GakuseiDon

I honestly don't understand your point. I suspect you may be confusing "world of myth" with "myth". Doherty's "world of myth" was an actual location (though undeterminable) -- Doherty is saying that the "average pagan" thought that the myths were actual events, but just not conducted on earth. I'm not sure how this intersects with your point I'm afraid.

GakuseiDon

Well, yes. From what I've read: Attis being castrated happened on earth, or was non-literal. Osiris was dismembered on earth, or was non-literal. There was no thought of an earth-like "dimension" not on earth for those stories that seem to be set on earth. Other events like Hercules and Caesar's spirits ascending to the heavens were thought to be literal. Ideas about what was above the firmament varied, but IMO don't impact on Doherty's theory, which is about a redeeming saviour descending into a "dimension in the sphere of flesh".

GakuseiDon

It's all very interesting, YA, but we seem to have differing meanings of the word "literal". I agree that the story of Mithras killing the bull probably referred to a literal cosmic event, just as Plutarch believed that the story of Osiris could be viewed as referring to eclipses of the moon. I'm not sure how to take the idea that the ancients viewed the constellations as "literally a bull, a dog, a scorpion etc", though.

Roger Pearse has an interesting webpage that looks at references to Mithras in early literature:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/index.htm

I'll quote some here:

Lactantius Placidus

(Note: Statius is a 1st C CE pagan writer)

He [Statius] declares that different nations give to Apollo different names. The Achaemenians call him Titan, the Egyptian Osiris, the Persians Mithra and worship him in a cave. The expression "resist his control" has reference to the figure of Mithra holding back the horns of a recalcitrant bull, whereby is indicated the Sun's illumination of the Moon, when the latter receives its rays...

The Persians are said to have been the first to worship the Sun in caverns. For he is represented in a cavern in Persian dress with a turban, grasping the horns of a bull with both hands. The figure is interpreted of the Moon; for reluctant to follow his brother he meets him full and his light is obscured. In these verses the mysteries of the rites of the Sun are set forth. For in proof that the Moon is inferior and of less power the Sun is seated on the bull and grasps its horns. By which words Statius intended the two-horned moon to be understood, not the animal on which he rides.

Origen, "Contra Celsus"

After this, Celsus, desiring to exhibit his learning in his treatise against us, quotes also certain Persian mysteries, where he says: "These things are obscurely hinted at in the accounts of the Persians, and especially in the mysteries of Mithras, which are celebrated amongst them. For in the latter there is a representation of the two heavenly revolutions,----of the movement, viz., of the fixed stars, and of that which take place among the planets, and of the passage of the soul through these. The representation is of the following nature: There is a ladder with lofty gates, and on the top of it an eighth gate. The first gate consists of lead, the second of tin, the third of copper, the fourth of iron, the fifth of a mixture of metals, the sixth of silver, and the seventh of gold. The first gate they assign to Saturn, indicating by the 'lead' the slowness of this star; the second to Venus, comparing her to the splendour and softness of tin; the third to Jupiter, being firm and solid...

Pseudo Clement

[The pagan Apion defends pagan myth:] "And I must ask you to think of all such stories as embodying some such allegory. Look on Apollo as the wandering Sun (Peri-Polôn), a son of Zeus, who was also called Mithras, as completing the period of a year. And these said transformations of the all-pervading Zeus must be regarded as the numerous changes of the seasons, while his numberless wives you must understand to be years, or generations.

Tertullian

The very superstition of the crowd, inspired by the common idolatry, when ashamed of the names and fables of their ancient dead borne by their idols, has recourse to the interpretation of natural objects, and so with much ingenuity cloaks its own disgrace, figuratively reducing Jupiter to a heated substance, and Juno to an aërial one (according to the literal sense of the Greek words); Vesta, in like manner, to fire, and the Muses to waters, and the Great Mother to the earth, mowed as to its crops, ploughed up with lusty arms, and watered with baths. Thus Osiris also, whenever he is buried, and looked for to come to life again, and with joy recovered, is an emblem of the regularity wherewith the fruits of the ground return, and the elements recover life, and the year comes round; as also the lions of Mithras are philosophical sacraments of arid and scorched nature

andrewcriddle

Actually around 100BCE the spring equinox shifted from Aries to Pisces
(It will shortly shift to Aquarius hence the age of Aquarius in new age thought.)

In Babylonian astrology/astronomy the spring equinox is in Aries. The shift from Taurus to Aries happened before 2000 BCE ie in Graeco-Roman prehistory. IF Ulansey is right and the mysteries of Mithras were understood to represent the shift of the equinox from Taurus to Aries then this commemorated not a recent nor an observed event but one believed to have occurred before the beginning of known history.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Why did the kings of Judah appoint pagan priests to burn incense to the sun and the moon and to the constellations and to all the host of heaven? 2 Kings 23:5.

