DB Roy wrote:He is the priest of the piscean cult--of Jesus Christ and he wears the mitre hat which is really a fish-head in honor of Oannes, the fish-man who came from the sea to teach humans and who was depicted a man wearing a fish skin.

Image

A recurring practice of astrotheologists and mythicists is to take things that look or sound similar, or words with mostly the same letters irrespective of the language,to be the same thing essentially.

We are told the Pope's mitre is the fish head of Oannes. Not that Jesus or the apostles ever wore them by the way. While Catholicism adopted pagan festivals to 'Christianize' them, by for instance making Christ's birthday December 25th without biblical warrant,I'm not convinced the Pope's mitre is this fish god's head.
I could be wrong but I don't think it's proven.
If the thesis of borrowing from Oannes and fish gods is correct why is it that the Jewish high priest's mitre was not like this but more like a turban? And mitres seem to vary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitre

DB Roy wrote:Today we call Oannes the fish-man by Christianized name of John the Baptist.

Really,why because he baptized using water? On that flimsy basis everyone with any connection with water or the sea in the bible is a fish man.
Where is John the baptist ever referred to as a fish man? What's the fish connection and was he half man half fish?

DB Roy wrote:Now whether John was a real person or not doesn't matter because the gospels fictionalized him. Born 6 months before Jesus, according to Luke, he was on the exact opposite side of the zodiac so that with he and Jesus together, the year is complete--the waning and waxing halves, as they are called and hence statement that he must languish while Jesus increases.

This couldn't possibly have anything to do with either John or Jesus actually being real people born 6 months apart, or John's decrease being about his disciples following Jesus, as in his prophetic role as the one preparing the way of the Lord.

DB Roy wrote:If John was real, there is virtually no chance that he was related to Jesus (and this bit of news certainly never reached the other gospel-writers) and he was certainly not a mere 6 months older than Jesus. He would have been somebody substantially older--a good decade, one would think.

And why would one think this or is mere assertion enough? The gospels don't all include all the same incidents in Jesus' life and why should they?
John the baptist is referred to by the Jewish historian Josephus as well as the gospel authors, but I'm sure the mythicists will have another conspiracy sidestep for this. Interestingly, Origen in contra Celsum cites Josephus and places Herod's ill chosen escapade at C36 A.D.
Josephus says that it was popularly believed that Herod's military defeat at this time was divine retribution for his having John executed before this, and that date certainly is close to the gospel account's timeline.
https://1peter315.wordpress.com/2008/03 ... cal-jesus/

DB Roy wrote:Another strange incident occurs at Mark 8:27-28:

27 And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesare′a Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I am?” 28 And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Eli′jah; and others one of the prophets.”

Why would people think that Jesus was John the Baptist?? How could there possibly be any confusion?? Are the water-man and the fish-man the same personage?

Well of course Jesus didn't go around vocally announcing himself to be the Christ,and much depended on the religious and cultural expectations of the people. Herod thought Jesus was John the baptist back from the dead.
http://www.biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-14.htm
And no the water man and fish man are not the same,unless everyone who uses water is also a fish man. John didn't live in water you know.

DB Roy wrote:Jonah whose name is very similar to John. Jesus was an updated Jonah and said so himself (Matthew 12:40). Both came from Galilee. Jonah shares the same Hebrew root as "dove." And he was thrown off a ship and so his story is a retelling of Noah setting a dove off the ark. Jonah was asleep in the ship when a storm hit and the man ran down to him thinking he had something to do with it and so he bade them to throw him overboard and the storm would stop. Mark 4:37-38 virtually repeats this story only with Jesus calming the storm by command.

Similar looking and sounding but not the same name and they are different in their meaning in Hebrew.
One means dove the other Yahweh is gracious. Jonah threw himself off the boat and Noah released the dove into the air not throwing it into the water,and there was no storm when Noah did this.
But Jesus is not a repeat. He wasn't a runaway prophet and didn't have to jump into the stormy lake and his name doesn't mean dove.
In fact the bible interprets itself without any need for astro-theological forcing of parallels. For example, Noah's name means rest given him by his father as a hoped consolation for his toil in working the soil cursed by God for Adam's sin.

