Exploring further this question of how orthodox Christianity came into existence:

1. Saint Paul almost certainly wrote his seven unforged epistles, probably in the mid first century. They have no detail on a historical Jesus, except for a few fragmentary references to Christ being descended from David according to the flesh, James being his brother, the last supper, and quasi symbolic discussion of the cross and resurrection, but no miracles, parables or family. Paul says he never met Jesus, and it is possible that his account is a distortion by hearsay from others who spoke of a mythic Christ in cosmic terms, with Paul introducing the meme of incarnation. The cosmic sense that the divine was present in the world evolved into the idea that God the Father was materially incarnate as God the Son.

2. The first clear mention of the four canonical Gospels, as distinct from passages within them, is by Irenaeus late in the second century. As such, there was plenty of time for an original message to be distorted and hidden. It does not even require an overt conspiracy: it is enough that ignorance, convenience and adaptation to the needs of the society of the time were triumphant. We can now turn Christian dogma on its head, and say that it was enough that the orthodox church did not understand the astrotheological message of the natural unity of the earth and the cosmos in Christ, they failed to recognize the light through which the world was made, and so they rejected the stone which was the head of the corner, placing their own invented creation in its place, which they worshiped rather than worshiping the real natural creation.

3. Irenaeus devoted much energy to rejection of 'heretical' Gnostic ideas that Christ was a cosmic spirit closely associated with the structure of the zodiac. If we consider this cosmic spirit as the original myth of Christ, the idea of precession of the equinox indicates that the moment of cosmic unity, when earth reflects the stars, occured at the time when the signs of the zodiac, based on the equinoxes and solstices, matched exactly to their corresponding constellations. This occurred only at the time of Christ.

4. The proto-Christians in Alexandria wished to establish a new universal religion, based largely on the invented Greco-Egyptian religion of Serapis, but incorporating Jewish traditions from Moses and the prophets. The new universal religion was centered on the moment when the seasons matched the stars as a turning point of time.

5. Now, the question is where they got the Jesus story. The central theme, embodied in the story of cross and resurrection, is that the vision of salvation is rejected by the world, but proves triumphant. This is already clearly present in Paul, for example with the Epistle to the Philippians speaking of how, if I may slightly paraphrase it, the universal God had to manifest on earth in the most ignominious situation, death as a political criminal by slow torture, nailed to a tree, in order to be exalted as the last who would be first. The principle is established here that the way of God and the way of the world are so radically opposed that Christ was unrecognized when he lived.

6. Looking then to how the Alexandrian Jews used this myth to produce the Gospels, we find they inhabited a milieu full of astrotheology and old mythic archetypes. (I will start a thread soon on the chapter of Christ in Egypt on Horus at Age 12 and 30 to illustrate the prevalence of this Gnostic cosmic vision.) Orthodox Christians had to aggressively attack these 'heresies', showing how widespread they were. Irenaeus devoted considerable energy to attacks on Gnostic heresies that are highly astrotheological. Looking at this debate from the vantage point of today, it appears the Gnostics had the intellectual high ground, while the main orthodox motive was the growth of the church among the ignorant masses, restricting its message to something easily believed, and excluding complex messages that recognized the continuity between the new gospel and earlier mythology. The simple out-competed the complex as a matter of evolutionary survival.

7. One point of detail where I differ slightly from Murdock in emphasis is her comment that Christianity brought nothing new, but was just a 'rehash' of older mythology. My view is that the vision of Christ as avatar of the Age of Pisces was entirely new, albeit updating an old cosmic vision for a new age in a way that had strong continuity with previous established religious thinking. The problem was that this vision, wherever it originated, was and remains intellectually difficult to understand, because people cannot imagine that something so subtle and invisible as the movement of the equinox by one degree per lifetime could be the tectonic plate of human culture. This cosmic vision is seen throughout the New Testament in fragmentary form, indicating that it started as a coherent vision, but was steadily diluted to make it acceptable to a mass audience. Astrotheology, seeing Christ as allegory for the sun, is the stone at the head of the corner that the builders refused.

