brought into play by the instrumentality of light. But light is a form of this, as it were of a material substance, diffused through bodies. But of that light which is incorporeal, the most perfect part and as it were the flower,7 are the solar rays. The Phoenicians who from their sagacity and learning possess great insight into things divine, hold the doctrine that this universally diffused radiance is a part of the "Soul of the Stars." This opinion is consistent with sound reason: if we consider the light that is without body, we shall |224 perceive that of such light the source cannot be a body, but rather the simple action of a mind, which spreads itself by means of illumination as far as its proper seat; to which the middle region of the heavens is contiguous, from which place it shines forth with all its vigour and fills the heavenly orbs, illuminating at the same time the whole universe with its divine and pure radiance. The effects that redound from this Power upon the gods themselves, have been already slightly touched upon, and I will shortly return to the subject. When we see things, this action has the name of "Sight," but the effect is of no value unless it obtains the influence and assistance of the light. For can anything be the object of sight, unless it be first brought under it, like the raw material to the workman, that it may receive its form? In the same manner, the things that are by their nature objects of the sight, unless they be brought together with light before the instruments of seeing, cease altogether to be objects of sight. Since, therefore, both to the seers, in order that they may see, and to the objects seen, in order that they may be visible, this god gives the powers, it follows that he constitutes by his own action both sight and the objects of sight. "Perfections" consist of Form and Essence; this definition, however, may be too abstruse. But a fact patent to all, learned equally with unlearned, philosophers and uneducated, is the influence which this deity possesses in the world at his rising and at his setting; how he produces day and night, and how he manifestly transforms and regulates the state of this creation----an influence assignable to no one of the other planets. From these considerations ought we not to draw conclusions respecting matters more beyond the reach of man: that is to say, respecting the existence of those beings that are divine, and objects of the intellect alone, who exist invisible above the heavens, and derive their fulness from that "Type" of Good, Him whom all the host of the stars follow, and whose nod that whole family (of deities), whom he governs by his providence, |225 fail not to obey. For the planets round about him (the Sun), as though he were their king, lead on their dance, at appointed distances from him pursue their orbits with the utmost harmony; they make, as it were, pauses; they move backwards and forwards (terms by which those skilled in astronomy denote these properties of the stars); and then, in proportion to her distance from the Sun, how doth the Moon increase or wane!----things patent to all. And such being the case, is it not reasonable to suppose that a more ancient system, corresponding to this visible arrangement of Nature, exists in the case of the deities who are only conceivable by the mind? From all this, therefore, we must gather the powerful and perfecting truth, that the object which enables things to see that are endowed with the sense of sight, the same object renders these things perfect by means of his own light, whilst the creative and productive power arises from his changes as he moves around the universe: and that capacity for embracing all things at once is the effect of what is so apparent in his movements; namely, the harmony of all in one and the same thing. The Centre-point comes from himself 8 as being central; whilst the circumstance of his being placed for king amongst the objects of intellect is the result of his station amongst the planets. If we perceived these, or other similar properties, to exist in any other of the visible deities, certainly we should award him the first place amongst them. If, however, he should have nothing in common with them, except this power of doing good, which he communicates unto all, then we ought to acquiesce in the reasoning of the Egyptian priests, who raise altars to the Sun conjointly with Jupiter; nay, rather we should assent to Apollo himself (long before them), who sits on the same throne with Jove, and whose words are,
  
  "One Jove, one Pluto, one Sun is Serapis."
  
  From which we must conclude that the sovereignty of the |226 Sun and of Jupiter amongst the deities that are objects of intellect is held in common, or rather is one and the same. For this reason Plato seems to me to be right in calling Pluto a provident (fro&nimoj) deity. The same god we also name "Serapis," that is, 9Ai+dhj, "Invisible," clearly because he is the object of the intellect alone: up to whom (it is said) that the souls ascend of such as have led the best, and most righteous lives.
  
  
  ////
  
  
  
  The solar disk moves over the space which has no stars, and is much more elevated than the fixed region; in this way he will not occupy the centre of the planets, but rather of the "Three Motions," as they are called in the hypotheses taught in the Mysteries, if, indeed, such things are rightly to be termed "hypotheses," or rather ought they not to be called "articles of faith" (do&gmata), but what relates to the spheres, "hypotheses"? For those so assert who have heard the same from the gods, or else from, some mighty daemons; whereas the others [natural philosophers] make up a theory that is plausible from its agreement with visible phenomena. The latter, indeed, it is but fair to praise; but whoso thinks it better to believe in the former [the teaching of the Mysteries] him do I both in jest and in earnest admire, and always have admired. Such therefore are their statements upon these points.

LC

[GakuseiDon]

Is there a methodology to astrotheology? Is there a methodology to theology?

Nope. And Nope.

add: in thinking further, surely only access to, and evaluation of, historical information about the development of these belief systems would tell us?

That's why there is no need for astrotheology -- it doesn't fill a gap that needs explaining.