God sees the earth is filled with violence by man and is grieved in his heart and sorry he made man. He says: "My Spirit will not always contend with man forever for he is indeed flesh.
He is not blase about the wholesale violence but disturbed and pained. Next the flood in judgement with only Noah and his family spared.
Finally the waters are receding and the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat. He sends out the dove to see if there is ground not covered with water, but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot.

After another seven days he sends the dove out again and this time she returns with a freshly plucked olive leaf in her mouth,and he knows the waters have fully receded.

Noah leaves the ark,builds an altar and sacrifices burnt offerings to God.

And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma.

So it's the Spirit of God striving with man and restless about the violence and intransigence displayed. Judgement falls.
Finally the ark rests on a mountain. The dove symbolizes the spirit of God and the concept of rest is here again. No rest first and later rest with an olive leaf in it's mouth which points to the olive oil used in anointing,and is again a symbol of the spirit of God.
Same thing,the dove and the olive leaf. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me etc.

He sacrifices burnt offerings which are described as soothing to God. God has no pleasure in burnt offerings of animals as he says, but it's important enough as a necessary pointer to the sacrifice ultimately done by Christ, and that's what brings peace between God and man.

Is this myth? Most people say yes but it's not if you can see it's fulfillment and meaning in Christ's historic atonement.

No need for fish men or solar deities to explain any of this.

The author of Revelation presents himself as John, the astral seer, who professes faith in the Resurrected Jesus and who belonged to the house of Israel. John writes of traveling into the sky; but this perspective of sky-visions is completely neglected in the traditional commentaries and studies on Revelation. Malina and Pilch demonstrate the necessity of taking ancient sky-interpretation seriously for reading the book of Revelation in its first-century context.

Building on their earlier works on Revelation, and using this highly successful commentary model, Malina and Pilch have charted a new direction for Revelation studies. Includes line-drawings and photographs, as well as charts and diagrams on ancient Mediterranean astrology.

Robert Price recommends Malina, i can't wait to have a gander

i wonder if it was this one Dr. Price was mentioning

http://www.amazon.com/Genre-Message-Rev ... 21&sr=1-11

As one of the pioneers of applying social criticism to the biblical text, author Bruce Malina has helped revolutionize the way we think about the text and our models for interpretation. Now in a compelling new study" and one that will surely be his most controversial" Malina offers a completely new lens for viewing the book of Revelation. Malina contends that John the Seer's milieu was one of intense interest and fascination with the sky, especially with those "beings" in the sky" constellations, planets, comets, sun, moon, and zodiac" that controlled the destiny of the Earth and its inhabitants. He asserts that John has his own interpretation of the sky that follows not the Greco-Roman astrological myths but the Jewish and Christian story of God's salvation in Messiah. John thus stands as an "astral prophet" who interprets the sky in accordance with what has taken place in Christ. This vibrant reading of Revelation is buttressed by innumerable ancient literary and archeological sources that demonstrate that John's world was indeed one enamored with the sky and its significance for planet Earth.According to Revelation 4:1, John the Seer looks in the sky and observes an "open door." Then the "first voice" invites John "up" to the heavens to witness what must take place. "In the spirit," John describes what he sees in the sky. Is John really looking at the sky? If he is, then what he sees are the fixtures of heaven: sun, moon, planets, stars, comets, and the like. Is it possible that John, in an effort to reach the people of his day, who were plainly enamored with the sky and its happenings, speaks to his contemporaries about the victory of God's Messiah as attested in the sky? Is Johnthe Seer's language of special numbers, brilliant colors, heavenly thrones, elders, angels, sun, moon, and stars more in keeping with descriptions of the sky than with apocalyptic visions? Bruce Malina thinks so, and he builds an unusually impressive case that will surely stir the interpretive waters surrounding John's Apocalypse. "On the Genre and Message of Revelation" does what Bruce Malina has done so well for decades: he challenges Western readers to think like ancient Mediterraneans, to slough off biased, scientific presuppositions, and to explore the world of Jesus and his followers with a new map, one that leads to a richer understanding of the New Testament witness of Revelation.." . . Malina presents a fresh set of Mediterranean cultural scenarios for interpreting Revelation. He cites numerous Mediterranean 'informants' contemporary with John to confirm the insights about how ancient prophets read God's will in the constellations of the heavens. . . . Teachers, preachers, and Bible students will find satisfying solutions to long-standing puzzles."" John J. Pilch, Ph.D., Georgetown University

Flann wrote: Judgement falls.

for whom the bell tolls

it tolls for thee

John Donne Jovi wrote:"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."

cue Metallica

if Judgement falls on anyone it falls on that silly old shellfish banning thunder hurler Yahweh

i'm with Marcion on this one

ant wrote:

tat tvam asi wrote:What does that have to do with what I've written?