This is all true in terms of the Christ myth representing the major astrotheological event of the complete 360 degree cycle of the precession of the equinoxes ending and then beginning again at what was later deemed the BC/AD turning point. Count down to the end of the last cycle and count up since the beginning of the new. The astronomer priests are to thank for our timeline of history according this conception of BC/AD.

While the antiquity of this astronomical observation is debateable, what is factual is that by the earlier first century AD precession was known to the Greeks, at the very minimum. And if it had only been discovered not long before the first century of the common era as believed, then it most certainly would have been regarded as special and advanced knowledge to an astronomer priesthood at the time. The same holds true for the deep antiquity perspective as well. In discussing the Therapeutan brotherhood in Alexandria who were much like the astrotheological Egyptian priesthood of antiquity, this time period where the stars above matched up to the seasons below is something that would have been anticipated by mathematical calculation. The name of Joshua (Yeshua) is suddenly applied to solar mythology in all of this. And we end up with the Jesus myth as we have it today as the result.

It would be interesting if any of the "short works" of allegory described by Philo in the first century and then commented on by Eusebius and Epiphanius as being the early "gospels" were ever unearthed. It would be the find of the ages if so. I can imagine how damaging it would be to discover a collection of blatantly allegorical works that refer to the "word" and speak of a fictional "Joshua" character taken right out of OT lore in a Graeco-Jewish astrotheological context. Something like that would dam near settle the issue. And I wonder if those "short works" were ever housed in the libraries at Alexandria before the Christian destruction of said Libraries? All we have is Philo referring to them and the Christian fathers referring to Philo as it stands. Just going by Philo's writings alone it's obvious that there was in play a type of mystical Son of God belief which was not at all historicized or carnalized as of the early to mid first century. It's very interesting to consider when getting into Murdock's chapter on the Alexandrian Roots of Christianity.

I have been debating this material with Christian theologian James McGrath at http://www.patheos.com/community/explor ... -291275442

Here is my latest comment from that blog.

If we start from the observation that ancient myth routinely explained stories by reference to observation of the sky, such as the movement of the sun, and constellations as symbols for myth, the hypothesis is that Christianity originated from this same widespread approach. Precession of the equinox was known by the Greeks centuries before Christ, using information that Hipparchus obtained from meticulous ancient Babylonian records of star positions. The Egyptians clearly recognized precession, as Norman Lockyer (first editor of Nature) explained in his book The Dawn of Astronomy.

The question then, is how the story of Jesus Christ matches to the stars? Some key ideas about Jesus include that he marked a 'turning point of time' as reflected in our BC/AD dating of years. Looking to see how this turning point actually occurred, we see that the start of the Jewish Year, the spring equinox, moved in 20 AD out of the sign of Aries and into the sign of Pisces. This is a very slow change, tectonic in pace at one degree of arc per lifetime, but readily observable by people with a keen interest in the stars.

So, if the ancient seers understood the time of Christ as an observable turning point, a shift of Aeons, just in terms of the astronomy that they clearly possessed, we have a natural source for the elaboration of the literal historical myth of Jesus Christ, the anointed savior predicted in Daniel 9.

Building on this hypothesis, we find abundant corroboration within the New Testament. This slow change of the sky serves as a natural pre-existent logos, or cosmic reason, supporting the Pauline cosmology of Philippians and Colossians. Numerous Gospel references, especially the miracle of the loaves and fishes and the discussion of the end of the Age in the Olivet Discourse, support this natural cosmology of Christ as the incarnation of a new cosmic age.

The Book of Revelation presents this scientific observational allegory, especially with the idea of Christ as the Alpha and Omega. There are other allegories within Revelation, such as the river of life as the Milky Way, the tree of life as the zodiac, and the dragon who sweeps one third of the sky giving his seat to the leopard-bear-lion as the precession of the North Celestial Pole.