I'd still like either Robert Tulip or Mimi to explain how to determine whether all of the following are valid examples of astrotheology or whether any are 'false positives':

This is the editted list of astrotheological elements for the "Sun of God" from Acharya S's "The Christ Conspiracy", pages 155/156:

• The following are the main characteristics of the “sun of God”:
  
  • The sun “dies” for three days at the winter solstice, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th .
  • The sun of God is “born of a virgin,” which refers to both the new or “virgin” moon and the constellation of Virgo.
  • The sun at its zenith, or 12 noon, is in the house or heavenly temple of the “Most High”; thus, “he” begins “his Father’s work” at “age” 12. Maxwell relates, “At that point, all Egypt offered prayers to the ‘Most High’ God!”
  • The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the “Sun of God” begins his ministry at “age” 30...
  • The sun is the “Carpenter” who builds his daily “houses” or 12 two-hour divisions.
  • The sun’s “followers” or “disciples” are the 12 signs of the zodiac, through which the sun must pass.
  • The sun is “anointed” when its rays dip into the sea.
  • The sun “changes water into wine” by creating rain, ripening the grape on the vine and fermenting the grape juice.
  • The sun “walks on water,” referring to its reflection.
  • The sun “calms the sea” as he rests in the “boat of heaven.” (Mt. 8:23-7)
  • When the sun is annually and monthly re-born, he brings life to the “solar mummy,” his previous self, raising it from the dead.
  • The sun triumphantly “rides an ass and her foal” into the “City of Peace” when it enters the sign of Cancer, which contains two stars called “little asses,” and reaches its fullness.
  • The sun is “betrayed” by the constellation of the Scorpion, the backbiter, the time of the year when the solar hero loses his strength.
  • The sun is “crucified” between the two thieves of Sagittarius and Capricorn.
  • The sun is hung on a cross, which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter.
  • The sun does a “stutter-step” at the winter solstice, unsure whether to return to life or “resurrect,” doubted by his “twin” Thomas.
  • The sun is with us “always, to the close of the age” (Mt. 28:20), referring to the ages of the precession of the equinoxes.
  • The sun is the “Light of the World,” and “comes on clouds, and every eye shall see him.”
  • The sun wears a corona, “crown of thorns” or halo.
  • The sun is the Word or Logos of God.

Is there a methodology for determining which elements come from astrotheology and which don't?

[Leucius Charinus]

But don't you understand that it wasn't a solar cult originally? Just like Christianity wasn't a solar cult originally. What you guys really like is the Imperial cult. That's where all your 'astro-theology' comes from and the same patterns emerge in late Roman religion generally because the Imperial government imposed them on the other religions.

They wanted a centralised monotheistic state like their greatest enemies - the Sassanid Persians.

Why not read a book on the subject by someone who doesn't 'support' whatever beliefs you already have? Read a book by a good scholar. It is amazing how it all starts to make sense when you aren't forcing yourself on the subject matter. Love doesn't come to rapists.

And the resurrection of the sun does not arise in Heliocentric cosmology. But is does naturally arise in geocentric cosmology. Which is why whoever it was that authored and/or edited the Jesus Story in antiquity (before Copernicus) made sure that Jesus (just like the Sun itself) was resurrected from the tomb of the underworld.

IMO


LC

[MrMacSon]

Is there a methodology to astrotheology? Is there a methodology to theology?

Nope. And Nope.

Exactly. My questions were rhetorical

add: in thinking further; surely only access to, and evaluation of, historical information about the development of these belief systems would tell us?

That's why there is no need for astrotheology -- it doesn't fill a gap that needs explaining.

I disagee here: I think astrotheology has been a phenomenon, and that is worthy of discussion

[MrMacSon]

But don't you understand that it wasn't a solar cult originally?

Probably not, at least to most of its adherents (ie. I agree with you).

Just like Christianity wasn't a solar cult originally.

True.

What you guys really like is the Imperial cult.

Nah.

That's where all your 'astro-theology' comes from, and the same patterns emerge in late Roman religion generally because the Imperial government imposed them on the other religions.

In the case of Isiacism, the govt eventually suppressed it, but only after it had been established in Rome, and other parts of the Roman Empire outside Egypt, for a few centuries.

Why not read a book on the subject by someone who doesn't 'support' whatever beliefs you already have?

Yes, we should all read widely about ancient history. I'm not so keen to read about beliefs per se.

[Leucius Charinus]

Is there a methodology to astrotheology? Is there a methodology to theology?

Nope. And Nope.

add: in thinking further, surely only access to, and evaluation of, historical information about the development of these belief systems would tell us?

:thumbup: That's why there is no need for astrotheology -- it doesn't fill a gap that needs explaining.

The gap has been cement-rendered over by heliocentric cosmology and bolted closed. We are obliged as ancient historians to unbolt it and remove the cement-render of this paradigm! Jesus and the Apostles and Paul subscribed to a geocentric cosmology in which there was a big gap. Where did the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars go after evening in the West? Why were they resurrected each morning in the East? That is the gap which is now closed, but was very evidently "yawning" (thanks for the "sleep references") wide open in antiquity.

G'Don, take away your "knowledge" of the heliocentric model and try and formulate a set of beliefs from the geocentric model and tell me what you come up with apart from "astrotheological" beliefs.

Thanks. I'm serious :)




LC