Loaves and Fishes

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Robert Tulip
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by Robert Tulip »

Stephan Huller wrote: I can't see any relationship between bread and the zodiac.
The main star in the constellation Virgo is called Spica. Spica means the spike of wheat, the source of bread. The virgin is traditionally depicted with Spica representing an ear of wheat in her hand. The position of the sun at the equinoxes moved into Pisces and Virgo, the star groups conventionally associated with loaves and fishes, in 21 AD. The March spring equinox, used by the Jewish calendar to mark the beginning of the year and the timing of the great annual festival of Passover, had occurred with the sun in Aries the Ram since before the time of Moses. In 21 AD, precession of the equinoxes meant the position of the sun at the spring equinox shifted from Aries into the constellation of Pisces the Fishes. On Passover, on the full moon at 14 Nisan, precession meant the moon shifted from its traditional position in Libra the Scales into Virgo. At the equinox in September, the sun shifted from Libra into Virgo. So the cosmic axis of the year provided by the two great lights of the sky at Passover was understood by ancient astronomers to have shifted at this time into the signs of the loaves and fishes.

Deborah Houlding explains why Virgo is associated with bread, edited as follows from http://www.skyscript.co.uk/virgo_myth.html
Virgo was associated with female deities including Ishtar, Innana, Aphrodite, Ceres, Demeter, Astraea, Erigone, Isis; and in Christian symbolism, the Virgin Mary. The roots of the symbolism of Virgo as the earth goddess holding a spike of corn can be traced to the ancient Mesopotamian period. Rupert Gleadow (Origin of the Zodiac, 1968, Published by Jonathan Cape Ltd, p.169 & 213 argues that although the Sun's passage through the sign marks the period of harvest, the Mesopotamians would have placed most significance upon the time that the full Moon illuminated its stars during the Sun's transit of Pisces. For the Mesopotamians this occurred in early spring, just as the first signs of corn appeared above the ground. Thus the Babylonian reference for the constellation was Ab Sin, 'the Furrow', depicting the virgin land about to bear its fruit.

By the classical era the Sun's transit through the zodiac sign had taken precedence and Virgo became more directly perceived as a Maiden of fruition through the Harvest. Even so, much of the ancient mythology attached to the sign combines allegory concerned with harvesting the fruits of the earth, or the period of germination. Some have argued that the constellation depicts 'the woman and her seed'.

Virgo is believed to be the early grain goddess Nidoba. In Babylonian myth, the identification between Virgo and the grain goddess led the constellation figure to be personified as Ishtar, the consort of the corn god Tammuz. Their myth is a celebration of the ongoing cycle of the seasons and has been adapted into the tale of many subsequent female deities including Ceres - the Roman goddess of corn and harvest, often directly linked with Virgo by the Greeks - Proserpina, Persephone, Demeter and Aphrodite.

Spica is a brilliant white binary star marking the Ear of corn in the maiden's left hand. Other titles include stakhus (Greek: 'ear of corn'), Arista (Latin, 'ear of grain'), Aristae Puella (Latin: 'grain maiden') and Spica Virginis or 'Virgin's Spike'. In ancient Egypt the star was associated with the Nile goddess Isis and temples in the ruined city of Akhenaton appear to have been aligned to its rising and setting. The best time to view Virgo is during May (around 9pm).

Star Names, Richard Hinckley Allen, 1889 provides the following commentary (p.466), summarised from Constellation of Words.
Alpha (α) Virgo, Spica, is a binary, brilliant flushed white star marking the Ear of Wheat shown in the Virgin's left hand. Spica signifies, and marks, the Ear of Wheat shown in the Virgin's left hand — the Greek astronomer Aratus, circa 270 B.C., wrote "in her hands". All the Romans called it thus, Cicero saying Spicum, and their descendants, the modern Italians, Spigha; the French have l'Epi. In Old England it was the Virgin's Spike, in Flamsteed. The 17th century English orientalist Thomas Hyde gave the Hebrew Shibboleth, the Syrian Shebbelta, the Persian Chushe, and the Turkish Salkim, all signifying the "Ear of Wheat".