Overall, rebasing Christianity in natural cosmology presents a method to reconcile faith and reason, putting the supernatural myths into a scientific framework. There is no need to speculate about any magical astrological meaning here, because this framework is simply compatible with the broadly understood nature of ancient thought in its actual observation of the stars as the temporal framework of heaven.

What is really interesting is how this natural vision was suppressed. We see it is not compatible with the injunction in Deuteronomy not to worship nature, or with the panentheist transcendence of God. It appears that this source for the idea of Christ was seen as too close to the pagan views that the church was in political combat with, so its presence within the text was systematically concealed, and then forgotten.

Note: This discussion is more relevant to the thread on mythicism, so I have responded here. Readers can find the quoted post at the thread on Horus at the Age of 12 and 30.

DWill wrote:I have in mind a slightly different view of an ideological response, whereby we're so certain that an operating principle applies across a broad range of cases, that we don't really look at individual factors in those cases. We might say that Marxism or libertarianism applies to anything political, or that mythicism or literalism applies to anything religious. This is where the overreach also comes in. I know that the remark by Price may be a low-hanging fruit, and that he is not actually a mythicist, but it might serve to highlight the difference in views. Do you find anything exaggerated in his estimation of the stellar origin of many OT heroes and heroines? I would go as far as ridiculous, frankly.

Good questions. If mythicism is just what falls out from rigorously applying the scientific method to religious texts, then it contains no more ideology than science does. The 'ideological response' of science consists in assumptions such as that we have one universe, that it is internally consistent, and that rigorous observation provides reliable access to the nature of reality, which is the same thing as the reality of nature. Science is about comparing rival hypotheses and assessing which have the greatest explanatory value. Here we are comparing orthodox literal history, including its variants which assume the existence of Jesus Christ a priori as a real man, against the mythicist claim that it is most likely there was no individual founder of Christianity living at the time of Christ as described in the Bible.

Price commented "many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." To assess this comment, we have to look for evidence of similarity between the Biblical figures and the sun, moon, planets, etc. For a start, the name of Israel includes reference to the god El, a personification of the planet Saturn, understood as the outer limit of the solar system. Adam bears a striking resemblance to the Egyptian solar deity Atum. Abraham is presented as an avatar of the Age of Aries. Esther bears close etymological similarity to Ishtar, and along with Lucifer is associated with the planet Venus.

As I commented in the post to which you responded, religious texts operate at multiple levels. I don't think anyone wants to say there is nothing in history that contributed to the hero figures. Rather, the gradual process of story telling, whereby some elements of history were woven in to a narrative whose archetypal vision was set by explaining how our life reflects the eternal stability of the observable sky, suggests that these constant stellar themes were at the foundation of the meme, and the historical parts were added in to make them more entertaining, interesting and believable.

Moving to the New Testament, Murdock presents some interesting relevant commentary in her chapter Was Horus Crucified? The key theme here is that ancient thought used such terms as the cross primarily as cosmic symbols, and it is hard for us to get behind millennia of literalism about Jesus and the cross to see the deeper natural vision, and to start to get inside the ancient mind in which the visible heavens are the primary meaning of heaven. I will expand on this in a new thread on that chapter.

I'm not under the impression that Murdock is promoting belief in the myths themselves. She has said as much here and I believe her. My statements were prompted by your strongly revisionist view of the character of the pre-Christian religions that are the subject of Murdock's work. That they can be seen in historical perspective as scientific or empirical implies that they also were non-superstitious. To establish that generalization requires a good deal of proof. Having thought, apparently, that you provided that, you then turned grievance-filled invective against the folks who destroyed the Egyptian enlightenment--the founders of Christianity. All this just raises my skeptic's antennae. Such blatant partisanship doesn't sort with scholarship or history.

