Hercules and Jesus

[David Mo]

Yes it was! Remember, astronomers had been using a geocentric model (Ptomely's and derivations of it) since the Second Century CE for calculations, and the model worked.
There was also the problem of the lack of parallax with the stars under a heliocentric model. This problem was only resolved in the 19th C, 200 years after Galileo, when parallax with a star was finally observed. In Galileo's time, they didn't have the technology to prove this.
Well, simply list them then, showing that the reasons were accepted by the majority of scholars of the day. Start with the problems of parallax, and the that the geocentric model of the time worked. But show the reasons as acceptable solutions available in THEIR time, not solutions we have in hindsight 500 years later.

Some preliminary points:

1. The Church did not forbid the heliocentric theory because it was not scientifically true, but because it contradicted the Bible and its magisterium. This position was an effort to silence the science in some important matters. CraigB, Mcreal and myself have shown this three times at least. This is the main point in our debate but I don't know if you realise it.

2. The issue at the stake was not only the central position of the Earth in the universe, but the particular ecclesiastical theory that justified it with the Aristotelian physic and astronomy that included theories about the natural places, sublunary and superlunary worlds, perfection of the orbits and so on. Galileo's theories and observations had demolished some of those basic assumptions. (Kepler, also). Satellites of Jupiter, phases of Venus, etc.

3. What scientific consensus? The Church didn't control only the judiciary system (Inquisition) but the intellectual institutions also. Institutional "scientists" were priests or scholars of religious universities. And you can add to this consensus the fear to the Holy Inquisition. What a pretty scientific consensus you invoke!

4. But Galileo's theories quickly received another consensus: that of the independent scientists. This success cannot be explained without take in consideration the weakness of the geocentrical objections, the problems of this theory and the rapid confirmation of Galileo's theories in the places of Europe far of Church's arm. If you agree with these points we can pass to the arguments against geocentrism.

 

[GDon]

Why do you express yourself in such provocative terms? You didn't read my citation with sufficient care perhaps. 1665 is subsequent to 1620. I stated that in the later year Alexander VII decreed a prohibition of

... all books and any booklets, periodicals, compositions, consultations, letters, glosses, opuscula, speeches, replies, treatises, whether printed or in manuscript, containing and treating the following subjects or about the following subjects…the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun.​

Did that include the revised Copernicus work? I can't find any indications of that.

 

[GDon]

Some preliminary points:

1. The Church did not forbid the heliocentric theory because it was not scientifically true, but because it contradicted the Bible and its magisterium. This position was an effort to silence the science in some important matters. CraigB, Mcreal and myself have shown this three times at least. This is the main point in our debate but I don't know if you realise it.

It was BOTH. It contradicted the philosophy of the day (see below) and it contradicted the Catholic interpretation of Scripture. Copernicus didn't fall foul of authorities because he didn't try to argue against Catholic interpretation, whereas Galileo did. Anyway, Tim O'Neill has gone through that earlier in this thread.

2. The issue at the stake was not only the central position of the Earth in the universe, but the particular ecclesiastical theory that justified it with the Aristotelian physic and astronomy that included theories about the natural places, sublunary and superlunary worlds, perfection of the orbits and so on. Galileo's theories and observations had demolished some of those basic assumptions. (Kepler, also). Satellites of Jupiter, phases of Venus, etc.

Yes, agreed that's part of it.

3. What scientific consensus? The Church didn't control only the judiciary system (Inquisition) but the intellectual institutions also. Institutional "scientists" were priests or scholars of religious universities. And you can add to this consensus the fear to the Holy Inquisition. What a pretty scientific consensus you invoke!

4. But Galileo's theories quickly received another consensus: that of the independent scientists. This success cannot be explained without take in consideration the weakness of the geocentrical objections, the problems of this theory and the rapid confirmation of Galileo's theories in the places of Europe far of Church's arm.

O'Neill has already shown that heliocentrism was supported by only a small number of scholars at that time earlier in this thread.

If you agree with these points we can pass to the arguments against geocentrism.

"Arguments against geocentrism"? To be clear: I am not arguing FOR geocentrism. What I am arguing is that heliocentrism was thought to have problems that could not be solved based on the knowledge of the time, which is why it wasn't accepted as proven until a century or so later.

