Meatros

First and foremost, I feel compelled to state that I am a Christian and I believe in the resurrection of Christ. I'm not a fundamentalist and I am not close-minded (or I try not to be) in regards to other peoples views.

In addition, I feel as though my faith is evolving and changing and as such I feel the need to look into my religion, myself, and other religions-including atheism/agnosticism (although it's not a religion, it is a 'choice'-at least as far as I understand it).

I do not think that questioning religious beliefs is a bad thing, after all it is meant to bring one closer to God.

With all that being said, I came across a disturbing website (disturbing in regards to my beliefs-which might need to be changed-or at least looked at closely).

Here is the website.

There is a lot to cover on the website and I haven't finished reading it. The part that disturbs me is the part about the bible being astrological in nature. I haven't come to a full conclusion about it and I have my doubts; it seems to me as though the author attempts too hard at times to 'fit' some of the passages in the bible with astrology.

In any event, I was wondering what you all thought about it and if there are any credible books or websites that elaborate on it (I'm not sure on the credibility of the website I present). I would take it to a Christian forum, but my experience with those places have been tragically bad-no offense to them, but I find that anything that doesn't jive with *their* personal interpretation is of the devil*. I'm seeking the truth, not distorted dogma.





*I find it ironic that I would come to atheists/agnostics to find out about the truth of the bible-because my experiences with fellow Christians is one of closeminded dogma. I'm not saying that all Christians are like this, nor all Christian websites, but the numbers of people with bible-blinders on the *Christian* websites outweigh those without them unfortunately.

Gregg

Just a very general first impression, I think this guy makes some pretty strong claims. I haven't yet read the articles themselves to see how he backs them up.

I don't doubt that there are plenty of astrological motifs in the Bible. What I question is this fellow's claim that the Bible writers "purposely wrote in a codified language to disguise that fact." In other words, that there was a massive conspiracy. I'm always suspicious of conspiracy claims...they're too simplistic. If any deliberate "disguising" of astrological motifs took place, it was most likely done by later editors, not by the original writers. And anyway, the motifs aren't necessarily "disguised"--they may have been perfectly obvious to readers of the time. Keep in mind that astrology then didn't have the negative "New Age" connotations that it holds for Christians today. To the ancient Hebrews (and pretty much everyone else back then) the idea of signs/messages from God(s) written in the stars (as well as the planets and such things as comets and meteors) would have seemed perfectly natural and not at all esoteric or blasphemous. And the idea of things on Earth "echoing" or "copying" things in the heavens would also have made sense. Thus, it is not an especially shocking idea that the significance of the number 12 (as in the 12 tribes or 12 disciples) for the Hebrews may have had its origin in the 12 zodiacal signs.

The problem is people tend to look at things through their modern lenses. Nowadays both rational people and most religionists disavow astrology. Christians especially reject astrology as something of "the devil," so if someone tries to point out astrological motifs in their scriptures, they get into a lather.

As for this fellow, he may be approaching it from a different direction, but he's doing essentially the same thing--trying to make it seem "shocking" or "conspiratorial" that there are "hidden" astrological motifs in the Bible, instead of recognizing that these motifs are natural and to-be-expected artifacts of a time when everything in and under the heavens was seen as a sign or message from God(s).

Gregg

Soul Invictus

I commend you on your ability to at least critique that which you've been exposed to. It takes a lot of courage to do so.

I do not think that questioning religious beliefs is a bad thing, after all it is meant to bring one closer to God.[/QUOTE]

Nor do I, however I can think of many many close and close-minded people that strongly think otherwise.


I'm seeking the truth, not distorted dogma.[/QUOTE]

Welcome to the club!

*I find it ironic that I would come to atheists/agnostics to find out about the truth of the bible-because my experiences with fellow Christians is one of closeminded dogma. I'm not saying that all Christians are like this, nor all Christian websites, but the numbers of people with bible-blinders on the *Christian* websites outweigh those without them unfortunately. [/QUOTE]

IMO truth is one's interpretation, or propaganda so to speak upon interpreting a set of information...facts. Conclusions you come to would be your personal truth. However atheists/agnostics are a great place to learn about the Bible because there is less of the subjective air when discussing historicity of events or factual natures of situations. One thing I always found ironic is that atheists/agnostics in general, know more about the Bible,hermeneutics, exegesis, etc than your average Christian. :banghead:

Roger Pearse

Certainly, provided that includes questioning the presumptions of our age. As stated, the view given is perilously close to the subjectivism currently in view.

