David Mathisen is changing the way we think about Hercules |337|

[Nelson]

Thanks again to Alex and the Skeptiko community for having me over for a conversation about my work.

While the conversation at this point has taken some turns into questions of monotheism v polytheism, the validity of religion, and the general direction of the Skeptiko forum (which as a new participant I am not really qualified to opine upon), I very much appreciate the level of discourse that I've seen and the quality of insights and challenges that have been offered in engaging with my assertions and hypotheses.

I personally grow from engaging with different perspectives and rebuttals, and it helps me very much in my personal research and analysis. I also believe that when more than one person gathers around a subject to discuss it (even if "gathering around" in a virtual space as opposed to a campfire) then something emerges which is more than what could emerge from the individual participants researching or thinking by themselves in an isolated fashion (my mythical parallel for that is the myth of Kvasir in Norse myth, which I wrote about in a post here).

While we've gotten into some speculations and opinions, I would like to return to my first couple of posts here, where (in an effort to try to more clearly explain what I am talking about, as a response to comments that were saying things like "really not sure exactly what this guy is saying") I tried to emphasize that the main "provable" or "empirical" part of my research concerns the massive amount of evidence I've found suggesting that the world's myths are built upon a detailed system of celestial metaphor. This evidence is present in the myths themselves, which contain references that match directly with specific characteristics of certain constellations. The evidence is best seen when using the system of outlining the constellations that H. A. Rey published in 1952. The evidence is reinforced by artwork stretching back to ancient times which, I allege, matches up with the same characteristics which pertain to specific constellations. There is so much evidence to support the existence of this shared system of celestial metaphor that I feel it is difficult to dispute, if examined honestly and thoroughly (cursory dismissals should look at the full extent of the evidence across many cultures). It should also be pointed out that the existence of these connections have been understood (or at least sensed) by many writers in the past, even going back to ancient times.

From there, the rest of the interpretation and ramifications are subject to debate. I personally argue that this system appears to be a sophisticated metaphor which uses the heavenly cycles to portray the interplay of an invisible realm and this visible realm: the interaction of an infinite realm and a finite realm, a spirit world and the material world, a world of "potentiality" and a world of "manifestation," or an "implicate order" and an "explicate order." I find a lot of reasons to believe that this is part of what these ancient myths are doing -- but I could be wrong.

Other ramifications that appear to flow from the first "empirical" observations include the evidence that this system is extremely ancient -- arguing that it greatly predates earliest texts of ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia -- as well as the assertion that if the myths are all based on celestial metaphor then they probably were not originally intended to be understood literally. I believe that familiarity with the "language" of celestial metaphor can help us better understand what the myths are saying, if they are indeed speaking a language of celestial metaphor (as I believe the evidence strongly argues them to be). I further believe that if they are speaking a metaphorical and celestial language, then trying to filter their message through a lens that demands them to be speaking of literal, terrestrial history risks misinterpretation or even inversion of their message (I believe the "Revelation 12" video that was offered in a comment is evidence of this -- thank you for that question as I had not seen that particular video previously).

From there, we can go in many other directions, but those are some of the main aspects to what I'm trying to explore in my own research and writing.

Again, big thank you to Alex and to everyone for "having me over" to this space -- I think it is a very valuable and positive place to discuss important subjects!

_/\_

Well met, David. And the more I look into your research, the more I think you’re onto something - even a “GAME CHANGER”! (hat tip to Alex).

And further to this discussion, I want to add some points (much of this you’re familiar with, but I’ll try to describe it so others can understand too):

-As we talked about, the ancient Greek visual evidence is problematic. Something I didn’t mention was a loosely adhered to artistic convention in combat scenes where the victorious figure moves from right to left in a scene, so this can interfere with constellation pictures. But nevertheless, as you suggest, the literary evidence is more helpful, and I agree:

One myth that is especially convincing (maybe a video could be made on this one?): A story that is otherwise so odd, but that fits the astrotheological interpretation so well: the 2nd labor of Herakles, in which Herakles fights a hydra AND a giant crab (so the hydra constellation and crab/Cancer in the zodiac)...

Perhaps the original 12 labors of Herakles were all astrological, not just some of them, but when people made up other heroic adventures, the most entertaining ones became the standard 12. (This creative storytelling process is evident in Theseus’ 12 labors, which are like a one-upmanship of heroism to those of Herakles’ 12. This also parallels the one-upmanship in politics, of Athens (Theseus’ homeland) versus the Doric city-states (where Herakles was most popular).

-Another point: whether by oversight or conspiracy, virtually NO textbooks on mythology explore how and why the planets and the days of the week share the same names as the gods. They don’t even MENTION this. Yet this is very important, and I think it reaches far back into our culture/psyche... That is because these are about the only explicit polytheistic references that survived in mainstream culture, since the systematic iconoclasms under monotheistic rule. (As you probably know, the Christian takeover of Europe took place in phases. During a forced conversion, at first you only had to do a couple of things to prove you were now “Christian”. But over generations more obligations were added and more polytheistic elements of our culture became outlawed and/or replaced. There is also a pattern that the polytheistic elements, many of which were explicitly connected with events in the heavens, now became literalist and quite disconnected from the heavens (e.g. “Christmas” instead of Yule, “Saint John’s Day” for the Summer Solstice, etc.).

And if one looks for a paper trail about these elements of our polytheistic past (especially the surviving ones/the deepest ones(?), such as days of the week and planet names), we have almost NO evidence remaining. Why is this? How could this be? And to make matters worse, monotheists claim that THEY “saved” the ancient knowledge for us! (They just have to pretend that the following never happened: the destruction of ALL the collections of the Great Library of Alexandria, plus other libraries, plus the systematic iconoclasms, plus the murder of Hypatia and other polytheists who had knowledge of the collections, etc…)

-So here we are, ANNO 2017, with hardly any ancient evidence left, and what we do have is typically devoid of explicit references to the stars and planets.