From The Galileo Project (my bolding): http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html

The reason for this delay was that, on the face of it, the heliocentric cosmology was absurd from a common-sensical and a physical point of view. Thinkers had grown up on the Aristotelian division between the heavens and the earthly region, between perfection and corruption. In Aristotle's physics, bodies moved to their natural places. Stones fell because the natural place of heavy bodies was the center of the universe, and that was why the Earth was there. Accepting Copernicus's system meant abandoning Aristotelian physics. How would birds find their nest again after they had flown from them? Why does a stone thrown up come straight down if the Earth underneath it is rotating rapidly to the east? Since bodies can only have one sort of motion at a time, how can the Earth have several? And if the Earth is a planet, why should it be the only planet with a moon?

For astronomical purposes, astronomers always assumed that the Earth is as a point with respect to the heavens. Only in the case of the Moon could one notice a parallactic displacement (about 1°) with respect to the fixed stars during its (i.e., the Earth's) diurnal motion. In Copernican astronomy one now had to assume that the orbit of the Earth was as a point with respect to the fixed stars, and because the fixed stars did not reflect the Earth's annual motion by showing an annual parallax, the sphere of the fixed stars had to be immense. What was the purpose of such a large space between the region of Saturn and that of the fixed stars?

These and others were objections that needed answers. The Copernican system simply did not fit into the Aristotelian way of thinking. It took a century and a half for a new physics to be devised to undegird heliocentric astronomy. The works in physics and astronomy of Galileo and Johannes Kepler were crucial steps on this road.​

The page then goes on to describe theological issues.

 

[Craig B]

Did that include the revised Copernicus work? I can't find any indications of that.

Neither can I. It's a bit unclear, isn't it? But Alexander clearly wanted people to take his prohibitions literally, as this statement indicates

Alexander VII wrote one of the most authoritative documents related to the heliocentrism issue. He published his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus which he prefaced with the bull Speculatores Dominus Israel in which he explicitly attached all the previous heliocentric decrees ("...which we will should be considered as though it were inserted in these presents, together with all, and singular, the things contained therein...") and using his Apostolic authority bound the faithful to its contents ("...and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience...").​

Having read that last bit, most people would presumably be inclined to leave the whole subject well alone.

 

[David Mo]

From The Galileo Project (my bolding): http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html

The reason for this delay was that, on the face of it, the heliocentric cosmology was absurd from a common-sensical and a physical point of view. Thinkers had grown up on the Aristotelian division between the heavens and the earthly region, between perfection and corruption. In Aristotle's physics, bodies moved to their natural places. Stones fell because the natural place of heavy bodies was the center of the universe, and that was why the Earth was there. Accepting Copernicus's system meant abandoning Aristotelian physics. How would birds find their nest again after they had flown from them? Why does a stone thrown up come straight down if the Earth underneath it is rotating rapidly to the east? Since bodies can only have one sort of motion at a time, how can the Earth have several? And if the Earth is a planet, why should it be the only planet with a moon?

For astronomical purposes, astronomers always assumed that the Earth is as a point with respect to the heavens. Only in the case of the Moon could one notice a parallactic displacement (about 1°) with respect to the fixed stars during its (i.e., the Earth's) diurnal motion. In Copernican astronomy one now had to assume that the orbit of the Earth was as a point with respect to the fixed stars, and because the fixed stars did not reflect the Earth's annual motion by showing an annual parallax, the sphere of the fixed stars had to be immense. What was the purpose of such a large space between the region of Saturn and that of the fixed stars?

These and others were objections that needed answers. The Copernican system simply did not fit into the Aristotelian way of thinking. It took a century and a half for a new physics to be devised to undegird heliocentric astronomy. The works in physics and astronomy of Galileo and Johannes Kepler were crucial steps on this road.​

The page then goes on to describe theological issues.

Please, be exact in bolding.

Note the last paragraph:

These and others were objections that needed answers. The Copernican system simply did not fit into the Aristotelian way of thinking. It took a century and a half for a new physics to be devised to undegird heliocentric astronomy. The works in physics and astronomy of Galileo and Johannes Kepler were crucial steps on this road.​

(Bolding is mine).