I don't suggest that any early religion was not superstitious. Science was so limited at that time that the assumption that divinity played a major magical role in events was pervasive, especially in Egypt. However, what we are looking at is why some mythemes proved durable. This is where the scientific analysis comes in, with the observation that durable ideas often corresponded to actual observation, whether consciously or not. We see this continuing through Christianity with the popular images of the four evangelists which are entirely based on the four most prominent constellations of the zodiac, a match that goes back to the Egyptian four sons of Horus as the cardinal points of the compass. People do not have to consciously understand this correspondence between image and observation for the mytheme to resonate with their religious sensibility.

I really don't agree that "grievance-filled invective" is a fair description of my views. When I commented in the referenced post about orthodoxy suppressing older ideas, it was just stating a matter of fact. It is entirely scholarly to look at events such as the suppression of Gnosticism and pagan religion, the closure of the pagan centers of learning, and the mass burning of ancient literature, as factors that have to be considered in trying to get to the truth behind the stories. After all, Christianity did manage to establish the Dark Ages.

Robert Tulip wrote: Good questions. If mythicism is just what falls out from rigorously applying the scientific method to religious texts, then it contains no more ideology than science does. The 'ideological response' of science consists in assumptions such as that we have one universe, that it is internally consistent, and that rigorous observation provides reliable access to the nature of reality, which is the same thing as the reality of nature. Science is about comparing rival hypotheses and assessing which have the greatest explanatory value. Here we are comparing orthodox literal history, including its variants which assume the existence of Jesus Christ a priori as a real man, against the mythicist claim that it is most likely there was no individual founder of Christianity living at the time of Christ as described in the Bible.

Good decision to shift my post, Mr. Moderator. The problem I'm having with your analogy between science and mythicism is that physical science, as you say, uses epistemologic standards that have been broadly agreed on and proven to be trustworthy. It also devotes itself to that which can be subjected to experiment and quantification. A scientific spirit in areas that do not lend themselves to experiment and quantification is of course also important, and is responsible for the higher criticism of the Bible, among other approaches that have yielded better understanding of history and society. But as we venture into culture and history our ability to exercise control over variables nearly disappears; and our own placement within a particular subjective framework--from which we cannot escape--crucially affects what we think we see. Regarding generalizations and broad conclusions, we need to be extremely cautious and tentative. Historians merely try to furnish small bits of a basis from which we might draw conclusions. Their awareness of the limitations to knowing all the factors that contributed to the unfolding of history makes them conservative, just as scientists are extreme conservatives. So historian equals scientist, and there is no difference between your "scientific" approach and a "historical" approach. If mythicists employ the careful tools of historians, then no problem. I'm not saying that they never do this, but I am saying that being committed to a specific outlook will ramp up the probability of subjective interference, which is always there in some degree anyway.

Price commented "many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." To assess this comment, we have to look for evidence of similarity between the Biblical figures and the sun, moon, planets, etc. For a start, the name of Israel includes reference to the god El, a personification of the planet Saturn, understood as the outer limit of the solar system. Adam bears a striking resemblance to the Egyptian solar deity Atum. Abraham is presented as an avatar of the Age of Aries. Esther bears close etymological similarity to Ishtar, and along with Lucifer is associated with the planet Venus.

At the risk of seeming obtuse and prosaic, since we're reading a text, shouldn't most of our attention be going to the text, to the narrative in front of us? I can't help thinking that you're placing an attribute or a vestige at the top level, instead of noting what the narrative means and what it says about the culture that produced it. Take the domestic dramas of the descendants of Abraham as an example. If there are astral parallels that someone might deduce, it seems perverse to say that these are what the narrative is about, or that the stars were the inspiration for these tales that are very specific to the culture of that time and place. Life experiences are what mark people and shape the narratives they make about themselves.

As I commented in the post to which you responded, religious texts operate at multiple levels. I don't think anyone wants to say there is nothing in history that contributed to the hero figures. Rather, the gradual process of story telling, whereby some elements of history were woven in to a narrative whose archetypal vision was set by explaining how our life reflects the eternal stability of the observable sky, suggests that these constant stellar themes were at the foundation of the meme, and the historical parts were added in to make them more entertaining, interesting and believable.