I never cease to be amused at those people one sometimes encounters, who pretend their own wishes are rational and the product of independent thought, in almost the exact words of T.H.Huxley and in the slogans of the Victorian era. Had they thought for themselves, they would at least have used their own words!

I've had a look at this. I'm not an expert on the history of astrology -- although I can see the author of this site is not an expert either.

General: The site is, as I'm sure you see, a set of variations on the theme of 'one thing *is* really another thing.'

This, as a methodology, is terrible. I wonder, using the same approach, whether it could be 'proved' that Macdonalds 'is' the Catholic church? I've not worked this through in detail, but think of the 'revealing' parallels -- 'worshippers' approach the 'altar' where a stereotyped offering of flesh, then drink, are dispensed with prescribed holy phrases ('you wanna fries with that'?) Offerings are made at the altar, etc. You get the drift?

Probably other possible 'parallels' will occur to you, which are better than this; but I hope you see how, with sufficient generalisation, anything can be 'proved' to 'really be' anything else. This is precisely the method used by cranks to 'prove' the Egyptians built the pyramids of Mexico -- both pointy things! -- or that Atlantis exists.

The method really amounts to presuming that a certain thing is wrong, and then looking around for some explanation as to how people were so silly. Cannot we construct such meta-narratives about anything one wishes to debunk? If so we must not do this as a test of truth on anything.

Specifics:

1. I don't know a great deal about astrology and the ancient world. But I think I know how I would find out.

If I want to know what the attitude of the New Testament is to astrology, apart from reading it, I would also read the fathers and see whether they took a certain view, or what they said about it. You see that the author of this web site has not troubled to do this. Instead he relies on assertion. But why should his view be correct? (I won't dwell on his obvious religious animosity).

Now I've not done this study, so all I can offer is that Minucius Felix wrote a now lost work against the astrologers on fate, and an impression that Augustine did likewise.

Nevertheless, I will offer one thought. In pre-Christian times, science and religion were intertwined. Astrology, involving pagan superstitions, and astronomy go together. Likewise philosophy includes mathematics, and pagan religiosity, in varying proportions. These things are very separate in our day; but it was not so then.

The early Christians came from a Jewish background, and rejected paganism. Nevertheless, they were still interested in questions of time-keeping, and the like, which required knowledge of mathematics, and of astronomy. As such they had to separate things that had no separate existence; they had to break apart the unity of superstition and science. The arrival of Christianity, therefore, meant that astrology as such had to go -- because of its pagan component. Astronomy, therefore, had to be invented.

They had some difficulties. There has been no lack of people since willing to sneer at Tertullian's rejection of paganism-in-philosophy, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem... away with a bastardised Christianity..." (De praescriptione haereticorum 7), as an attack on science. In fact, of course, so learned a man had the opposite in mind: he intended to dispose of the superstition surrounding it. Similar inability to articulate what they wanted to do affects other writers, and I think we must allow for it. Finally it is very hard to discard all the assumptions of the period of history in which one lives; some fathers definitely get confused and suppose some of the superstition of astrology to be a matter of science.

Nevertheless, I suspect we would find, if we did the necessary work, that something along these lines describes fairly well the attitude of the fathers.

(I'm sure someone will disagree with me -- but until we see an assemblage of all relevant references to 300AD, I rather doubt we can progress).

NB: That the Christians were hostile to paganism should not require discussion.

Specific: the site includes a short page on the Trinity. Now this I do know a little about. The word Trinitas, being Latin, originates as a technical term with the first of the Latin fathers, Tertullian, and he defines the formula to describe what the bible says about God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He does so, in the presence of a strong fear of polytheism. Adversus Praxean is online, in Evans excellent translation, and I recommend a reading. It is *always* best to read what the fathers say for themselves in context.

Now then, what does the web site author say?

Note the absence of references.

The author wrongly supposes the doctrine was defined at Nicaea. As we have seen, he is wrong by at least 120 years. Nicaea was concerned with differences in the Trinitarian formula -- both sides, tho, were Trinitarian.