Sir Norman Lockyer, [founder of the journal Nature], said one of the temples at Thebes was oriented to Spica's setting about 3200 BC, and the temple of the Sun at Tell al Amarna was also so oriented about 2000 B.C., or perhaps somewhat later. A similar character attached to it in Greece, for two temples have been found at Rhamnus, "almost touching one another, both following (and with accordant dates) the shifting places of Spica," at their erection 1092 and 747 b.C.; "and still another pair at Tegea." Temples of Hera were also so oriented at Olympia 1445 B.C. at Argos and Girgenti; and those of Nike Apteros at Athens, 1130 B.C., and of "the Great Diana of the Ephesians," 715 B.C.

It was to the observations of this star and of Regulus about 300 B.C., recorded by the Alexandrian Timochares, that, after comparison with his own 150 years later, Hipparchos (circa 160-120 B.C.) was indebted for the great discovery attributed to him of the precession of the equinoxes; although Babylonian records, and the temple orientation of Egypt and Greece, may indicate a far earlier practical knowledge of precession. A probable explanation of Hipparchus’ discovery of precession is his observation of the total lunar eclipse on 21 March 134 BC, when the moon was adjacent to Spica, showing the exact position of the sun at the opposite position in Pisces.
The association between the movement of the equinoctial axis into Virgo and Pisces at the time of Christ is the core theme of this thread, providing an objective, coherent and elegant natural basis of the myth of the loaves and fishes. A total lunar eclipse at the Passover on 23 March 4 BC was seen in Jerusalem adjacent to Spica. This eclipse showed that the axis of the equinoxes had moved from its traditional location attested by Philo, in Aries and Libra. Passover marks the date when the sun and moon pass over the equinoxes, at the full moon after the spring point. The theme of Jesus Christ as mediator between earth and heaven corresponds precisely to this slow cosmic shift of the stars against the seasons, as the objective astronomical framework for the construction of the Christ myth.

Mark’s use of numbers with direct astronomical correlations shows the secret meaning of the miracle. The two fish match to the sun and moon, and to the two fish of Pisces. The five loaves match to the five visible planets. The twelve baskets match to the twelve months of the year and their corresponding twelve signs of the zodiac. The multitude match to the visible stars. The miraculous creation of abundant food matches to the idea that Jesus Christ incarnates a divine harmony between earth and heaven symbolised by a new zodiac age. The idea that the disciples could not understand the meaning of the story matches to the difficulty of explaining the astronomical basis of the Gnostic cosmology that gave rise to Christianity.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by neilgodfrey »

Robert Tulip wrote:The position of the sun at the equinoxes moved into Pisces and Virgo, the star groups conventionally associated with loaves and fishes, in 21 AD.


Why such precision? Did the ancients have the very same imaginary borders between constellations as we have today?
Robert Tulip wrote:The idea that the disciples could not understand the meaning of the story matches to the difficulty of explaining the astronomical basis of the Gnostic cosmology that gave rise to Christianity.
Why did they have any difficulty in understanding something as simple as the 5 loaves mean the 5 planets and the 12 baskets mean the 12 constellations, the turning point of the sun is in constellations A and B, etc. That very simple and easy for anyone to understand. There's no problem with any of that. Dead simple. Even easier when explained and interpreted through the ancient ideas of cosmology that it is for us who have to imagine a quite different set up between earth and the rest. Certainly much simpler than trying to keep track of some of the other systems of gnosticism.

Could it be that Jesus did not give them any hint that that's what they meant and that's why they were confused? Why would the author say Jesus hid the meaning from his disciples? When the author says Jesus did explain a parable (the sower and the seed) did he really hide the astral truth from his disciples? Or did he have to keep it secret so the Church to come would not destroy his words?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Maximos
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:04 am

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by Maximos »

Neil, your entire obsession with methodology and peer review are very confusing because you and Carrier bludgeon Acharya to death over it, yet, both of you concede that "methodology and peer review are "hopelessly flawed."
Speaking on methodology Carrier recently stated on 4-26-14 on the "Geek’s Guide to the Universe" podcast episode 108 on Noah:

Carrier at 1:43:50: "Well part of my project for the 'Historicity of Jesus' was I realized that the methodology in Jesus studies is hosed basically and I'm not the only one to notice this. Many scholars in the field have pointed out that the methodologies that have been used to study Jesus are hopelessly flawed."

Carrier at 1:45:55: "I have like 50 pages in my book 'Proving History' on why the 'criterion of embarrassment' is logically fallacious and does not work in Jesus studies at all."
If Peer-Review Does Not Work for Science Why Does It Work for Biblical Studies?