I think the vision begins with the life, not with impulses from the skies. There is no way I can see that this difference can be resolved. I would appeal to the stronger, more visceral effects of the struggle for existence vs. the intellectual/spiritual experience you see as primary.

I really don't agree that "grievance-filled invective" is a fair description of my views. When I commented in the referenced post about orthodoxy suppressing older ideas, it was just stating a matter of fact. It is entirely scholarly to look at events such as the suppression of Gnosticism and pagan religion, the closure of the pagan centers of learning, and the mass burning of ancient literature, as factors that have to be considered in trying to get to the truth behind the stories. After all, Christianity did manage to establish the Dark Ages.

Okay, invective was strong, but you have a grievance. Nothing wrong with that except that it can skew your outlook. Yes, of course the things you point out about Christian suppression went on, but isn't this where perspective and proportion come in? Religion could be the most political endeavor we've come up with, so skullduggery is the order of the day. It was no different throughout the history of Egypt, no doubt. Christian monotheism brought with it a greater concentration of power, a greater ability to control the game. Now, as to the causes of the "Dark Ages," that's an opportunity for some detailed historical exploration.

DWill wrote:Good decision to shift my post, Mr. Moderator.

Just in case it confuses anyone, your post has not been moved, but is linked to in my post if anyone is keen to follow the discussion.

The problem I'm having with your analogy between science and mythicism is that physical science, as you say, uses epistemologic standards that have been broadly agreed on and proven to be trustworthy. It also devotes itself to that which can be subjected to experiment and quantification. A scientific spirit in areas that do not lend themselves to experiment and quantification is of course also important, and is responsible for the higher criticism of the Bible, among other approaches that have yielded better understanding of history and society. But as we venture into culture and history our ability to exercise control over variables nearly disappears; and our own placement within a particular subjective framework--from which we cannot escape--crucially affects what we think we see. Regarding generalizations and broad conclusions, we need to be extremely cautious and tentative. Historians merely try to furnish small bits of a basis from which we might draw conclusions. Their awareness of the limitations to knowing all the factors that contributed to the unfolding of history makes them conservative, just as scientists are extreme conservatives. So historian equals scientist, and there is no difference between your "scientific" approach and a "historical" approach. If mythicists employ the careful tools of historians, then no problem. I'm not saying that they never do this, but I am saying that being committed to a specific outlook will ramp up the probability of subjective interference, which is always there in some degree anyway.

Yes, this is all legitimate comment, exploring the extent to which mythicism offers an evidence-based critique of conventional biblical history. The argument is specifically focused on the existence of Jesus Christ. Murdock observes abundant examples from history of how historians appear to have been intimidated by the church to avoid stating the implications of their findings. As I mentioned in my comments on the Conclusion to Christ in Egypt, "The situation is that “censors have removed material threatening to their faith – a common occurrence that reduced much of the ancient world to rubble, the wrecked pieces of which we are only now putting back together.” (p504) This reconstruction effort is the primary goal of Christ in Egypt. “Scholarly timidity" has led many to hint at ideas they dare not voice, often in tantalizing concluding questions like breadcrumb trails. Entire genres of literature, such as Hermeticism, are still treated with disdain and denounced. “Because of cherished beliefs and biases, entire premises have been overlooked or rejected, such as looking for the influence of Hermetic literature on Christianity.” (p506) One interesting scholar, Morenz, cautioned against seeking out Egyptian parallels, advice that reflects a well-founded fear of persecution. As DM Murdock has commented here at Booktalk, much good material in other languages remains unavailable in English translation."

So, we have a situation where mainstream opinion is very unscientific, and mythicism is actually seeking to bring scientific method to bear, against strong opposition and ignorance. Christianity holds the existence of Jesus as an article of faith, an unquestioned axiom, and generally reacts with scorn to any effort to explore the scientific basis of their faith.

shouldn't most of our attention be going to the text, to the narrative in front of us? I can't help thinking that you're placing an attribute or a vestige at the top level, instead of noting what the narrative means and what it says about the culture that produced it. Take the domestic dramas of the descendants of Abraham as an example. If there are astral parallels that someone might deduce, it seems perverse to say that these are what the narrative is about, or that the stars were the inspiration for these tales that are very specific to the culture of that time and place. Life experiences are what mark people and shape the narratives they make about themselves.