Yet we DO know that when ancient polytheists reported about different cultures, they’d often make connections about the divinities: e.g. god X in Greece is called god Y in Egypt and god Z in Germania, etc. So despite differences in languages and variations in the sacred stories, the ancient polytheist authors believed there was an overall pattern between the divinities. (This is still evident in our days of the week in European cultures: e.g. English “Monday”/Moon day = “Lundi”/Moon day (French); “Tuesday”/Tiu’s day/Germanic god of war = “Mardi”/Mars’ day/Roman god of war; etc. (And one can go through lists of other European languages and days of the week too.) So there are corresponding gods and days of the week (and they also refer to the same bodies in the heavens?)...

-One other characteristically polytheistic element:

What was the first thing the Muses reportedly said to the ancient Greek poet Hesiod (someone who was up there with Homer as the most influential source on the gods):

“You shepherds of the wilderness, poor fools, nothing but bellies, we know how to say many false things that seem like true sayings, but we know also how to speak the truth when we wish to.”
(Theogony, lines 26-8, Lattimore translation)

The same message comes through in Homer’s Odyssey, when Athena praises Odysseus for making up stories (Odyssey 13.330). In the Odyssey, the work of bards is also praised. And it is the bards who tell the polytheistic “theology”. One should also imagine Homer’s Odyssey and Hesiod’s Theogony being recited musically in front of an audience. So in both these very influential works, the audience is told that some stories are true (to be taken literally) and some aren’t (a coded language for an allegory maybe)...

And another typically polytheistic element:

There was tolerance between versions of the sacred stories. For example, the birth of Aphrodite differs greatly between Homer and Hesiod, but to the ancients this was no problem.

In Hesiod’s “Works and Days”, the poet tells us of the beginnings of people: One sacred story is recited, and then the poet tells another story to describe the beginnings, as Hesiod said it:
“Or if you will, I will outline it for you in a different story”… (line 106, Lattimore translation).
So no problem. But this is in stark contrast to monotheism, in which people were/are killed over points of theology.

-If we are to understand the loss of the original meanings of myths, I believe there was a natural forgetting process combined with a creative process too. There is also a centuries-long process of anthropomorphism which obscures the original myths: e.g. Roman religion began without anthropomorphic gods, and likewise in Greek myth. The sky gods: Ouranos (lit. heaven, not anthropomorphic) was first, then Kronos (more anthropomorphic), then Zeus (very anthropomorphic). Also the sea gods: Okeanos (lit. Ocean, not anthropomorphic) was first, then Pontos, then Poseidon (very anthropomorphic)... This anthropomorphism made the sacred stories more exciting but it also obscured the original meaning based on the heavens and Earth...

But then there is evidence of an INTENTIONAL obscuring, and this appears with monotheism.

-Akhenaton, the Egyptian pharaoh who propagated what seems to have been the first monotheism in history, the exclusive worship of the Sun... and in common with other monotheisms, Akhenaton began a campaign to destroy polytheistic temples, priesthoods, etc. So the Sun at the expense of the planets and constellations(?)…

Note also that during his reign, Akhenaton allowed a nomadic tribe called the Apiru (which some identify as the Habiru/Hebrews) to invade Egyptian-controlled Palestine, despite repeated pleas from local governors (as found in the famous Amarna letters). So an alliance of monotheism against polytheism?...

This may sound far-fetched, but it also seems to be paralleled centuries later, in what seems to have been an alliance between Christianity and Sol Invictus (again, like Akhenaton’s religion, explicit Sun worship!), in the monotheistic takeover of the Roman Empire…

 

[E.Flowers]

As one of the people whose grounding introduction to these subjects was the work of Joseph Campbell back in my teens, I have a similar response when listening to this podcast as I do to the 'ancient alien' thing.

The problem is that there is this perfectly plausible explanation for the recurrence of these mythic motifs and themes among ancient cultures which had no direct interaction with each other that is grounded in the nature of our shared human psyche. As many people will know, Campbell borrowed heavily from Jung's ideas of essentially universal archetypes buried in the human unconscious.

It's almost as if this very plausible premise, which has been around for about a century now, came too early and just gets in the way for people who find even more esoteric, spookier explanations more appealing.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Campbell's and Jung's ideas are the final word on the matter or that other explanations shouldn't be considered or explored. But the total absence of these very established, comparatively non-spooky theories from the discussion suggests a too convenient omission of what some may consider a superior explanatory mechanism.

Jung was quite the esoteric man though, he was one of the first stops in my road away from a lifetime of standard materialism and a clear departure from Freudian ideas.

 

[Typoz]

The problem is that there is this perfectly plausible explanation for the recurrence of these mythic motifs and themes among ancient cultures which had no direct interaction with each other that is grounded in the nature of our shared human psyche. As many people will know, Campbell borrowed heavily from Jung's ideas of essentially universal archetypes buried in the human unconscious.

I have a good deal of respect for Jung's ideas. I've also considered that another perspective on so-called 'universal archetypes' could lie in the field of reincarnation. If one considers reincarnation possible, then it provides a means for ideas to propagate across both time and space without any conventional means of communication. To some extent I can't necessarily separate this idea from that of Jung's archetypes, they may be facets of the same phenomenon.

 

[Michael Larkin]

As one of the people whose grounding introduction to these subjects was the work of Joseph Campbell back in my teens, I have a similar response when listening to this podcast as I do to the 'ancient alien' thing.