Because nobody believed they were real? You have got to be kidding.

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for pointing that out. You are right.

It is a little tough to calculate exactly when the ages change, due to the way of calculating the change in constellation; is it the actual various sizes of the constellations themselves, or 12 equal houses? Is it the astrological signs of the Babylonian times, or what we see currently?

The precession of the equinoxes (discovered ca. 130 BCE by Hipparchus of Nicea) results in a slow movement of the spring equinox backward through the zodiac, moving through one constellation about every 2,160 years (25,920 divided by 12) assuming equal sized constellations..

Presumably, after 130 BCE, the age of Taurus was calculated. The spring equinox had occurred with the sun in the constellation of Taurus, and the autumn equinox in the constellation of Scorpio.

Shortly before the beginnings of Graeco-Roman times, the spring equinox shifted from Taurus the Bull to Aires the Ram/lamb, and the autumn equinox from Scorpio to Libra. This fundamental shift in the supposedly unchangeable heavens was viewed in the Mithraic religion as Mithras, being associated with the sun god, slaying the bull of the Taurus constellation.

At the present time (beginning around the turn of the era), the spring equinox occurs with the sun in the constellation of Pisces and the autumn equinox in Virgo. Hence, the fish is the sign of Jesus and he is born of the Virgin. With the coming of the age of Pisces, we have the slaying of the previous constellation Aries, the Lamb (Rev 5:12, 13:8; John 1:26,29).

Soon, the sun will move into Aquarius at the vernal equinox, hence the dawning of the age of Aquarius.

Very roughly (using 2,160 year intervals)
Age of Taurus 4,320 to 2,161 BCE
Age of Aires 2,160 to 1 BCE (Mithras)
Age of Pisces 1 to 2,160 CE (Jesus)
Age of Aquarius 2,160 to 4,320 CE

As long as we are on this subject, I will present a possible origin of Christianity similar to that of Mithraism. Some people apparently cannot concieve of how the carnalized Jesus story (if that is what it is) could have began as an astral myth, so it is offered in that spirit, rather than one of rigorous proof. Let's say it is presented for entertainment value.

According to Eusebius, just before the battle of Milvian bridge in 312 CE, Constantine saw an amazing vision that changed the course of Christian history. No, he didn’t see Jesus Christ suspended on a wooden cross in Jerusalem. Instead, near the time of the Autumnal Equinox, Constantine saw the sun crucified on a cross of light in the heavens. “He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, In hoc signo vinces.”

There are similarities to Paul’s alleged conversion, recorded thrice in Acts centuries earlier; at midday (22:6;26:13) a light from heaven (9:3) and confirmation by those accompanying him.

At the Vernal Equinox, (March 20/21), and the Autumnal Equinox, (Sept. 22/23) the sun crosses the celestial equator, rising and setting exactly east and west and having a day and night of exactly 12 hours. This marks the beginning of spring and fall respectively in the northern hemisphere. The cross is formed by the celestial equator and the Zodiac, the intersection point of which is the equinox.

The sun is crucified on this date.

Jesus, the Son of God is crucified on the celestial cross described by Plato in Timeaus 36c and referenced by Justin, first apology, chapter 60.

The age of Pisces corresponds with Jesus’s emegence." Remember all those little fish symbols, and the ridiculous anagram rationalization? Yep, it is the symbol of Pisces.

The question, "where was Jesus crucified," while not exactly as Earl envisions, was perhaps originally in the heavens.

I know Acharya S, among others, have put forth theories similar to the above. However, due to her habit of only referencing secondary sources, it is darn hard sledding trying to follow the arguments.

Jake Jones IV

GakuseiDon

You would need to include Paul's comments about "in the flesh", "born of woman", buried, etc. Doherty has constructed a "dimension in the sphere of flesh" to incorporate Paul's comments, calling on pagan beliefs of the time to support him on this.

I'm not sure why you think that is relevant. I'm talking about those myths that were apparently set on earth. I've pointed this out a number of times when responding to you. I even put it in bold in my last post to you (#162)

What exactly do you think I'm arguing? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding there that I can help to clear up.

Brother Daniel

Hi Don.

I ought to have peppered my post with "IMO". It happens that my argument depends on premises that you (presumably) don't share, and an argument about those premises would belong in a different thread.

If you're still curious about what I was thinking, the rough idea goes like this.

