MarmINFP

I see what you mean.

Any interpretation of ancient mythology has similar problems. We can never know what the original meaning of a myth was. Even if a commentator of the time explained a myth, we as modern readers can't know if his interpretation was commonly accepted or if it was original to the myth itself. Religions have always tended to keep certain key aspects of knowledge hidden. Also, people didn't write everything out. Or if they did, most of it was lost or destroyed.

Nonetheless, if the pattern of a myth fits the pattern of an astronomical observation, then that is about as strong of evidence as scholars normally ever get. This combined with other examples of ancient people clearly associating their myths to astrology, and you have a decent basis for arguing astrotheology. Of course, you can never be absolutely sure and continual questioning is always valid.

I will say that If you're interested in clear certainties, then you're studying the wrong subject. Its easy to be a nitpicker about the scholarship of ancient texts because its such a difficult field to prove anything even tentatively.

I find comparative mythology interesting, but I realize its extremely speculative. Even the work of more popular scholars such as Campbell could be nitpicked in a similar manner. Even though Campbell's Hero's Journey can't be absolutely proved, there is some insight to it. One could find many myths that would be the exception to the rule, but there are enough that fit it generally to make it a useful theory... or so it seems to me.

Likewise with Acharya. I don't know to what degree her theory is true, but I do suspect that there is at least a core of truth to the astrotheological perspective that applies to much of ancient mythology. Even if only partially true, its still a worthwhile theory. I don't follow the belief that a theory has to either be accepted or denied wholesale. Acharya presents lots of evidence just for this reason. Even if some of her evidence turns out to be invalid, most of her evidence may remain valid or her theory might remain valid for different evidence that will become clear later on.

Also, her work(amongst others such as Price and Doherty) is questioning mainstream scholarship and forcing Biblical studies to broaden its scope. No matter what becomes of her theory, it has served and is serving a useful purpose.

Julian

Well, there is no way to know if he did or did not say this. The report stems from a statement to the Venetian Senate by its ambassador to the curia Marino Giorgi made 17 March, 1517. He didn't arrive until a couple of years after Giovanni (Leo X) supposedly made that comment to his brother Giuliano and he wouldn't have been overly friendly toward the Medici. It is, however, a statement not entirely incongruous with that time period and even less so from a Medici, especially Giovanni who used his power as Cardinal to eventually install his brother Giuliano as leader of Florence.

This whole thing, of course, says much about the turbulent times and much about the Medici, but not very much about Christianity.

Julian

ETA: Ooops, I was thinking of the wrong quote. I, for some reason, was thinking of "Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it." The 'fable' quote is, indeed, from John Bale, and not overly reliable. I wouldn't put it past him, but even so... Besides, why does it matter what a renaissance powermonger felt about christianity?

schilling.klaus

It's irrelevant what Theophilous meant consciously.
All that is necessary is that the example shows that the sun is used allegorically for the object of religious worship,
which indicates that the solar archetype of the collective nonconscious is underneath Christianity.

Klaus Schilling

God Fearing Atheist

That's lovely Klaus, and if it were your unevidenced, poorly-formated assertions that were the topic of this thread, that might mean something to me. But this thread is about the published conjecture of Acharya S, and my question is certainly relevant to that.

Here's a helpful hint, BTW. The level of discussion on this board is much higher than you're used to. Posters who are serially unable or unwilling to supply evidence in favor of the things they say, particularly very heterodox things, aren't likely to get very far. Personally, I tend to place them on ignore.

Something to keep in mind.

Clivedurdle

The Platonic idea of the real is behind the seen - they would be contemptible of someone worshipping the real thing in the sky.

The fact they had a god of the sun who was he again? Something to do with going to the moon was it?

The fact they hated the barbarian Persians - Marathon was it? Alexander?

And Ahura Mazda - the God of Light, fire worship, they were not as "rational" in dividing the gods and the real world as the Greeks.

I wonder if a major part of the problem here is an underlying assumption that anthropology is the same as the lunatic fringe, and there does seem to be a complete inability to understand mathematical ideas like iteration and interaction and calculus.

Do not people get that sun worship is actually a primary human response - why do we jet off to the sun every year? It has rationally been critiqued for millenia - correctly.

But xianity has fundamental structures pointing to sun worship - like Churches facing East. Yes there have been denials of this, but my point is that this stuff is not later additions but in the DNA of the religion.

The term pagan has been used - that is a xian propaganda term against very sophisticated cultures that included Victory.

Please everyone, stop thinking xianese and look at the real human experiential stuff about how humans express ourselves - like the rhythms of the sun!

What is the problem with astro theology again?

Jeffrey Gibson

So ... we should accept this as true why? Because you say so?

And if true, I guess we'd also have to say that a pomegranate --which is also used analogically by Theophilus - is a vital part of the collective unconscious which underlies Christianity.

Good one, Klaus.

In any case, I guess we cannot even take your words above as indicatives of what you are really saying, since according to you, what you say "consciously" has no relation to what you really mean or what your words are actually saying.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Which, prior to, and even during and after, the 4th century BCE, was known to, and shared by, what percentage of Greeks, even assuming that you are correct about what the Platonic idea entails?

This is what you call primary evidence?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

You might be interested to see how A.S. is now (mis) representing to her followers what the type and nature of the questions and the criticisms of her "work"that you and I and others have been raising here.

For this, go here.

It's fascinating to see (1) how much she prevaricates to maintain her self proclaimed status as one who has mastery over the ancient material she adduces to support her claims and (2) that she is again using the "jealousy card" to explain why we're "attacking" her claims.

(the mentally unbalanced and depraved) Jeffrey

schilling.klaus

yes, it is.
pomegrenades are ancient fertility cult symbols,
and fertility cults are far forerunners of Christianity.

Thus Hades tricked Persephone into swallowing a seed of a pomegrenade
thus chaining her to underworld forever.

Klaus Schilling

Clivedurdle

A culture has a son of Zeus - Apollo - a sun God, and goes around critiquing the barbarians who worship the sun directly.

What are you on?

Are you arguing there is no evidence for anything?

I do not know why but you are missing the plot here!

Are you arguing that Newgrange is not a religious site and that the sun was not involved in it?

What are you saying?

All I am stating is that sun worship is ubiquitous. Primary Evidence? Travel agents, shops selling sun cream and bikinis, use in advertising, archaeology like Newgrange, Churches facing East.

I am unaware of people going to Last Minute.com and praying oh helios please bless us, but the background religious behaviou is definitely there.

Jung called it a collective unconscious, I would argue more in terms of common patterns of behaviour, of symbols

And these behaviours are different in different cultures, and extremely complex as they are directly related to number, time, the calendar, beliefs in gods, and our experience of the world that includes a sun - that yesterday produced an awe inspiring dawn - easily interpreted as a religious moment.

Will this help?

Would the idea of a sun as a symbol help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Geertz



What I do not understand is why the denial of the critical significance of the sun, and water and fish and many other matters?