The problem is that there is this perfectly plausible explanation for the recurrence of these mythic motifs and themes among ancient cultures which had no direct interaction with each other that is grounded in the nature of our shared human psyche. As many people will know, Campbell borrowed heavily from Jung's ideas of essentially universal archetypes buried in the human unconscious.

It's almost as if this very plausible premise, which has been around for about a century now, came too early and just gets in the way for people who find even more esoteric, spookier explanations more appealing.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Campbell's and Jung's ideas are the final word on the matter or that other explanations shouldn't be considered or explored. But the total absence of these very established, comparatively non-spooky theories from the discussion suggests a too convenient omission of what some may consider a superior explanatory mechanism.

You say "comparatively non spooky". Something is either spooky or not spooky unless one claims there exists a spectrum from completely spooky to completely non-spooky. I could maintain it's spooky to claim that people are able to access information from our shared human psyche without actual physical contact between them.

Please note that I'm not excluding the possibility of a collective unconscious having some role to play, only that if it does, it's decidedly an immaterial, spooky explanation.

 

[E.Flowers]

You say "comparatively non spooky". Something is either spooky or not spooky unless one claims there exists a spectrum from completely spooky to completely non-spooky. I could maintain it's spooky to claim that people are able to access information from our shared human psyche without actual physical contact between them.

Please note that I'm not excluding the possibility of a collective unconscious having some role to play, only that if it does, it's decidedly an immaterial, spooky explanation.

Let's remember that Jung was a man that had brushes with all sorts of weird happenings, which he recorded for posterity, and who had some unorthodox beliefs for his time. I don't think that he would be decidedly against the collective unconscious being immaterial, as he believed that "God" was among these archetypes and he expressed credulity about things like demonic possession.

 

[Michael Larkin]

I have a good deal of respect for Jung's ideas. I've also considered that another perspective on so-called 'universal archetypes' could lie in the field of reincarnation. If one considers reincarnation possible, then it provides a means for ideas to propagate across both time and space without any conventional means of communication. To some extent I can't necessarily separate this idea from that of Jung's archetypes, they may be facets of the same phenomenon.

This is something I've never thought of before. Thanks.

 

[Michael Harris]

You say "comparatively non spooky". Something is either spooky or not spooky unless one claims there exists a spectrum from completely spooky to completely non-spooky. I could maintain it's spooky to claim that people are able to access information from our shared human psyche without actual physical contact between them.

Please note that I'm not excluding the possibility of a collective unconscious having some role to play, only that if it does, it's decidedly an immaterial, spooky explanation.

Yes, I was attempting to acknowledge that Jung's theories about this would appear pretty 'out there' (spooky) to the average, reflexively materialist person who might be unfamiliar with this stuff. But Jung's ideas are part of the 'canon' if you will on the subject... so the degree to which his ideas are established, familiar and taken seriously puts them closer to the mainstream and therefore 'less spooky' to people... compared to notions of aliens imposing themselves on ancient peoples or whatever it is that Mathisen is suggesting (which admittedly, I found difficult to discern from the interview. I felt like Alex spent most of the interview trying to get him to pin down specifically what his claim is... but Mathisen kept wandering off on various tangents. At least that was how it seemed to me... maybe you had a different take on it).

In a sense, there is a 'spectrum of spookiness'. Like I said, your average reflexively materialist person will happily accept an extremely 'spooky' concept like a 'multiverse' for which there isn't even any evidence... or spooky quantum effects like entanglement because they have the imprimatur of mainstream science. But that same person will likely reject as a matter of course things like NDE science, PSI research or non-materialist explanations for consciousness. Why? WAY too spooky.

 

[Michael Harris]

Jung was quite the esoteric man though, he was one of the first stops in my road away from a lifetime of standard materialism and a clear departure from Freudian ideas.

Yes. I agree. That's why I said "even more" esoteric explanations.

 

[Nelson]

For evidence of the other gods (/planets and stars?) being erased from the religions/myths, you can see David Mathisen's website here:
http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/07/commodus-and-marcus-aurelius.html?rq=commodus
&
http://mathisencorollary.blogspot.de/2014/06/ten-reasons-to-suspect-close-connection.html

Whether or not one agrees with this research, it is hard to overestimate the importance of this period of history: the transition from antiquity to the dark ages/destruction of knowledge. And the effects are with us to this day.

PS: even looking at wikipedia, the content in the links above are salient there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus
e.g. "According to the Historia Augusta, Elagabalus, the teenaged Severan heir, adopted the name of his deity and brought his cult image from Emesa to Rome. Once installed as emperor, he neglected Rome's traditional State deities and promoted his own as Rome's most powerful deity."
&
"Emperors portrayed Sol Invictus on their official coinage, with a wide range of legends, only a few of which incorporated the epithet invictus, such as the legend SOLI INVICTO COMITI, claiming the Unconquered Sun as a companion to the Emperor, used with particular frequency by Constantine."

 

[dwm]

Well met, David. And the more I look into your research, the more I think you’re onto something - even a “GAME CHANGER”! (hat tip to Alex).

And further to this discussion, I want to add some points (much of this you’re familiar with, but I’ll try to describe it so others can understand too):

-As we talked about, the ancient Greek visual evidence is problematic. Something I didn’t mention was a loosely adhered to artistic convention in combat scenes where the victorious figure moves from right to left in a scene, so this can interfere with constellation pictures. But nevertheless, as you suggest, the literary evidence is more helpful, and I agree:

One myth that is especially convincing (maybe a video could be made on this one?): A story that is otherwise so odd, but that fits the astrotheological interpretation so well: the 2nd labor of Herakles, in which Herakles fights a hydra AND a giant crab (so the hydra constellation and crab/Cancer in the zodiac)...