 

[David Mo]

It was BOTH. It contradicted the philosophy of the day (see below) and it contradicted the Catholic interpretation of Scripture. Copernicus didn't fall foul of authorities because he didn't try to argue against Catholic interpretation, whereas Galileo did. Anyway, Tim O'Neill has gone through that earlier in this thread.

The ecclesiastical condemns to heliocentrism didn't make any reference to "scientific problems", but only to the attack to Bible and Church. It was false since incompatible with the Bible.

O'Neill has already shown that heliocentrism was supported by only a small number of scholars at that time earlier in this thread.

O Neill didn't answer to my objection of false consensus. You neither.

"Arguments against geocentrism"? To be clear: I am not arguing FOR geocentrism. What I am arguing is that heliocentrism was thought to have problems that could not be solved based on the knowledge of the time, which is why it wasn't accepted as proven until a century or so later.

From The Galileo Project (my bolding): http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html

Thist text is speaking of Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbis coelestium
(1531-43). What are Kepler's and Galileo's decisive steps in heliocentrism? I have not time to develop the issue now. I'll be back as soon as I can. Meanwhile you can see: "Ptolemaic System" in Galileo Project: http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories/ptolemaic_system.html . I have not completly read it but I suppose is a good introduction of the debate.

 

[John Nowak]

I agree, in that am not proposing that someone who drafted a section of the NT sat down with a copy of the Hercules legends on parchment and began to copy it.

FWIW, I think I understood your point. Mine is that people tend to tell stories that are very similar, even when there's no question of direct cultural influence.

I don't think Incan playwrights were exposed to much Elizabethan drama, and yet there's a perfect example of a comic relief character sitting in the one surviving pre-Columbian Incan stage play.

Repeating themes across stories might suggest influence, but I suspect most of any influence comes from the fact that humans are pretty much wired the same all over. We love our heroes, and at the same time we love the guys who poke fun at them.

This is what calls into question for me the historical veracity of those tales in which so much of the story matches that of the common legends. Either these were created whole cloth or heavily modified to match what was expected of such a story.

I believe someone once wrote a nifty article "proving" that World War II was mythical using similar arguments.

Stuff happens in real life. Sometimes it happens to match various mythic themes. Sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Carlotta]

Okay. As I noted before but still got drawn into the debate- I am done here. I do understand, and it remains clear to me that you will not debate or address questions that are actually embarrassing to the Catholic Church, and that you try to steer such questions to the standard set of Christian apologists topics. There is no point as I see it in continuing this- we will continue to talk past one another.

This really does seem perfectly obvious.

 

[David Mo]

We must make be clear a basic distinction: One thing was the dispute between Copernicans and Aristotelians in the scientific field and other thing the Inquisitorial process against Copernicanism. The first was supposed to be only a philosophical (scientific) debate and the latter a judicial process. Although religion was really implied in both cases, they were different things.

I go to the philosophical (scientific) dispute:
There was some superiority of the Copernican system in Galileo's time?

Yes, in some particular subjects. For example:
-Galilean theory of motus had made obsolete the Aristotelian theory of natural places that was scarcely predictive.
-The use of telescope (Galileo and others) had made unsustainable the distinction between superlunar and sublunar worlds. Sunspots, moon surface, phases of Venus, Jupiter’ satellites had put an end to the theory of perfect and immutable superlunar objects.
-The revisionist geocentrism of Tycho Brahe had ended with the Ptolemaic theory of the planet orbits. Now the planets didn't spin around the Earth.
-Some simple objections to Copernicanism were easily refutable. See the observation of a stone that falls from a mast in a ship in movement proposed by Galileo and made shortly after by Gassendi.

And more general advantages:
-Almost all the defenders of geocentric theory supported the Church doctrine, that is to say, the mixture Bible, Ptolemy and Aristotle. When some part of this structure failed, all the ensemble was damaged.
-Many scientists found in the independence of the Church an argument more valuable than other empirical reasons.
- The institutional science was in withdrawal. Most of the constructs of the late geocentrism were hypothesis ad hoc to save the principles of the system. In this withdrawal some basic principles of Aristotelism were abandoned.
-The simplicity. The solutions provided by geocentrists were extremely complex and created difficulties to make precise predictions. In contrast, the Copernican system was simple and effective.