"The editors of the ACP Journal Club find that less than 1% of studies in most journals are “both scientifically sound and important for clinicians”.

We have little or no evidence that peer review ‘works,’ but we have lots of evidence of its downside.

Peer-review does not detect errors. Again numerous studies have demonstrated this. Papers have certain errors deliberately inserted into them (mixes of major and minor) and are then sent to peer review, and the rate of detection of those errors is so often very, very low indeed."

- Neil Godfrey
"In a recent 2014 video, Nuskeptix "Christ Myth Theory" Video Chat, Carrier admits (at 53-54 minutes) he has no interest in pursuing or investigating astrotheology as he finds it "dull," which is basically an admission that Carrier has never studied the subject and has no interest in doing so, therefore, Carrier is not qualified to comment on it with any authority or competence whatsoever. Carrier says he "could never write a book on the subject" (ain't that the truth!). Carrier is simply not a reliable or credible source on the subject of astrotheology or Acharya's work and he needs to be called out on it by others."
So, Carrier rants against Acharya and astrotheology, yet, Carrier's latest argument is that Jesus is a "CELESTIAL BEING," which is another way of saying "astrotheological Jesus."

More of these here
http :/ / w ww.freethou ghtnati on. c om/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771

Carrier rants against Acharya for discussing 18th/19th century works, yet, Carrier's 'Bayes' theorem' is from the 18th century. How much more hypocritical can he get?

So, when people learn the truth about you and Carrier, the fact remains that neither of you are qualified to comment on it since neither of you have ever actually read her work or studied the subject. So in the end, you're both quite intellectually dishonest and are just smearing Acharya at every opportunity to 'poison the well.' It's all very disingenuous to say the least and it's an embarrassment to all of us freethinkers and mythicists.

Oh, I have a thread discussing this issue here: Richard Carrier Owes Acharya an Apology
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by neilgodfrey »

Maximos wrote:Neil, your entire obsession with methodology and peer review are very confusing because you and Carrier bludgeon Acharya to death over it, yet, both of you concede that "methodology and peer review are "hopelessly flawed."
You speak of honesty but I have never raised the question of peer-review with Acharya. Not once. Where is your honesty?

I have never said that "methodology and peer review" are "hopelessly flawed". Never. Where is your honesty?

I have said that certain methods used by historical Jesus scholars are flawed because they violate more fundamental and sound methods used by historians generally, but I have never criticized Acharya for using flawed methodologies.

Maximos wrote:So, Carrier rants against Acharya and astrotheology, yet, Carrier's latest argument is that Jesus is a "CELESTIAL BEING," which is another way of saying "astrotheological Jesus."

More of these here
http :// w ww.free thoughtna tion.c om/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771

Carrier rants against Acharya for discussing 18th/19th century works, yet, Carrier's 'Bayes' theorem' is from the 18th century. How much more hypocritical can he get?
It is very clear that you yourself do not understand either astrotheology or the concept of a 'celestial Christ' as proposed by Doherty/Carrier etc. of both. They have nothing in common at all.
Maximos wrote:So, when people learn the truth about you and Carrier, the fact remains that neither of you are qualified to comment on it since neither of you have ever actually read her work or studied the subject. So in the end, you're both quite intellectually dishonest and are just smearing Acharya at every opportunity to 'poison the well.' It's all very disingenuous to say the least and it's an embarrassment to all of us freethinkers and mythicists.
That is a lie. I have never engaged in a smear campaign against Acharya. I have in fact publicly deplored smear campaigns against her. I have also done the same for Atwill. Interestingly Robert Tulip took my outrage against a smear campaign against him as a sign that I sympathized with his views.

It is Murdock and some of her supporters who are engaging in smear campaigns against me, as you are doing here.
Maximos wrote:Carrier rants against Acharya for discussing 18th/19th century works, yet, Carrier's 'Bayes' theorem' is from the 18th century. How much more hypocritical can he get?
I very much doubt that Carrier "rants against Acharya" for, as you put it, "discussing 18th/19th century works". I do not believe you.

Maximos wrote:So, when people learn the truth about you and Carrier, the fact remains that neither of you are qualified to comment on it since neither of you have ever actually read her work or studied the subject. So in the end, you're both quite intellectually dishonest and are just smearing Acharya at every opportunity to 'poison the well.' It's all very disingenuous to say the least and it's an embarrassment to all of us freethinkers and mythicists.
I hope one day you will learn the truth about me. I for one for a long time did not discuss Acharya's work because I had so little interest in it and because I had not read it thoroughly at all.