Perhaps the original 12 labors of Herakles were all astrological, not just some of them, but when people made up other heroic adventures, the most entertaining ones became the standard 12. (This creative storytelling process is evident in Theseus’ 12 labors, which are like a one-upmanship of heroism to those of Herakles’ 12. This also parallels the one-upmanship in politics, of Athens (Theseus’ homeland) versus the Doric city-states (where Herakles was most popular).

-Another point: whether by oversight or conspiracy, virtually NO textbooks on mythology explore how and why the planets and the days of the week share the same names as the gods. They don’t even MENTION this. Yet this is very important, and I think it reaches far back into our culture/psyche... That is because these are about the only explicit polytheistic references that survived in mainstream culture, since the systematic iconoclasms under monotheistic rule. (As you probably know, the Christian takeover of Europe took place in phases. During a forced conversion, at first you only had to do a couple of things to prove you were now “Christian”. But over generations more obligations were added and more polytheistic elements of our culture became outlawed and/or replaced. There is also a pattern that the polytheistic elements, many of which were explicitly connected with events in the heavens, now became literalist and quite disconnected from the heavens (e.g. “Christmas” instead of Yule, “Saint John’s Day” for the Summer Solstice, etc.).

And if one looks for a paper trail about these elements of our polytheistic past (especially the surviving ones/the deepest ones(?), such as days of the week and planet names), we have almost NO evidence remaining. Why is this? How could this be? And to make matters worse, monotheists claim that THEY “saved” the ancient knowledge for us! (They just have to pretend that the following never happened: the destruction of ALL the collections of the Great Library of Alexandria, plus other libraries, plus the systematic iconoclasms, plus the murder of Hypatia and other polytheists who had knowledge of the collections, etc…)

-So here we are, ANNO 2017, with hardly any ancient evidence left, and what we do have is typically devoid of explicit references to the stars and planets.

Yet we DO know that when ancient polytheists reported about different cultures, they’d often make connections about the divinities: e.g. god X in Greece is called god Y in Egypt and god Z in Germania, etc. So despite differences in languages and variations in the sacred stories, the ancient polytheist authors believed there was an overall pattern between the divinities. (This is still evident in our days of the week in European cultures: e.g. English “Monday”/Moon day = “Lundi”/Moon day (French); “Tuesday”/Tiu’s day/Germanic god of war = “Mardi”/Mars’ day/Roman god of war; etc. (And one can go through lists of other European languages and days of the week too.) So there are corresponding gods and days of the week (and they also refer to the same bodies in the heavens?)...

-One other characteristically polytheistic element:

What was the first thing the Muses reportedly said to the ancient Greek poet Hesiod (someone who was up there with Homer as the most influential source on the gods):

“You shepherds of the wilderness, poor fools, nothing but bellies, we know how to say many false things that seem like true sayings, but we know also how to speak the truth when we wish to.”
(Theogony, lines 26-8, Lattimore translation)

The same message comes through in Homer’s Odyssey, when Athena praises Odysseus for making up stories (Odyssey 13.330). In the Odyssey, the work of bards is also praised. And it is the bards who tell the polytheistic “theology”. One should also imagine Homer’s Odyssey and Hesiod’s Theogony being recited musically in front of an audience. So in both these very influential works, the audience is told that some stories are true (to be taken literally) and some aren’t (a coded language for an allegory maybe)...

And another typically polytheistic element:

There was tolerance between versions of the sacred stories. For example, the birth of Aphrodite differs greatly between Homer and Hesiod, but to the ancients this was no problem.

In Hesiod’s “Works and Days”, the poet tells us of the beginnings of people: One sacred story is recited, and then the poet tells another story to describe the beginnings, as Hesiod said it:
“Or if you will, I will outline it for you in a different story”… (line 106, Lattimore translation).
So no problem. But this is in stark contrast to monotheism, in which people were/are killed over points of theology.

-If we are to understand the loss of the original meanings of myths, I believe there was a natural forgetting process combined with a creative process too. There is also a centuries-long process of anthropomorphism which obscures the original myths: e.g. Roman religion began without anthropomorphic gods, and likewise in Greek myth. The sky gods: Ouranos (lit. heaven, not anthropomorphic) was first, then Kronos (more anthropomorphic), then Zeus (very anthropomorphic). Also the sea gods: Okeanos (lit. Ocean, not anthropomorphic) was first, then Pontos, then Poseidon (very anthropomorphic)... This anthropomorphism made the sacred stories more exciting but it also obscured the original meaning based on the heavens and Earth...

But then there is evidence of an INTENTIONAL obscuring, and this appears with monotheism.

-Akhenaton, the Egyptian pharaoh who propagated what seems to have been the first monotheism in history, the exclusive worship of the Sun... and in common with other monotheisms, Akhenaton began a campaign to destroy polytheistic temples, priesthoods, etc. So the Sun at the expense of the planets and constellations(?)…

Note also that during his reign, Akhenaton allowed a nomadic tribe called the Apiru (which some identify as the Habiru/Hebrews) to invade Egyptian-controlled Palestine, despite repeated pleas from local governors (as found in the famous Amarna letters). So an alliance of monotheism against polytheism?...

This may sound far-fetched, but it also seems to be paralleled centuries later, in what seems to have been an alliance between Christianity and Sol Invictus (again, like Akhenaton’s religion, explicit Sun worship!), in the monotheistic takeover of the Roman Empire…

Thank you Nelson -- these are good points that you raise. I agree with much of it -- the points about there not being a perceived problem among the ancients regarding different "versions" of a well-known myth is a very good one, and one that I have also made previously in order to point out the difference between literalistic interpretation and more esoteric interpretation (you characterize it as a difference between "monotheism" and "polytheism" but either way the point is well taken). An example I have also used in this regard is the baptism of Achilles (or "failed baptism" of Achilles -- a pattern found in other myths around the world, in which a baptism that is supposed to make someone invulnerable, but because a small point is missed during the procedure, the invulnerability is incomplete). In some accounts, baby Achilles is dipped into the Styx, and in others into a fire. But this did not seem to trouble the ancient Greeks -- whereas literalists will argue (and have argued) heatedly and for centuries over whether or not Jesus had any siblings, for example.