The superiority of Galileo's theory has to be searched in this ensemble of reasons. A change of paradigm never occurs by simple contrasts of definitive arguments. The following events decided definitively in favour of Galileo. But at this moment the Church had good reasons to think that her intellectual power was beginning to decline. And she made its best to impede it. "Its best" is a euphemism.

 

[David Mo]

Christians are just another word for Romans.

Not exactly. Other Christian ideas were taken from Judaism, such as "son of man", messiah, gehenna, total submission to a god father, sin and scapegoat, etc.
Nevertheless, there is an original point in the early Christians: the death in the cross. Not the death and resurrection of a divine messenger. This was a common idea to many religions, but the ignominious punishment of the crucifixion in the Roman world applied to a (semi)god.
To explain this curious circumstance and its success in the following centuries is a subject for historians, psychologists and anthropologists. Not for theologians, of course.

 

[GT/CS]

Another interesting comparison is between Osiris and Jesus.

Here's a site that compares Jesus, Horus, and Osiris.
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.php

No, I have not yet checked the sources. The book I'm reading sources Freke and Gandy.

Osiris
Had well over 200 divine names, including Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods, Resurrection and the Life, Good Shepherd, Eternity and Everlastingness, the god who "made men and women to be born again."

Coming was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak in the belt of Orion, which point directly to Osiris' star in the east, Sirius, significator of his birth

Was a devoured Host. His flesh was eaten in the form of communion cakes of wheat, the 'plant of Truth'.

The 23rd Psalm copied an Egyptian text appealing to Osiris the Good Shepherd to lead the deceased to the 'green pastures' and 'still waters' of the nefer-nefer land, to restore the soul and body, and to give protection in the valley of the shadow of death...

The Lord's Prayer was prefigured by an Egyptian hymn to Osiris-Amen beginning, 'O Amen, O Amen, who are in heaven. Amen was also invoked at the end of every prayer.

The teachings of Osiris and Jesus are wonderfully alike. Many passages are identically the same, word for word.

As the god of the vine, a great traveling teacher who civilized the world. Ruler and judge of the dead.

In his passion, Osiris was plotted against and killed by Set and "the 72."

Osiris' resurrection served to provide hope to all that they may do likewise and become eternal.

 

[Craig B]

Another interesting comparison is between Osiris and Jesus.

Here's a site that compares Jesus, Horus, and Osiris.
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.php

No, I have not yet checked the sources. The book I'm reading sources Freke and Gandy ...

When you do get round to checking the sources, which I hope you do soon, please bear in mind some of the comments Freke and Gandy's work has attracted. Even Carrier can't swallow it, though he has an all but insatiable appetite for "Jesus myths".

Even though he shares the 'Jesus myth' viewpoint that a real historical figure named Jesus never existed, author and scholar Richard Carrier (writer of Sense and Goodness without God and Proving History) has stated that the book "will disease" a reader's "mind with rampant unsourced​

oh dear!

falsehoods and completely miseducate". Carrier has condemned the book's viewpoints on "ancient world and ancient religion" as without merit.​

 

[Mcreal]

... please bear in mind some of the comments Freke and Gandy's work has attracted.

Most of the people cited in the commentary in that wikipedia article are Christian apologists.

... author and scholar Richard Carrier (writer of Sense and Goodness without God and Proving History) has stated that the book "will disease" a reader's "mind with rampant unsourced falsehoods and completely miseducate". Carrier has condemned the book's viewpoints on "ancient world and ancient religion" as without merit.

Certainly taken in isolation, Freke and Gandy's 'The Jesus Mysteries' would mislead: while Christianity arose in a time of upheaval and competition among a number of religions, including a rise of Egyptian ones in the eastern Mediterranean, and it is likely to be a syncretic religion, it is still largely a Judaism-based religion.

Nevertheless, it would pay to evaluate or re-evaluate the ideas of 'The Jesus Mysteries' in light of the recent changing landscape of early-Christian studies.