I haven't even gotten into anything about Jesus mythicism. This is just the bare bones ground work for identifying astromythology in religion. Whether historical or not Jesus was mythologized over time. And that included pretty heavy solar symbolism. The astrotheology itself doesn't prove that some one in myth wasn't historical. It's just one dynamic that shows how a figure may not have ever been historical. What happens in some instances is that people toss aside the astromythology because they think acknowledging it means accepting the myth theory, which is where the real fallacy is located.

The mythos ground work to begin analysis of recorded ancient historical events is unsound because its enormously interpretive. It can go whichever direction you choose, and when used to establish the authenticity of a hiatorical figure or event, can never be falsified.

Religion and history go hand-in-hand. They are inextricably tied together.
It's rather silly and amateurish to use a salad bar of mythos as a lense.
No serious scholars with appropriate academic credentials do.
There are much more disciplined methods than simply concluding "this and this looks similar, therefore, they are one and the same"

I'm sorry, but that's just the reality of it. It's entirely more complex than what myther best sellers claim it to be in the layman's reading market. Weve already established that a couple years back here on BT.

btw, welcome back.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? You seem to be arguing against an argument that I haven't made here. I've merely pointed out what is known among mainstream sources like Joseph Campbell. Myths and religions are not exempt from the 2nd function. This is well know. Serious scholars don't take myth completely literal. For instance they don't assume that supernatural events took place historically. These can be allegorical or metaphorical in scholarship but not unproven literal supernatural events. I won't be lectured on what serious scholarship entails by a supernaturalist who by default is completely out of accord with modern intellectual society. I simply won't let you move past your own fanciful and unprovable beliefs and agenda to try and condem me about anything. I'm not the one believing in fair tales in this exchange...

A "mainstream source" for all things related to medieval LITERATURE is what Joseph Campbell's Masters degree is qualified to opine on, to a certain extent. He was not a historical scholar in ancient history, nor did he earn a doctorate of any kind in biblical or ancient historiography. He "followed his bliss" and his bliss lead him to opine freely, but without facticity.

We agree on that point, right?

ant wrote:biblical or ancient historiography

who do you recommend ant?

who would be one or two of your favourite writers in the field of biblical or ancient historiography?

No, Ant. Campbell's books and lectures are structured in scholarship. When he opins something, he makes it clear that's what he's doing. Just because he breaks down Judeo-Christian myths and reveals pagan influence you'd like to find some way of discrediting him. Because you've blindly subscribed to Judeo-Christian belief and will not entertain an open minded or fair and balanced perspective. You'll simply deny and hand wave dismiss any one who doesn't agree with your religious views. As you've just tried doing to me here. Like I was saying, the four functions of myth are not opinion.

What exactly are you trying to argue?

I've only made a few brief statements. One is the four functions of a traditional mythology which outline why cosmological among other material exist in mythology. And the second is that mythology and religion were passed along and created by priestly classes, which in ancient times were the astronomers of the day. The third is that a tradition of esoteric interpretation for initiates and esoteric presentation for the uninitiated has passed down in knowledge over the years and has been lectured about by men like MP Hall, honorary 33rd degree Mason of the Scottish Rite.

I mention this because some people have questioned astrotheology. As if maybe it's entirely wishful thinking. It's one of 4 major functions found world wide in mythology and religion. The details and extent of it require close study. There are people freely claiming this or that which may not be part of it. Some burden of proof is required for making claims, of course. I have all sorts leads or possible finds that I may bring up but always in the context of speculation.