Regarding your interesting assertion that there was a progression towards greater anthropomorphism, I would take exception to the argument that Kronos is less anthropomorphic than Zeus -- although I would say you could certainly argue that Kronos is more anthropomorphic than Ouranos. In Star Myths Volume Two (myths of ancient Greece) I discuss the celestial identities of both Zeus and Kronos (and Poseidon as well), and which specific constellations I believe correspond to those entities. The sickle with which Kronos castrates Ouranos is very clearly visible in the night sky -- which argues (to me) that perhaps Ouranos might not necessarily be an "earlier" myth that was later "obscured" by a more anthropomorphic version -- but you raise a good point which would certainly be fruitful to pursue further.

I also completely agree with you on the correspondence between the deities of different cultures and the certainty the ancients had when identifying their corresponding deities in one or another culture -- and the fact that these correspondences are maintained in the names we still use for the days of the week (in different languages).

I believe that based on the evidence we have available at this time, there was probably a very ancient culture that originated these myths (probably predating earliest Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts by several thousand years) which experienced a cataclysmic event, causing a loss of some (or much) of the original system. The evidence at Gobekli Tepe (which appears to have been completed by about 10,000 BC and then deliberately buried by about 9,000 or 8,000 BC) suggests this, as Dr. Robert Schoch has discussed in his most recent work (and as Graham Hancock and others have also discussed in their analysis and research). When humanity emerged several thousand years later, some understanding of the ancient system remained -- and appears to have survived in cultures not conquered by the Roman Empire, such as the cultures of China, India, Japan, Africa, Australia, the Americas, the Pacific Islands, and the shamanic cultures of Asia, etc. It also survived to some degree in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia and ancient Greece and the pre-Christian cultures of Europe -- but was ruthlessly stamped out during the takeover of literalist Christianity. Some streams of it went underground in the west and tried to survive that way. As you point out, the Sol Invictus or Mithraic cult appears to be a little understood but critical component in that takeover (Mithraism and Christianity are usually portrayed as "early rivals" but this is almost certainly mistaken).

Very glad to have made your acquaintance. I'd invite you to check out the many illustrations in the Star Myths of the World series, particularly those in Volumes Two and Three, to see if you don't agree that there has been a long-standing tradition of incorporating specific constellational features into artistic depiction of mythical subjects (including by artists treating Biblical subjects down through the centuries). I'm open to the possibility that I may be wrong about some of them, but the evidence is (I believe) overwhelming that the system was somehow being passed down through artistic convention (whether formally or informally is difficult to say, and whether or not the connection to the constellations themselves was actually explained to the artists is similarly unknown and I would say probably unknowable). Perhaps with your background in ancient art you will be able to advance this examination further!

Best regards,

David

 

[dwm]

Yes, I was attempting to acknowledge that Jung's theories about this would appear pretty 'out there' (spooky) to the average, reflexively materialist person who might be unfamiliar with this stuff. But Jung's ideas are part of the 'canon' if you will on the subject... so the degree to which his ideas are established, familiar and taken seriously puts them closer to the mainstream and therefore 'less spooky' to people... compared to notions of aliens imposing themselves on ancient peoples or whatever it is that Mathisen is suggesting (which admittedly, I found difficult to discern from the interview. I felt like Alex spent most of the interview trying to get him to pin down specifically what his claim is... but Mathisen kept wandering off on various tangents. At least that was how it seemed to me... maybe you had a different take on it).

In a sense, there is a 'spectrum of spookiness'. Like I said, your average reflexively materialist person will happily accept an extremely 'spooky' concept like a 'multiverse' for which there isn't even any evidence... or spooky quantum effects like entanglement because they have the imprimatur of mainstream science. But that same person will likely reject as a matter of course things like NDE science, PSI research or non-materialist explanations for consciousness. Why? WAY too spooky.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone can honestly say that it is "difficult to pin me down" about "specifically what my claim is." In case this interview did not make it clear, I have spelled it out (with bullet points) in numerous posts on this forum. There is also a fully-searchable blog with over nine hundred entries if you wish to explore it. I freely admit to "wandering off on various tangents," but to say that the core of what I am claiming or asserting has not been made abundantly clear is, in my opinion, completely disingenuous.

If you are still unclear about what it is I am asserting, please ask for clarification on what you do not understand.

Here it is again in a single sentence:

The ancient myths, scriptures, and sacred stories of virtually every culture on every inhabited continent of our planet (as well as all the islands) can be shown to be built upon a common foundation of extremely specific celestial metaphor.

The ramifications of that assertion are fairly far-reaching.

If you actually listened to the interview, you will find that "notions of aliens imposing themselves on ancient people" was never asserted by me -- and in fact I stated several times in the interview that I do not assert that in my work. I'm really not sure how you misunderstood that, but perhaps you didn't actually listen to the interview. If not, please don't misrepresent my position and then say I didn't make myself clear.

 

[Alan Amsberg]

A question for David. I understand your idea of celestial metaphor. I fully understand how it fits with myths from antiquity and indigenous peoples. Makes sense. The origin is very difficult to pin down but perhaps the myths just go all the way back to the original people coming out of Africa. I don't know.