The ONLY reason I began to publish some reviews of her first book was under pressure from her supporters to address her work. I read it in depth and began to do a chapter by chapter review. For my efforts I was smeared and slandered by Acharya and others. In my reviews I did point out methodological flaws and rhetorical problems and made some comparisons with other similar flawed publications I have also read, and with the rhetoric of others with which I am familiar. For that I was falsely accused and my words distorted and twisted into false allegations.

I leave it to you to try to try to exercise a little intellectual honesty and try to actually read and understand what I have written and said before you write such fabrications and falsehoods about me again.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by Mental flatliner »

neilgodfrey wrote: You speak of honesty but I have never raised the question of peer-review with Acharya. Not once.
Peer review doesn't exist among scholars.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by neilgodfrey »

Mental flatliner wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote: You speak of honesty but I have never raised the question of peer-review with Acharya. Not once.
Peer review doesn't exist among scholars.
And the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by Mental flatliner »

neilgodfrey wrote:
Mental flatliner wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote: You speak of honesty but I have never raised the question of peer-review with Acharya. Not once.
Peer review doesn't exist among scholars.
And the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese.
As someone who undergoes peer review, I can speak for that. If you want to be a flat-earther, that's your business.
Maximos
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:04 am

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by Maximos »

Neil Godfrey "You speak of honesty but I have never raised the question of peer-review with Acharya. Not once. Where is your honesty?

I have never said that "methodology and peer review" are "hopelessly flawed". Never. Where is your honesty?

I have said that certain methods used by historical Jesus scholars are flawed because they violate more fundamental and sound methods used by historians generally, but I have never criticized Acharya for using flawed methodologies."
LOL, Oh paleeez, who on earth are you trying to fool? You have had many opportunities to disagree with Carrier on this point but you didn't. You are in agreement with Carrier and are lying. Besides, I even provided the quote, which was from Carrier, not you, but, you are in agreement according to many of your own comments. Unless you're going to challenge Carrier now, which will never happen with such a Carrier fanboy/cheerleader such as yourself. So, stop pretending otherwise.

The fact remains that your extreme obsession with methodology comes at the expense of primary sources, scholar commentary on them and basic common sense.
Neil Godfrey "I have never criticized Acharya for using flawed methodologies."
Oh?
Neil Godfrey "Murdock’s arguments ... are as methodologically valid as arguments for astrology and the myth of Atlantis and anything written by Von Daniken."

http :// ww w.freet houghtn ation.co m/forums/viewtopic.php?p=28207#p28207
Neil Godfrey "Robert, you appear to have committed yourself to a sham method and unachievable goal with your interest in placing “astrotheology” on some methodologically valid footing. "

http: // ww w.freethou ghtnation.co m/forums/viewtopic.php?p=27418#p27418
Neil Godfrey "But the bottom-line concern I have is the fallacious methodology upon which the whole idea of explaining Christian origins in terms of astrotheology is based. I have covered this several times in my exchanges with Robert Tulip and have nothing to add here."

"My opposition to astrotheology is based entirely on its fallacious methodology."
Neil Godfrey "My suspicions are confirmed. Henceforth astrotheology is off the agenda completely as far as I am concerned unless someone can demonstrate a more logically and methodolically valid underpinning than this."

http://g0dalmighty.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/response/
Methodology and Peer Review

A major problem with some like Carrier and Godfrey is that they're far more interested in the "methodology and peer review" than they are the actual primary sources and other credible evidence, which puts them in a position where they 'can't see the forest for the trees.'

If you're paying close attention you'll notice Carrier and Godfrey's cult like worship of methodology and peer review and their constant attempt to bludgeon Acharya with them, meanwhile, elsewhere they admit that there are a great many problems with ... yep, you guested it, methodology and peer review!

They are completely obsessed with methodology and peer review at the expense of valid evidence and basic common sense.

htt p:// w ww.free thought nation.c om /forums/viewtopic.php?p=29129#p29129
Neil Godfrey "It is very clear that you yourself do not understand either astrotheology or the concept of a 'celestial Christ' as proposed by Doherty/Carrier etc. of both. They have nothing in common at all."
LOL, just make it up however you need to.
Celestial:

1. pertaining to the sky or visible heaven, or to the universe beyond the earth’s atmosphere, as in celestial body

or

"Relating to the sky or the heavens. Stars and planets are celestial bodies.