The Old Testament is not the best example of astral parallels, given the vigorous hostility in Judaism towards worship of nature. I would not want to say that Abraham or Noah are primarily stellar in origin, although their existence as unique men is dubious to put it mildly. Mythicism is not restricted to asserting that all myths are stellar in origin, it is about saying that the conventional historical claims generally cover over a mythic origin.

The New Testament combined the transcendental monotheism of Israel with traditions that are clearly astral, from Egypt and Greco-Roman myth. We still call the planets by the names of the Roman Gods, so it seems far more certain to assert that the Roman pantheon developed from observation of the sky. In my reading, the clearest astral parallels in the Old Testament, encoding the myths around precession, include the flaming cherubim barring the way to paradise as a symbol for the constellation of Gemini, and the wheels within wheels described by Ezekiel as a recognition that the wheel of the year sits within a bigger wheel of time, with precession of the equinox slowly moving the stars backward against the seasons.

I think the vision begins with the life, not with impulses from the skies. There is no way I can see that this difference can be resolved. I would appeal to the stronger, more visceral effects of the struggle for existence vs. the intellectual/spiritual experience you see as primary.

You might need to explain in more detail what you mean by saying the vision begins with the life. It reads like an assertion that the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham and Sarah, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, etc, must have started from distinct individuals with those names. In The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein provides a strong case that this traditional view is wrong. Stories gradually solidify around what the audience responds to. Each of the pivotal mythic events in early Biblical history, creation, flood, founding, exodus, conquest, required a hero. Since the events are very dubious, so are the heroes.

Okay, invective was strong, but you have a grievance. Nothing wrong with that except that it can skew your outlook. Yes, of course the things you point out about Christian suppression went on, but isn't this where perspective and proportion come in? Religion could be the most political endeavor we've come up with, so skullduggery is the order of the day. It was no different throughout the history of Egypt, no doubt. Christian monotheism brought with it a greater concentration of power, a greater ability to control the game.

"Perspective and proportion" have traditionally been used to avoid and suppress all criticism of faith. Looking for some sort of balanced forgiveness of Christian suppression of apostates, I would prefer to go back to the advice of Jesus, that forgiveness is conditional on repentance. If no one explains to the Christians why what their institution did was wrong, they have no chance to repent, and they stand under condemnation. Opening up this information is about giving Christians a chance to see their error and change their beliefs. People have little chance to see the truth if it is systematically hidden from them.

Now, as to the causes of the "Dark Ages," that's an opportunity for some detailed historical exploration.

Sadly a bit tangential to this thread. How I see the Christian contribution is that the faith of Christendom led to some serious errors which helped to expose Rome to collapse, by promoting an otherworldly mysticism over the Roman tradition of pragmatic reason. The conventional idea that 'Jesus saves' when we are washed in the blood of the lamb contributed to the fall of the ancient world.

This would be in reply to tat also. If the mythicist position is to be specifically understood as the arguments in favor of a purely fictitious Jesus, I don't have opposition to that--even though I'm still of a mind that the Gospel writers as well as Paul believed they were dealing with someone who had lived. Evidence for the contrary view (yours) is there, however. What I was questioning was a position that assumes astrotheology must be seen as pervasive enough to dominate almost every aspect of the texts we're talking about, and that it is "really" what is going on behind a screen of allegorizing. Is that also part of the MP, or have I misunderstood?

I'm still of a mind that the Gospel writers as well as Paul believed they were dealing with someone who had lived.