What I don't understand is this. What is the origin of this stuff in more modern stuff like the New Testament? For example, there are numerous specific places mentioned in the New Testament (some examples about the Apostle Paul are at http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/apostle-paul-all-cities-visited-map.html).

So, what I am saying is that mundane facts like Paul visited such and such a place give credence to the idea that Paul was a real person. That makes him very different from Hercules or Zeus. He is then relating events that are quite recent to the people he meets. You can then argue (as Alex does) that Paul is hijacked farther down the road by the Romans who twist things in ways they prefer but the bottom line is it makes sense that i) he existed ii) he taught some stuff about Jesus (whatever that stuff might have been).

How does this fit in with your ideas? You could say that Paul was versed in the myths and telling stories based on them but if this were true then I think this would be more explicit. It would be no secret that it had something to do with the constellations.

So, basically I am saying New Testament stuff has a different feel to it than myths. For example, in myths only salient parts of the story are mentioned and places visited are mythological or symbolic or famous. The places are not some obscure town or village. These little facts point to a real person. You might argue that he is peddling some new myths but I don't think that makes sense. Myths are not manufactured by one person and then peddled. They are built up over time in large groups of people.

One can argue that Jesus has been embellished and that, perhaps, he was an ordinary human but a bit of a self proclaimed prophet who then got himself killed and then stories started circulating about him etc etc etc. You can then say that the Romans stuck in some stuff that was convenient to them but to me it makes no sense to say these events are mythological.

So, would you argue that Paul was a myth?

If he isn't a myth, is he then steeped in some astrological tradition and he is then making up stories with links into this? Why wouldn't he just openly reference this tradition? Why would he do this so energetically? When myths are told I think the story tellers know they are stories and so while they are meaningful and important there is not this kind of urgency to the telling that you see in the New Testament. They are "whenever" stories. One does not need to preach them.

Anyway. Just some thoughts.

Really, I suppose I need to consider the raw data properly so I can judge for myself. Pity that is so much work! There are too many books to read.

Finally, I suppose there is another idea - that there are real supernatural events here and that the author of these events (God?) chooses to hit on these celestial analogs deliberately.

 

[dwm]

A question for David. I understand your idea of celestial metaphor. I fully understand how it fits with myths from antiquity and indigenous peoples. Makes sense. The origin is very difficult to pin down but perhaps the myths just go all the way back to the original people coming out of Africa. I don't know.

What I don't understand is this. What is the origin of this stuff in more modern stuff like the New Testament? For example, there are numerous specific places mentioned in the New Testament (some examples about the Apostle Paul are at http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/apostle-paul-all-cities-visited-map.html).

So, what I am saying is that mundane facts like Paul visited such and such a place give credence to the idea that Paul was a real person. That makes him very different from Hercules or Zeus. He is then relating events that are quite recent to the people he meets. You can then argue (as Alex does) that Paul is hijacked farther down the road by the Romans who twist things in ways they prefer but the bottom line is it makes sense that i) he existed ii) he taught some stuff about Jesus (whatever that stuff might have been).

How does this fit in with your ideas? You could say that Paul was versed in the myths and telling stories based on them but if this were true then I think this would be more explicit. It would be no secret that it had something to do with the constellations.

So, basically I am saying New Testament stuff has a different feel to it than myths. For example, in myths only salient parts of the story are mentioned and places visited are mythological or symbolic or famous. The places are not some obscure town or village. These little facts point to a real person. You might argue that he is peddling some new myths but I don't think that makes sense. Myths are not manufactured by one person and then peddled. They are built up over time in large groups of people.

One can argue that Jesus has been embellished and that, perhaps, he was an ordinary human but a bit of a self proclaimed prophet who then got himself killed and then stories started circulating about him etc etc etc. You can then say that the Romans stuck in some stuff that was convenient to them but to me it makes no sense to say these events are mythological.

So, would you argue that Paul was a myth?

If he isn't a myth, is he then steeped in some astrological tradition and he is then making up stories with links into this? Why wouldn't he just openly reference this tradition? Why would he do this so energetically? When myths are told I think the story tellers know they are stories and so while they are meaningful and important there is not this kind of urgency to the telling that you see in the New Testament. They are "whenever" stories. One does not need to preach them.

Anyway. Just some thoughts.

Really, I suppose I need to consider the raw data properly so I can judge for myself. Pity that is so much work! There are too many books to read.

Finally, I suppose there is another idea - that there are real supernatural events here and that the author of these events (God?) chooses to hit on these celestial analogs deliberately.

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your questions.

I'll start by saying that I don't know -- I wasn't there. Or, if I was there it was in a previous incarnation, the details of which are now too fuzzy to comment upon with any specificity!

However, that said, I have reached some conclusions based on my own research and analysis -- take them for what they are worth.

By the way, I discuss much of this at length in The Undying Stars (2014), with more supporting evidence etc.

We should be careful to distinguish places and encounters that the writer calling himself "Paul" describes (which I do believe are historical) versus the stories related in the gospel accounts and the book of Acts (which I believe are updated versions of myth, sometimes with historical place-names thrown in).

I believe the New Testament stories are updated versions of much older versions of this same worldwide pattern that I have been discussing. There are some very clear connections to the ancient Egyptian version of the system in the New Testament accounts (Osiris or Azar corresponds to Lazarus, for example, restored by the Son who is Horus in the Egyptian myth-system). I believe that esoteric teachings using these newer names and versions were being studied and circulated from a Gnostic (not a literal) perspective prior to the rise of literalism -- and I believe that the rise of literalism may have been orchestrated in part to contain and then suppress the Gnostic understanding of these stories which was being taught by persons including Paul (perhaps especially Paul).