Relating to the celestial sphere or to any of the coordinate systems by which the position of an object, such as a star or planet, is represented on it."
Compare that to:
htt p: // ww w. freet hough tnation.co m/forums/viewtopic.php?p=14420#p14420 Astrotheology: "Theology founded on observation or knowledge of the celestial bodies" ... such as the sun, moon, planets, stars, constellations and milky way etc. created by William Derham in 1714.
But by all means, Neil, please do show off your erudition and make your case detailing the difference for us. Maybe you could do a blog on it doing your best to dishonestly pretend there's no comparison at all. But, in order to properly do that you'd actually have to understand Acharya's work, which you've proven repeatedly that you do not.

You only "reviewed" her first book to attack it with zero interest in any kind of objective or honest interest as you've admitted, same as Carrier has. So, neither of you are qualified to comment on her work with any degree of competence whatsoever.
Neil Godfrey "I have over the years avoided addressing the works of Acharya S / D. M. Murdock for no reason other than that I have never spent much time reading any of them and have had no personal interest in her perspective on things."
"Neil, some of the first things you did was ‘poison the well’ many times with comments like von Daniken etc.

You have shown your true colours with your utter contempt and animosity for the science behind astrotheology, which is part of the case for mythicism – a subject that you CLAIM to have an interest in. Yet, you refuse to allow any intellectually honest or objective conversation about it and it most certainly appears that your knee-jerk reactions are possibly due to your own past, which has nothing to do with us or astrotheology."

- Godfrey's 'falling-out' blog
Neil Godfrey "That is a lie. I have never engaged in a smear campaign against Acharya."
No Neil, what you've done is far worse, falsely accusing Acharya and her supporters as being an evangelizing cult, yet, you can't figure out why they are disgusted with you for such malicious lies:

Your own blog: "Astrotheology, A Religious Belief System (as per D.M. Murdock/Acharya S)"

I've read your so-called "reviews" of her first book and you are a liar who has been intentionally assassinating Acharya's character, smearing her and her supporters with an endless stream of disingenuous smears and intellectual dishonesty.
Neil Godfrey "My record of defending Acharya against some of the worst insults I have read on the web counts for nothing."
I've never seen you defend her against anything, quite the opposite as all I've seen from you have been endless smears, but, thanks for that admission that she has received some of the worst insults you've ever read. From where I stand, some of those "worst insults" come you, Carrier and Rook/Tom. Yet, you guys still can't figure why she's disgusted with you all.

You take anything you don't like that Robert Tulip has said and you attach it to Acharya as made clear in the comment by 'Reader':
"...Therefore, this article could well have been titled “Astrotheology as understood by Robert Tulip."

Your own blog: "Astrotheology, A Religious Belief System (as per D.M. Murdock/Acharya S)"
Neil Godfrey "I have in fact publicly deplored smear campaigns against her."
Baaahahahaha, Who are you trying to fool?

Your own blog: 'Astrotheology, A Religious Belief System (as per D.M. Murdock/Acharya S)"
Neil Godfrey "I very much doubt that Carrier "rants against Acharya" for, as you put it, "discussing 18th/19th century works". I do not believe you.
Really? Because you are on video with Carrier March 15th, 2014 when he does just that:
Nuskeptix "Christ Myth Theory" Video Chat

54:55 Carrier "I want her to get with the proper methodology and start reading something after the 19th century."

"Another smear proving once again that neither Carrier nor Neil have ever actually studied her work and are just doing their typical bludgeoning her with issues, real or perceived, from her first book from 1999. The problem here is she has already announced a 2nd edition for that book long ago. Plus, Carrier's argument is hypocritical here as his Bayes' theorem originally came from Thomas Bayes (1701–1761) from the 18th century."

htt p :// w ww.fre ethough tnati on. co m/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4640
Neil Godfrey "The ONLY reason I began to publish some reviews of her first book was under pressure from her supporters to address her work. I read it in depth and began to do a chapter by chapter review. For my efforts I was smeared and slandered by Acharya and others. In my reviews I did point out methodological flaws and rhetorical problems and made some comparisons with other similar flawed publications I have also read, and with the rhetoric of others with which I am familiar. For that I was falsely accused and my words distorted and twisted into false allegations. "
Neil, you are completely full of shit. you started off your so-called "review" like this:
Neil Godfrey "Recently I have been chastised by Acharya S (D. M. Murdock) and some of her followers for failing to give the attention and prominence (one of them wanted to do a guest post on my blog) to their views that they demand they deserve."