He also imagines that there was disagreement in the early church over whether Jesus was divine. This is a modern mistake, because that is what people in the late 20th century tended to doubt. But apart from Jewish groups, early Christians and heretics tended to be united on the idea that Jesus *was* God. What the heretics doubted is whether he was really man; or just a seeming in human form (which idea should make clear the cultural distance between the ages). This idea -- docetism -- is endemic in heretical groups in the second and third centuries. But that the Christ was not God...? Well, I do not find this in the documents written at the time, with very few exceptions.

The remainder of the page consists of a series of nonsensical assertions as to how the doctrine of the Trinity arose, which do not relate in any way to the historical record. How do we know that any of his story is true? Does it relate, in any way, to the discussions of the Godhead in the fathers? I find that the fathers do not hold such syncretistic ideas, and are fanatically hostile to them. So why should we believe this guy knows better than they do, when he cannot be bothered even to cite them?

It will not do to 'infer' such things. Can we find any such plain statement supporting him in antiquity?

I'm afraid all the author of this site is doing is telling malicious fairy-stories, bless his hateful little heart, and not very clever ones, bless his pointed little head.

Remember, the point about 'history' is that *it is written down*. The point about 'archaeology' is that you can kick the evidence with your foot. When someone comes up with a story to 'explain' something, always I think we should deploy some scepticism and ask, "if this is true, how do I know?"

Last week I went around the Roman site at Richborough in Kent, where Claudius landed in 43AD. I was delighted to see that almost all the information boards had a section headed "How do we know?" which backed up the statements made by telling the visitor which ancient authors give us information about what aspect of the site (mostly Cassius Dio). That's the attitude!

Might I add a religious postscript? As an adult convert to Christianity, I had to think about all the issues before I started, and I grew up an unbeliever who never knew there were such things as Christians; but also one who spent his boyhood scrambling over ruins and swimming over them in Cyprus. A lot of people don't really believe the past is real, I think!

I get the impression that perhaps you have had a religious upbringing. Well, I'm afraid you will have to work out for yourself whether you will just conform to contemporary values and slogans, like most people do, or whether Christianity is really true. I can't give you that. We all get to work through the intellectual stuff for ourselves, or else just use it as an excuse not to.

For me, I think it's best to do it, tho, without people trying to trip us up, in either direction. I would always want to work out my methodology first on some uncontroversial area of ancient history, without people with political and religious biases yelling in my ears. Think for oneself, in short. In fact, I can tell you that the God of the Christians requires it. But again, you get to work that out for yourself -- I cannot give you that information.

I hope some of that is helpful.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Doctor X

Meatros:

Welcome to the forums! Now you are ONE OF US! ONE OF US! GOOBLE GOBBLE! GOOBLE GOBBLE! [Stop that!--Ed.]

Yes . . . sorry . . . in all seriousness, studying biblical literature can prove a bit like trying to drink the contents of a swimming pool that you do not know is clean or not. There is a lot of literature out there . . . how do you know which is credible or not?

Just as there are "JEZUZ Invented the Catalytic Converter!" books, there are--for want of a better word--"ultraskeptical/atheistic" works that also have an axe to grind. Granted these are rather few and far between.

Add in that this is a vast field which involves ancient languages, ancient societies, archeology, and religion, uncertain texts. . . .

Anyways, I frankly think that if you are interested it is to your benefit to read some basic introductory texts that will not drown you in minutia. The Recommended Reading list is a good start. There I would strongly recommend Who Wrote the Bible?, Richard Elliott Friedman. This is a great start to understand what the evidence is for multiple authorship of the Pentateuch [Five Books of Moses.--Ed.].

For archeology, I cannot too highly recommend Archeology and the Bible, John C. H. Laughlin. Concise and very complete, when someone here states that no evidence exists for an Exodus ever taking place, you can understand why.

For the New Testament, Mack's, Who Wrote the New Testament is a great start.

All of these are basic and do not require a Ph.D. in ancient languages. From there you can sort of build up on things.

So . . . what about astrology? Once you understand the multiple authorship of texts performed over quite a bit of time, the idea of a single unified conspiracy makes little sense. That does not mean astrological concepts do not exist. Numerology certainly exists, if you have ever stumbled over 666--or its variant--616!