Some previous researchers, including Gerald Massey and Alvin Boyd Kuhn, have suggested that Paul (who by his own admission was a Pharisee of Pharisees, and thus highly educated in the scriptures and probably privy to their esoteric meaning) began to divulge the ancient mysteries -- and not from a literalistic perspective either. This move may have horrified certain people who did not want their meaning to be divulged to the wider populace.

The rise of a very intolerant literalistic and hierarchical church may have been an attempt at "damage control" by those who did not want the esoteric material taught to anyone who was thirsting for it (whether male or female, slave or free, Greek or non-Greek, Jew or Gentile, etc). Later some alteration of the stories to try to historicize or literalize what are actually very ancient and esoteric stories may have been added, when the "canon" was set. We know from the Nag Hammadi discovery that only a small selection of existing texts were deemed by the literalizers to be safe enough to include in the "canon" we have today.

It is also likely that some of Paul's letters were altered at certain points to sound as though he were teaching literalistic doctrine. He himself warns against those who would alter his teachings and his writings to try to fool those he had already taught. Freke and Gandy have some good discussion in this vein.

I would suggest that whoever was establishing the "literalist" counter-intelligence operation was almost certainly well-versed in the actual ancient system. The most likely candidates include Josephus and his fellow priests (and there is some historical evidence to support this suspicion). The system known as Mithraism or the Sol Invictus cult was almost certainly part of the operation.

You may wish to consult some of my blog posts on this subject, as well as The Undying Stars. Some of those posts include

"The discovery of the Nag Hammadi library"

"Paul the Gnostic opponent of Literalism"

and

"Who is Doubting Thomas"

among others.

You may also find Star Myths of the Bible to be helpful, in showing the clear evidence that the New Testament material as well as the Old Testament shares common elements with the myths of ancient Greece and of ancient Egypt and of ancient India, and that the New Testament stories are built upon the same esoteric and celestial system that underlies the other myths found around the globe.

 

[Nelson]

Regarding your interesting assertion that there was a progression towards greater anthropomorphism, I would take exception to the argument that Kronos is less anthropomorphic than Zeus -- although I would say you could certainly argue that Kronos is more anthropomorphic than Ouranos.

Point taken, and I think what you say is correct. And just because there are less myths about Kronos than Zeus, it doesn't mean Kronos is less anthropomorphic.

As I'm sure you know (so mainly for other readers), the ancients would typically trace the meaning(s) of divinities back to their etymology: e.g. "Ouranos" literally means "heaven" (and, leaving aside Velikovsky's theory, the planet Uranus was not visible without a telescope); "Kronos" literally means "time"; and "Zeus" in ancient Greek was pronounced "Zdeus", so one can see the closeness to the Latin word "deus", and also related words in other languages such as "deva" (Sanskrit), "Tivar" (Germanic), etc. which all have a meaning of something that shines.

David, I'm glad you keep referencing Gobekli Tepe, because that archaeological find isn't well known enough, and it blows out of the water the mainstream timeline on the "progress" of civilization.

Btw, I looked up at Orion yesterday evening, and your research really inspires one to appreciate the heavens more.

Thank you, and I'll keep in touch.

Nelson

 

[Alan Amsberg]

I'll start by saying that I don't know -- I wasn't there. Or, if I was there it was in a previous incarnation, the details of which are now too fuzzy to comment upon with any specificity!

Yes, of course!

However, that said, I have reached some conclusions based on my own research and analysis -- take them for what they are worth.

By the way, I discuss much of this at length in The Undying Stars (2014), with more supporting evidence etc.

We should be careful to distinguish places and encounters that the writer calling himself "Paul" describes (which I do believe are historical) versus the stories related in the gospel accounts and the book of Acts (which I believe are updated versions of myth, sometimes with historical place-names thrown in).

I believe the New Testament stories are updated versions of much older versions of this same worldwide pattern that I have been discussing. There are some very clear connections to the ancient Egyptian version of the system in the New Testament accounts (Osiris or Azar corresponds to Lazarus, for example, restored by the Son who is Horus in the Egyptian myth-system). I believe that esoteric teachings using these newer names and versions were being studied and circulated from a Gnostic (not a literal) perspective prior to the rise of literalism -- and I believe that the rise of literalism may have been orchestrated in part to contain and then suppress the Gnostic understanding of these stories which was being taught by persons including Paul (perhaps especially Paul).

Very interesting. Yes. In all this stuff, the Gnostics keep coming up. There is something very important there.

The rise of a very intolerant literalistic and hierarchical church may have been an attempt at "damage control" by those who did not want the esoteric material taught to anyone who was thirsting for it (whether male or female, slave or free, Greek or non-Greek, Jew or Gentile, etc).

Very interesting.

I would suggest that whoever was establishing the "literalist" counter-intelligence operation was almost certainly well-versed in the actual ancient system. The most likely candidates include Josephus and his fellow priests (and there is some historical evidence to support this suspicion). The system known as Mithraism or the Sol Invictus cult was almost certainly part of the operation.

Interesting.

You may wish to consult some of my blog posts on this subject, as well as The Undying Stars. Some of those posts include

"The discovery of the Nag Hammadi library"

"Paul the Gnostic opponent of Literalism"

.

I will do. Very interesting. While on the topic of Paul, you might want to check out Alex's previous podcast which is, allegedly, an interview with the man himself:
http://skeptiko.com/122-reincarnation-of-apostle-paul-nick-bunick-scrutinized/

My personal opinion on Nick is that there is something very interesting going on here. Clearly Nick believes what he says and his book is very interesting indeed. I don't know if he is Paul but I am convinced that he did have a number of very powerful supernatural events.