- Review of Acharya S’s “The Christ Conspiracy” part 1
LOL, that is the very first sentence, Neil. That blog is more about you and your utter distaste for Acharya and hatred of astrotheology than it is about her work.

Is that how you begin an objective and sincere "review" - NO, so stop pretending you're innocent, Neil. You and Carrier have DESERVED every insult you've received for all those malicious smears directed at Acharya. A person with a conscience would be ashamed of themselves - not you, Carrier or Rook. Acharya and her supporters have every right to defend themselves against an endless stream of hate and malicious smears.

Neil, you owe her an apology for those trash "reviews." And her supporters never asked you to review "Christ Conspiracy" that was just another dirty tactic on your part. They were asking you to blog her mythicist position for discussion. So, *ALL* of this crap is on you, Neil, you started it and couldn't take the heat when they called you out on your utter dishonesty. That's what all of this comes down to.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by neilgodfrey »

Maximos wrote:
LOL, Oh paleeez, who on earth are you trying to fool? You have had many opportunities to disagree with Carrier on this point but you didn't. You are in agreement with Carrier and are lying. Besides, I even provided the quote, which was from Carrier, not you, but, you are in agreement according to many of your own comments. Unless you're going to challenge Carrier now, which will never happen with such a Carrier fanboy/cheerleader such as yourself. So, stop pretending otherwise.
You can judge my views by what I do write and I have never attacked Achayra personally the way she has attacked me. I have generally tried to avoid having anything to do with Acharya and for a long time avoided saying anything simply because I did not want to get involved in the controversies.
Maximos wrote:The fact remains that your extreme obsession with methodology comes at the expense of primary sources, scholar commentary on them and basic common sense.
Extreme obsession? Well, methodology is the foundation of everything else. If I see other people ignoring it or having a wobbly foundation I guess that's "an extreme obsession" in your view. But if you read and understood anything at all about what I say on methods then you would know it is all about the primacy of what I call primary sources -- not at their expense. You don't know what my arguments are at all, do you.


I have said that certain methods used by historical Jesus scholars are flawed because they violate more fundamental and sound methods used by historians generally, but I have never criticized Acharya for using flawed methodologies.
Maximos wrote:
Neil Godfrey "I have never criticized Acharya for using flawed methodologies."
Oh?
Neil Godfrey "Murdock’s arguments ... are as methodologically valid as arguments for astrology and the myth of Atlantis and anything written by Von Daniken."

http: // w ww.free thought nation.co m/forums/viewtopic.php?p=28207#p28207
Neil Godfrey "Robert, you appear to have committed yourself to a sham method and unachievable goal with your interest in placing “astrotheology” on some methodologically valid footing. "

http ://w ww.freet houghtnat ion.co m/forums/viewtopic.php?p=27418#p27418
Neil Godfrey "But the bottom-line concern I have is the fallacious methodology upon which the whole idea of explaining Christian origins in terms of astrotheology is based. I have covered this several times in my exchanges with Robert Tulip and have nothing to add here."

"My opposition to astrotheology is based entirely on its fallacious methodology."
Neil Godfrey "My suspicions are confirmed. Henceforth astrotheology is off the agenda completely as far as I am concerned unless someone can demonstrate a more logically and methodolically valid underpinning than this."

http://g0dalmighty.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/response/
Methodology and Peer Review

A major problem with some like Carrier and Godfrey is that they're far more interested in the "methodology and peer review" than they are the actual primary sources and other credible evidence, which puts them in a position where they 'can't see the forest for the trees.'

If you're paying close attention you'll notice Carrier and Godfrey's cult like worship of methodology and peer review and their constant attempt to bludgeon Acharya with them, meanwhile, elsewhere they admit that there are a great many problems with ... yep, you guested it, methodology and peer review!