According to my impression of Doherty's treatment of Paul, he is arguing that:
(A) The MJ interpretation of Paul's Jesus is natural.
(B) The HJ interpretation of Paul's Jesus is unnatural.

By "natural" and "unnatural" (blame me for those words; I'm not quoting Doherty now), I'm referring to the contortedness of the thinking, the wildness of the speculation, the quantity of ad-hockery, and so on, that are necessary to make the interpretation work.

Parts of Doherty's argument deal with location. Specifically, the location of the elements of the Jesus story that Paul mentions: birth, Last Supper, crucifixion by demons, resurrection, and triumphal procession (with those demons as prisoners).

Other parts of his argument do not deal with location – and those parts are outside the scope of this thread. But IMO, on the strength of those parts alone, Doherty's argument for points A and B is persuasive. Especially B: There is plenty of (what I call) "unnaturalness" in an HJ reading of Paul. (This is the stuff that I expect you'll disagree with. To avoid a thread derail, I'll keep it as a mere statement of opinion. I do not, in any case, have even 1% of the expertise needed before I'd have the right to expect anyone to care what I think.)

But let's look at the location business. Doherty claims (I think) that:
(C) Paul's Jesus is a heavenly being, in the sense that all those Jesus-story elements take place in heaven (in Paul's thinking).
(D) To the average pagan, the gods are heavenly beings (in a similar sense).

I responded to a post of yours in which you said (if I understand you right) that you have seen no evidence in favour of point D, and that Doherty's case depends on point D.

To be sure, points C and D together, if they could be demonstrated true, would help point A and absolutely clinch point B. But I don't think Doherty needs them. All he needs from the matter of location (IMO) is that point A not be demolished. (I don’t think point B is in any danger from the matter of location; there's still the non-location-related part of Doherty's argument to support it.)

Suppose point D is true. Then point C matters a lot. If Paul's Jesus-story elements could be shown to take place on earth (in Paul's thinking), then point A would fall apart.

Now suppose point D is false. Then point C matters very little, if at all. Jesus could operate on heaven or on earth, or somewhere else, and he'd still look like a pagan god (as far as location is concerned). Point A, in particular, would survive.

Therefore (still working within the constraints of my stated opinions), Doherty's case is strengthened if we find point D to be false.

Does this help?

GakuseiDon

It does, thanks for that. I've left out some of the comments, to focus on the implications of D. In essence, it isn't too far away from the debate, though some terms may need clarification (e.g. is heaven "higher heaven" or "lower heaven"?), but for the sake of this discussion it is close enough.

Let's look at the implication of D being false. There's no doubt that pagans placed some of their gods' activities on earth. Jupiter had a tomb in Crete, Hercules lived around the time of Troy, etc. If I am correct, then your comment that "Jesus could operate on heaven or on earth, or somewhere else, and he'd still look like a pagan god (as far as location is concerned)" would need to be rewritten, since "Jesus could operate on heaven" would no longer be an option if D is false. And if it's no longer an option, the comment would have to be rewritten as "Jesus could only operate on earth, if he were like a pagan god (as far as location is concerned)" -- at least, that seems to me how you've set the logic up.

In fact, that's what the evidence seems to show. From pagan writings, and from the attacks on pagan gods by Second Century apologists, the stories about gods were either thought to have been set on earth or were regarded as just stories (allegorical or otherwise). Pagans reading Paul would have assumed that Paul was talking about a god who lived on earth, like their other gods, e.g. the Caesars, Aesculapius, Hercules, Isis, Jupiter, Romulus, etc. (Anyone here heard about how Romulus lived and died in another "dimension"? No? Neither have I)

Brother Daniel

Assume for a moment that D is false and C is true. This is the combination that you are describing as "no longer an option" - which, from the context, I take to mean that it does not fit the MJ interpretation of Paul. But here, whatever awkwardness is imposed on the MJ interpretation of Paul is (I think obviously) matched or exceeded by additional awkwardness imposed on the HJ interpretation of Paul. ("Additional" meaning over and above the awkwardness that is already there (IMO) from evidence unrelated to location.) So, again within the constraints of the opinions I stated previously, Doherty's overall case would suffer no net loss from that combination.
This statement of yours looks to me like a concession that Doherty's overall case cannot be hurt by the matter of location (i.e. the location of the events of the Jesus story according to Paul). IYO, can the evidence related to location make distinctions among the different kinds of pagan gods in your list of examples above? In particular, can it make Jesus "more like the Caesars" and "less like Jupiter"? If not, I cannot see how to reconcile the present statement with your previously stated opinion (that Doherty's case crumbles if (what I called) point D is falsified).