I see no reason to believe any part of the stories. Even if I thought Paul believed the things he'd written, that would still not be enough reason to think Jesus was real. I'd ask how you have a looking glass into Paul's head. Men can tell lies and still make them seem undeniably real. Men also believe things with their entire souls without realizing what they believe is false. I'm not claiming the stories are false... just that there's no support. The only trail of evidence I see leading away from the scene is mythicism. This includes supplementing real events with mythological elements.

DWill wrote:This would be in reply to tat also. If the mythicist position is to be specifically understood as the arguments in favor of a purely fictitious Jesus, I don't have opposition to that--even though I'm still of a mind that the Gospel writers as well as Paul believed they were dealing with someone who had lived. Evidence for the contrary view (yours) is there, however. What I was questioning was a position that assumes astrotheology must be seen as pervasive enough to dominate almost every aspect of the texts we're talking about, and that it is "really" what is going on behind a screen of allegorizing. Is that also part of the MP, or have I misunderstood?

D.M. Murdock is the principal contemporary advocate of astrotheology, presented as a scientific explanation of how the myths about Christ arose. Other advocates of mythicism, such as Earl Doherty, put less emphasis on astral origins for the myths, at least in my understanding of the debate. Others such as Tat may wish to comment.

My own take on this material is based on research over many years into precession as a framework for ancient cosmology. So my views support Murdock’s emphasis on astrotheology.

I don’t think that even Murdock says that astrotheology dominates every part of the text. For example it seems that ethical propositions such as the Sermon on the Mount are entirely grounded in social analysis, although even this has an eschatological content that is given deeper meaning by the physical and temporal framework of precession.

One way to show how astrotheology encompasses and explains Biblical cosmology is to look at the Biblical references to the tree of life. This is a rather enigmatic symbol, appearing only three times in the Bible, in the first and last books, Genesis and Revelation, and in Proverbs. The tree of life symbolizes human reconciliation with divine reality.

Revelation says the tree of life has twelve kinds of fruit, one for each month, and grows on both sides of the river of life. Now, it is a very unusual tree that grows on both sides of a river! However, when we look at this mysterious reference against astrotheology it becomes crystal clear. The zodiac has twelve ‘fruits’ one for each month, and is bisected by the Milky Way, long considered a celestial river. It is simple. The tree of life is the zodiac, the path of the sun observable in the night sky.

What this implies for cosmology is that the fall from grace at the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, when humanity was mythically banished from contact with the tree of life, represents the rise of an alienated spirituality, out of contact with the natural context of the zodiac. Similarly, in Revelation the tree of life symbolizes the new heaven and new earth, when humanity will once again be reconciled to God, a.k.a. the natural reality of the cosmos. So, the whole fall and redemption motif of Christianity can therefore be understood in natural astrotheological terms, with redemption a restoration of a natural cosmic basis for faith.

The idea that the tree of life is a symbol for the zodiac is obvious when you consider possible readings of Revelation. However, the prevalence of supernatural theories of Christian meaning has led to this simple natural explanation being ignored.

Returning to DWill's question of whether astrotheology is pervasive, we see from this example of the tree of life, an image of perfection that is seen before and after Christian history, that the theory of time in the Bible ultimately sits within a large scale and objective natural observation of the cosmos. Water in a bucket is shaped by the bucket. The ethics of Christianity are shaped by astrotheology.

This is my first entry into a serious discussion, so I hope you'll take that into consideration.

I have been interested in star myths for decades, perhaps my whole life (I was read mythology along with other
fairy tales as a child born before the Age of Television) ... Despite the Hebrew Bible's condemnation of
'astrology' I find that many of its stories are quite simply that, e.g., wrestling all night with god is exactly
what the one-eyed Ophiuchus brothers have been doing for as long as humanity has been entertaining
itself with 'bedtime stories' - the 'heal-clutcher' legends come from the same constellation and so does the
commandment "When the serpent (Draco) strikes his heel, he shall strike his head" (which has been thought
to enjoin us to kill snakes or crush our brothers' skulls, depending upon the political needs of the day).