They are completely obsessed with methodology and peer review at the expense of valid evidence and basic common sense.

http: //w ww.fr eethought nation.co m/forums/viewtopic.php?p=29129#p29129

I admit my words were poorly expressed and susceptible to being ripped from their context to make it sound like I am saying the opposite of what I have no problem admitting I have said. The full sentence of mine was this:
I have said that certain methods used by historical Jesus scholars are flawed because they violate more fundamental and sound methods used by historians generally, but I have never criticized Acharya for using flawed methodologies.
What I meant and assumed was clear from the context was that I have never criticized Acharya for using the flawed methodologies that I see used by biblical scholars themselves in their HJ studies. I thought you were talking about those. Of course I do not deny that I have faulted Acharya and Robert Tulip here for using flawed methodologies. Why would I deny something I am supposedly "obsessed" with?

But I have written a lot more than you have quoted here so it is clear it is you who is obsessed with pulling out anything where I mention methodology. And the replies you offer demonstrate my point that you have no idea what my criticism actually is.

I'll offer you the same opportunity I offered Robert. Robert said he could not take me up on it because he could not understand my criticisms at all. So can you tell me in your own words what my criticism of Acharya's arguments is? What is it, exactly, that I find problematic? If it is "methodology" then can you explain to me -- to reassure me you really understand my point -- what it is I find troubling about her arguments?

Maximos wrote:
Neil Godfrey "It is very clear that you yourself do not understand either astrotheology or the concept of a 'celestial Christ' as proposed by Doherty/Carrier etc. of both. They have nothing in common at all."
LOL, just make it up however you need to.
Celestial:

1. pertaining to the sky or visible heaven, or to the universe beyond the earth’s atmosphere, as in celestial body

or

"Relating to the sky or the heavens. Stars and planets are celestial bodies.

Relating to the celestial sphere or to any of the coordinate systems by which the position of an object, such as a star or planet, is represented on it."
Compare that to:
Astrotheology: "Theology founded on observation or knowledge of the celestial bodies" ... such as the sun, moon, planets, stars, constellations and milky way etc. created by William Derham in 1714.
But by all means, Neil, please do show off your erudition and make your case detailing the difference for us. Maybe you could do a blog on it doing your best to dishonestly pretend there's no comparison at all. But, in order to properly do that you'd actually have to understand Acharya's work, which you've proven repeatedly that you do not.
According to your argument here anything at all with the word "celestial" has to do with astrotheology. If you don't see a problem with that then I can explain it to you if you like. It has to do with fundamentals of logic and, er, "method" of argument and validation.

I have made a pretty good attempt to understand what I'm accused of not understanding here with Robert Tulip. What is it, exactly, that you think I don't understand. I'm quite open to learning.
Maximos wrote:You only "reviewed" her first book to attack it with zero interest in any kind of objective or honest interest as you've admitted, same as Carrier has. So, neither of you are qualified to comment on her work with any degree of competence whatsoever.
So you did not like my review of the first chapter or two. Would you care to tackle my points in that review instead of responding with personal attacks?
Maximos wrote:
Neil Godfrey "I have over the years avoided addressing the works of Acharya S / D. M. Murdock for no reason other than that I have never spent much time reading any of them and have had no personal interest in her perspective on things."
"Neil, some of the first things you did was ‘poison the well’ many times with comments like von Daniken etc.

You have shown your true colours with your utter contempt and animosity for the science behind astrotheology, which is part of the case for mythicism – a subject that you CLAIM to have an interest in. Yet, you refuse to allow any intellectually honest or objective conversation about it and it most certainly appears that your knee-jerk reactions are possibly due to your own past, which has nothing to do with us or astrotheology."

- Godfrey's 'falling-out' blog
It's an intellectually honest and objective conversation I would dearly love to have. I did hope for one with Robert here. But all I keep getting is personal attacks. What's this "poison the well" thing anyway? Robert, I think it was, actually did not think von Daniken was all that screwy anyway -- a bit mistaken but not totally screwball. He clearly did not grasp the logical errors in his reasoning.