In a way, I am also convinced by Nick for the same reasons. In the second half of his book, he has a long transcript of hypnotically recovered "memories" of when he is Paul. These are quite different from, for example, channelled stuff which invariably is full of vague mumbo jumbo. Nick's memories are chock-a-block with specific places. In my opinion there are only two possibilities here. One is that he (and a number of others who are involved with the book) is a fraud and made it all up while consulting a biblical atlas. The other is that it is of supernatural origin. When you look into Nick you find that this idea of him making it up makes absolutely no sense with his actions over the last 20 years. He clearly believes what he says so I am left with the conclusion that there is a supernatural origin to the material.

 

[Alex]

It's not "for better or for worse" - it's just 'following the data'. Either he is or he isn't.

exactly!

 

[Alex]

There are facts about everything. The question is more whether you want to pare back any bias/belief you might have to look at the baseline.

• Person X claimed to see Y on date Z
• Person X described an experience in the following manner....
• Person Y was with Person X at the time they claimed the experience and verified/denied/contradicted/supported the account
• Etc....

- physical evidence collected (e.g. trees clipped, earth scorched, substances left behind
- instrumentation... radar readings, electromagnetic readings etc.

 

[Alex]

Thanks again to Alex and the Skeptiko community for having me over for a conversation about my work.

While the conversation at this point has taken some turns into questions of monotheism v polytheism, the validity of religion, and the general direction of the Skeptiko forum (which as a new participant I am not really qualified to opine upon), I very much appreciate the level of discourse that I've seen and the quality of insights and challenges that have been offered in engaging with my assertions and hypotheses.

I personally grow from engaging with different perspectives and rebuttals, and it helps me very much in my personal research and analysis. I also believe that when more than one person gathers around a subject to discuss it (even if "gathering around" in a virtual space as opposed to a campfire) then something emerges which is more than what could emerge from the individual participants researching or thinking by themselves in an isolated fashion (my mythical parallel for that is the myth of Kvasir in Norse myth, which I wrote about in a post here).

While we've gotten into some speculations and opinions, I would like to return to my first couple of posts here, where (in an effort to try to more clearly explain what I am talking about, as a response to comments that were saying things like "really not sure exactly what this guy is saying") I tried to emphasize that the main "provable" or "empirical" part of my research concerns the massive amount of evidence I've found suggesting that the world's myths are built upon a detailed system of celestial metaphor. This evidence is present in the myths themselves, which contain references that match directly with specific characteristics of certain constellations. The evidence is best seen when using the system of outlining the constellations that H. A. Rey published in 1952. The evidence is reinforced by artwork stretching back to ancient times which, I allege, matches up with the same characteristics which pertain to specific constellations. There is so much evidence to support the existence of this shared system of celestial metaphor that I feel it is difficult to dispute, if examined honestly and thoroughly (cursory dismissals should look at the full extent of the evidence across many cultures). It should also be pointed out that the existence of these connections have been understood (or at least sensed) by many writers in the past, even going back to ancient times.

From there, the rest of the interpretation and ramifications are subject to debate. I personally argue that this system appears to be a sophisticated metaphor which uses the heavenly cycles to portray the interplay of an invisible realm and this visible realm: the interaction of an infinite realm and a finite realm, a spirit world and the material world, a world of "potentiality" and a world of "manifestation," or an "implicate order" and an "explicate order." I find a lot of reasons to believe that this is part of what these ancient myths are doing -- but I could be wrong.

Other ramifications that appear to flow from the first "empirical" observations include the evidence that this system is extremely ancient -- arguing that it greatly predates earliest texts of ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia -- as well as the assertion that if the myths are all based on celestial metaphor then they probably were not originally intended to be understood literally. I believe that familiarity with the "language" of celestial metaphor can help us better understand what the myths are saying, if they are indeed speaking a language of celestial metaphor (as I believe the evidence strongly argues them to be). I further believe that if they are speaking a metaphorical and celestial language, then trying to filter their message through a lens that demands them to be speaking of literal, terrestrial history risks misinterpretation or even inversion of their message (I believe the "Revelation 12" video that was offered in a comment is evidence of this -- thank you for that question as I had not seen that particular video previously).

From there, we can go in many other directions, but those are some of the main aspects to what I'm trying to explore in my own research and writing.

Again, big thank you to Alex and to everyone for "having me over" to this space -- I think it is a very valuable and positive place to discuss important subjects!

_/\_

thx a bunch for contributing to the forum like you have. do you always over-deliver? books -- yes. podcast interview -- yes. forum -- yes. well, maybe I have my answer :)

 

[Alex]

The problem is that there is this perfectly plausible explanation for the recurrence of these mythic motifs and themes among ancient cultures which had no direct interaction with each other that is grounded in the nature of our shared human psyche.

I get this, but there's an element of "give me one miracle and I can explain the rest" to this explanation. so, we have a bunch of different phenomena, and a bunch of different data points... what's the best fit?

 

[Nelson]

Yes. In all this stuff, the Gnostics keep coming up. There is something very important there.

I agree. And it's interesting how C.G. Jung was also influenced by this and wrote a poem inspired by it called "Septem Sermones ad Mortuos" (Seven Sermons to the Dead). Very esoteric, if you will. It seems it was so esoteric that Jung later tried to distance himself from it. Anyway, it's a shame we now only have such few remains of ancient gnosticism, such as how David described, by the heresiologists and in the Nag Hammadi collection.

What I find comforting in the Nag Hammadi library is that there can be a form of Christianity in which dichotomies such as "believer"/"infidel", "orthodoxy"/"heresy" seem irrelevant. If religious institutions and their followers who still believe in such dichotomies could move thoroughly beyond such categorizations then that would be a relief.

Though then again, looking at history, maybe there isn't much room for cheer, because we all know what happened to the poor gnostics.