In John it's written "He who comes after me is greater than me, because He was before me." I wrote Dr. Price and consulted DM Murdock about this as a possible reference to the Platonic Great Year, or precession of the equinoxes. Because it seems to fit into the larger context of pression materialism the Bible. If Jesus personifies the age of Pisces and John is being used to personify the age of Aquarius, then during the annual yearly cycle Pisces comes after Aquarius (he who comes after me). But during the Great Year, Pisces could be viewed as greater than Aquarius because the movement is reversed and the age of Pisces switches roles and comes before the age of Aquarius (...because he was before me). That's an example of speculation about a possible astrotheological statement in the Bible, in a book well known for its use of Platonism started out with the Platonic Logos concept from the out set. The book of John seems oriented to making Gnostic ideas conform to the orthodoxy.

My speculation involves identifying possible cosmological function material, which would pertain to priests and scribes with an understanding of esoteric symbolism who could identify the references peppered through a surface storyline mythology. Its something worthy of looking into. I wouldn't suggest this as hard fact. I'm not ill-logical about it and I'm not treading on any logical fallacy. Logic would suggest that if this Gospel opens up with a reference to the well known Platonic Logos and tries identifying that back to Jesus, then we're dealing with a writer familiar with sophisticated philosophical material and wants to merge that philosophical material with the budding Christian religion. The whole book can be looked over with this in mind. And the most logical approach to take would be to consider the book on those terms. When doing that many things will pop out at you if you're well read enough to understand the possibilities...

A significant part of the N.T. is made up of the letters of the apostle Paul so how do mythicists and astro-theologists view and interpret Paul?

Elaine Pagels posits a "proto gnostic" Paul,and Robert Tulip an astro-theological Paul. For anyone who simply reads Paul's letters such views are astonishing.

How much clearer would he have needed to be in articulating his view on the distinction between the creator and creation or the futility of the pagan religions and their idols, which he dismisses as being nothing at all. and not comparable to the transcendent creator God.

The mythicists have an answer, which is that all this is just surface garbage for the "ignorant masses" and the real message is hidden coded astro-theology and gnostic thought with plenty of pagan myth in there, known to the "elite initiates."

Besides the letters of Paul there are accounts in Acts of Paul's interactions with Jews,Pagans and philosophically diverse Greeks.
Here's are a couple of examples of how he addresses these groups in Acts.

http://www.loveintruth.com/amf-docs/gpia-paul.htm

Was Paul influenced by the surrounding pagan religions and ideas of his time?

Here's a scholarly if lengthy Christian response to this thesis.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/classics ... -religion/ If interested click on the "Redemption in Pagan religion and Paul" chapter on the link

It's the methodology of mythicists that is problematic and here's why.

http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pd ... -1_057.pdf


I can easily show that D.B's assertion for example, that "Amen" is just a variant on the Egyptian "Amun" is mistaken,with references provided, but here I'm focusing on the bigger picture and the basic premises and methodology of the mythicists and why the thesis fails foundationally.

youkrst wrote:if Judgement falls on anyone it falls on that silly old shellfish banning thunder hurler Yahweh

i'm with Marcion on this one

Well you know, in the account of Noah God waited patiently giving plenty of time to them to change their ways, and didn't just fly off the handle.

I see that 'contradiction' about Paul's conversion experience in Acts, on another thread. I wonder if those who point to such things ever check online to see if there is a Christian response to this, and other alleged contradictions.

Probably not,and Hovind wouldn't be who I would expect to provide the best answer.

youkrst wrote:

ant wrote:biblical or ancient historiography

who do you recommend ant?

who would be one or two of your favourite writers in the field of biblical or ancient historiography?

Are you being serious about what credentials are appropriate here?
You act as if you're asking a bartender for a recommendation at some sleezy bar you want to get to like .

I looked at Campbell's academic credentials. Yet again, a myther that lacks the necessary scholarship that indicates he has paid his dues in the appropriate intellectual arena and is qualified to speak as an expert in his or here field.

I recommended you see a brain surgeon if youre going in for brain surgery, and not a dentist.

The pomposities of these so called "experts" are easy to unqualify.
Thats just the way it is.

There are obvious emotional and psychological motivators involved here.
Prophetizing these story tellers is wrong and insulting to academics that have paid their dues.

ant wrote:You act as if you're asking a bartender for a recommendation at some sleezy bar you want to get to like .

yeah, and you post like you've got sand in your vagina