The story of Lyra/Vega/Wega has been creative beyond words or perhaps more visual than descriptive. It has
been a descending vulture (Egypt, probably since collapse of Old Kingdom into a drought so severe even the
Nile dried up), Gilgamesh reaching for the lotus of immortality (Corona, which Serpens got to first), Rama the
Archer, Indra (who used the circle of Corona as a poisonous 'wreath' to slay Vritra, the goddess of monsoon),
and among others, David. As a mere boy he is said to have slain a giant (Ophiuchus who fell on his face) and
the 'sling' he used are the same stars as formed the bow of Rama and the wings of Horus the Hawk/vulture).
David, in his second 'cycle' becomes a musician and poet, using his triumph to inspire love and 'plenty' thereby
making him eligible, the following year, to take up the Corona as his 'crown' (and incidentally, becoming our most
famous, although hardly the first, soap-opera character). All of these predate the Greeks.

The Christian Bible used variants of this tale to create such characters as the wandering son who always returns
home after so many 'depleting' misadventures. His initial departure is from the god/goddess Virgo, who reigns on
a bed of stars during the time of milk and honey (Cancer having been Beehive before the Greeks changed it).

The legend of Sinbad grew out of 12th Dynasty Egypt's story of the Shipwrecked Sailor in the Land of Punt.
The same'monarch'/Virgo/Queen of Heaven sent a sailor (unnamed, but she is shown pointing at Vega) on a voyage
to attain gold, silver and other precious goods. With him are 300 of Egypt's finest sailors. But two months out on
his trip, the ship is wrecked in a storm and all of the crew, save the Sailor, are drowned. The constellation Scorpio's
poised tail exactly replicates the stern of such a vessel as it sinks amidst the blaze of stars in Ophiuchus, Sagittarius
and Scorpius - incidentally, there are 300 days left in the standard 'year' - the Sailor survives by washing ashore
on an island which mysteriously appears and he wanders around for 4 months finding no 'inhabitants'.
Then a booming voice comes from a very long serpent with a long beard, who proclaims himself 'king of
Punt'. About this time Leo and Hydra (the water snake) become visible (Leo, without much imagination,
can be configured into the cowled head of a cobra). The sailor is hugely impressed and offers KOP riches
and renown if he will provide the sailor with a ship to take him back to his queen. But the KOP replies that it will
not be necessary because in four months time a ship will appear to take him home and the Land of Punt
will disappear once again beneath the sea. In the meantime, the sailor was invited to visit among the
'people' of Punt and enjoy their fruits. Surprised, the Sailor now found Punt extremely 'well populated'
and fruitful. And just as the king promised, after four months a ship appeared and the sailor embarked with all
manner of gifts for his queen. Also, just as promised, Punt slid beneath the waves and disappeared. Two
months later the Sailor returned to Egypt and was welcomed with great festivity. He was honored and
elevated to a station 'among the peers', presumably stars.

Why? He lost his ship and crew, failed to return with gold, silver and precious gems and benu bird feathers.
What makes him worthy of peerage? The wonders he brought back from Punt were those which could be
found nearby, such as animal skins, wheat, beer, etc., -

This story is a simple calendar peculiar to Egypt and the flood cycle of the Nile, which had only three seasons.
The first, in late summer, came as the Nile flood receded and left its replenishing riches in the farmlands.
After two months, the land reappeared and planting season began. Four months later, as the Milky Way and
Beehive became prominent in the night sky, so did the crops and the King of Punt. They were 'fruitful' and
plentiful. Once harvested, the Nile flood returned, rising for two months before the cycle began all over again.

Even the smallest child could understand the calendar in the sky using this story and a few 'sky creatures'
to guide him.

I have written about this before and am currently working on a series of novels called Starlight On Stone.
Books WEST and EAST have been published as ebooks and the third, SOUTH, about Egypt, is in progress.
The series will culminate at the Battle of Kadesh, prototype of Armageddon, which I believe to have been
a lavish hoax committed by the scribes of two vain but crumbling empires.

Very interesting subject with many implications for today's madness.