 

[GT/CS]

When you do get round to checking the sources, which I hope you do soon, please bear in mind some of the comments Freke and Gandy's work has attracted. Even Carrier can't swallow it, though he has an all but insatiable appetite for "Jesus myths".

Even though he shares the 'Jesus myth' viewpoint that a real historical figure named Jesus never existed, author and scholar Richard Carrier (writer of Sense and Goodness without God and Proving History) has stated that the book "will disease" a reader's "mind with rampant unsourced​

oh dear!

falsehoods and completely miseducate". Carrier has condemned the book's viewpoints on "ancient world and ancient religion" as without merit.​

Wow, you found someone on the internet who disagrees!
Good job.

 

[Craig B]

Wow, you found someone on the internet who disagrees!
Good job.

I have found commentators who question the sources of the material you are using, and I entreat you to check the reliability of these sources. Otherwise your opinions may be founded upon false statements.

 

[David Mo]

Another interesting comparison is between Osiris and Jesus.

Here's a site that compares Jesus, Horus, and Osiris.
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.php

No, I have not yet checked the sources. The book I'm reading sources Freke and Gandy.

Osiris
Had well over 200 divine names, including Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods, Resurrection and the Life, Good Shepherd, Eternity and Everlastingness, the god who "made men and women to be born again."

More information is needed to assess these resemblances. The first sentence and others are too vague. Where these denominations are applied to Osiris? Texts and date.

I don't understand well the significance of this comparison. Are we speaking of the formation of Christian beliefs (gospels) or the subsequent development of Christianity? Many of the features of this comparison are not in the gospels, but in the legends and the theology of the Romanised Christianity. They are different things.

Many of the features attributed to Osiris here were common to many divinities of the same period. I don't know why Osiris has to be particularly signalled.

More accurate likeness is usually pointed between Jesus and Mithra or the mystery religions in general. I suppose this "Osiris" is the Osiris of Isis' cult in Rome.

 

[Mcreal]

Are we speaking of the formation of Christian beliefs (gospels) or the subsequent development of Christianity? Many of the features of this comparison are not in the gospels, but in the legends and the theology of the Romanised Christianity. They are different things.

or the features may have helped some see Judaism differently (perhaps those in the Diaspora).

I suppose this "Osiris" is the Osiris of Isis' cult in Rome.

or more widely around the Eastern Mediterranean.

Osiris is one of the gods merged with Apis: Osiris/Apis, which further evolved into Serapis/Sirapis (osiris/apis).

Some or all of Osiris, Isis, Serapis, & Horus were often grouped together as a family in various locations or time-periods up to the end of the 3rd C. c.e.

 

[David Mo]

or the features may have helped some see Judaism differently (perhaps those in the Diaspora).


or more widely around the Eastern Mediterranean.

You are right. I was using "Rome" as denoting the cultural and social synthesis of Rome and Hellenism. The Diaspora was an element of this complex in a particular variant with religious and social compounds. Note that hellenization of judaism begins long before Christianity and includes cultural (religious also) syncretism and adoption of ways of life (legal systems also). This transfer was more evident in the upper classes and in migration settlements of the big metropoles (Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus...)

 

[GT/CS]

More information is needed to assess these resemblances. The first sentence and others are too vague. Where these denominations are applied to Osiris? Texts and date.

I don't understand well the significance of this comparison. Are we speaking of the formation of Christian beliefs (gospels) or the subsequent development of Christianity? Many of the features of this comparison are not in the gospels, but in the legends and the theology of the Romanised Christianity. They are different things.

Many of the features attributed to Osiris here were common to many divinities of the same period. I don't know why Osiris has to be particularly signalled.

More accurate likeness is usually pointed between Jesus and Mithra or the mystery religions in general. I suppose this "Osiris" is the Osiris of Isis' cult in Rome.

That's pretty much the point; many cultures seem to have had different variations of the same 'Jesus' story long before Jesus.

 

[Mcreal]

Yes, any cultures seem to have had variations of the same 'Saviour' story long before Jesus.

Many emperors were also considered diety-saviours, particularly around the time that Christianity developed.