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

Doesn't Eusebius have some things to say against astrology in the Praeparatio Evangelica?

best,
Peter Kirby

Soul Invictus

I'm not familiar with astrology, however I'd definitely say that as with all cultures, there's going to be some sort of prevalent theme to a validity or superstitution to numbers. I bought an interesting book entitled, The Mystery of Numbers (Oxford Paperbacks) by Annemarie Schimmel, Franz Carl Mysterium Der Zahl Endres. I bought it, and you might find it as an interesting backdrop to insight regarding the significance of certain numbers in various cultures. Anyone else read this book before?

Amazon link changed --Celsus

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid I haven't read that, so I can't say...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Meatros

Thanks all for the replies! I really appreciate it.

I've been looking over the site for a while now and I've come to a few conclusions about it: Roger Pearse-I agree that the site is quick to generalize and a few of the things you pointed out (such as the Trinity) are erroneous. So I am not convinced of the astrology aspect, however I think that the website has indeed shaken my pillars so to speak.

I suppose I've been on this path of questioning my religion/faith a lot longer then I've realized and this website has made me fully aware of this fact. I'm not the brightest bulb, but as of late, I've been trying to put together a satisfying conclusion on the God question (is there one? Does a religion get it right?). I don't know where exactly I stand right now to tell the truth.

I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying here.

Doctor X
Thank you for the suggestion on which books to read. I will add them to my ever-growing library. Currently though, I'm reading "The Blind-Watchmaker" by Dawkins (Picked it up yesterday), which isn't a book about religion, per say but about Intelligent Design (or rather the lack of it).

I've also heard about wave-point theory and how a God isn't required (or something to that effect). Can anyone elaborate on it?

A little back ground on me: I grew up a Christian (went to several different churches, including a mormon one and a Catholic one). I spent some time as a YEC, but for the past few years I've been a theistic (Christian) evolutionist. It didn't bother me that the bible had a number of contradictions in it, I reasoned that while it was inspired by God-it was written/translated/pasted along by man (who is prone to errors).
The purpose of my questioning is not to 'get rid of God', I want to believe in God, however I also want to be intellectually honest about believing in God.

Doctor X

Soul:

What I need . . . another book. . . .

Anyways, I did, finally, answer your question you asked on homosexuality and Leviticus--according to a recent paper.

That housekeeping taken care of, I would not be surprised if any symbolic system is used that people would recognize.

Meatros:

Contrary to probable popular belief--and some posts--people generally are not interested in "converting" people one way or the other. All anyone can ask is that one try to keep an open mind an remain intellectually honest. Thus, people here do get a little less "measur'd in manner and speech" when some repeat "the Bible is inerrant!" after seventy posts demonstrating it is not!

Dawkins:

I must admit I never read his book because, at risk of appearing immodest [Appearing?--Ed.], I do not need him to prove that "intelligent design" is a regurgitation of creationism. I will confess a bias against him because I find his whole "meme" thing an interesting model that is being elevated into a reality. Of course, he could care less what I think!

I certainly cannot . . . I enjoy physics, but I am a neophyte. I would recommend that you post a question over on science. The problem is that like "Infinity! Infinity plus ONE!" one can always dream up a "god started it!" at the end of the discussion. Granted, this is a glorified "god of the gaps" which may not satisfy you, though it seems to provide an "out" for others--the mere possibility of a god translates into the Sky King who loves us all . . . when he is not smiting us, burning our children, creating Country-Western music [Get on with it!--Ed.]

Right, regarding the rest of your post:

not that you need "another book" but you may like The Flight of Peter Fromme by Martin Gardner. Semi-autobiographical, it tells the story of a teenage evangelical preacher who comes to the University of Chicago Divinity School to root out "Satan." [The UofC has a long tradition of changing people into atheists.--Ed.] He meets a Unitarian minister-professor who is an atheist. Peter can only believe what he thinks is true. Homer--the prof.--is willing to "lie" in order to get people to learn.

Anyways, the reason I recommend it is because Peter follows a similar journey--begins as a fundamentalist YEC who gives a geology prof. a copy of The New Geology [Tries to prove YEC.--Ed.] who gradually moves in his beliefs and politics as he matures and confronts challenges.

Best,

--J.D.