I'm very open to a discussion without any personal attacks. But Murdock/Acharya, nor you, are clearly not interested in anything like that.
Maximos wrote:
Neil Godfrey "That is a lie. I have never engaged in a smear campaign against Acharya."
No Neil, what you've done is far worse, falsely accusing Acharya and her supporters as being an evangelizing cult, yet, you can't figure out why they are disgusted with you for such malicious lies:

Your own blog: "Astrotheology, A Religious Belief System (as per D.M. Murdock/Acharya S)"

I've read your so-called "reviews" of her first book and you are a liar who has been intentionally assassinating Acharya's character, smearing her and her supporters with an endless stream of disingenuous smears and intellectual dishonesty.
Bullshit. I ask you to read exactly what I said about "cult" in this context and get your facts right. Read the context, too. Quote me this "endless stream of disingenuous smears and intellectual dishonesty". Yes a few times I have had a little dig, but if you are honest and look at all I have written you will find, I trust, efforts to engage in the very thing you say you want -- a genuine honest discussion.
Maximos wrote:
Neil Godfrey "My record of defending Acharya against some of the worst insults I have read on the web counts for nothing."
I've never seen you defend her against anything, quite the opposite as all I've seen from you have been endless smears, but, thanks for that admission that she has received some of the worst insults you've ever read. From where I stand, some of those "worst insults" come you, Carrier and Rook/Tom. Yet, you guys still can't figure why she's disgusted with you all.
Then you haven't read everything I have written in relation to Acharya on the web or my blog, have you.
Maximos wrote:You take anything you don't like that Robert Tulip has said and you attach it to Acharya as made clear in the comment by 'Reader':
"...Therefore, this article could well have been titled “Astrotheology as understood by Robert Tulip."

Your own blog: "Astrotheology, A Religious Belief System (as per D.M. Murdock/Acharya S)"
If you read seriously my words you would have seen I asked Robert if his views reflected those of Acharya. I did not assume anything. If I have misrepresented Acharya in any way then quote me.
Maximos wrote:
Neil Godfrey "I have in fact publicly deplored smear campaigns against her."
Baaahahahaha, Who are you trying to fool?

Your own blog: 'Astrotheology, A Religious Belief System (as per D.M. Murdock/Acharya S)"
That's smear? Robert himself said it was a true religion -- and I asked him how much of his own words reflected Acharya's views. Am I wrong? If it is not a religious belief system then explain to me what it is and why I am wrong. I'm open to learning.
Maximos wrote:
Neil Godfrey "I very much doubt that Carrier "rants against Acharya" for, as you put it, "discussing 18th/19th century works". I do not believe you.
Really? Because you are on video with Carrier March 15th, 2014 when he does just that:
Nuskeptix "Christ Myth Theory" Video Chat

54:55 Carrier "I want her to get with the proper methodology and start reading something after the 19th century."

"Another smear proving once again that neither Carrier nor Neil have ever actually studied her work and are just doing their typical bludgeoning her with issues, real or perceived, from her first book from 1999. The problem here is she has already announced a 2nd edition for that book long ago. Plus, Carrier's argument is hypocritical here as his Bayes' theorem originally came from Thomas Bayes (1701–1761) from the 18th century."

ht tp : //ww w.fr eethoug htnat ion.co m/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4640
Any criticism of her work is "smear"? That's why I find honest discussion impossible. You guys and Acharya interpret every criticism as a personal attack and respond with character assassination. You cannot handle honest criticism. You can't tell the difference between criticism of methods and arguments and personal abuse.
Maximos wrote:
Neil Godfrey "The ONLY reason I began to publish some reviews of her first book was under pressure from her supporters to address her work. I read it in depth and began to do a chapter by chapter review. For my efforts I was smeared and slandered by Acharya and others. In my reviews I did point out methodological flaws and rhetorical problems and made some comparisons with other similar flawed publications I have also read, and with the rhetoric of others with which I am familiar. For that I was falsely accused and my words distorted and twisted into false allegations. "
Neil, you are completely full of shit. you started off your so-called "review" like this:
Neil Godfrey "Recently I have been chastised by Acharya S (D. M. Murdock) and some of her followers for failing to give the attention and prominence (one of them wanted to do a guest post on my blog) to their views that they demand they deserve."

- Review of Acharya S’s “The Christ Conspiracy” part 1
LOL, that is the very first sentence, Neil. That blog is more about you and your utter distaste for Acharya and hatred of astrotheology than it is about her work.
Maximos, before I formed an opinion of Acharya's work, I read it -- I did not read every page in CC but I read a lot of it. I was disappointed. This is before all the controversy began. When the controversy began I made a deliberate choice to avoid discussing her work because I did not want to be involved in the hate campaign mounting against her. I deplored that. I hated it.

But I could not bring myself to agree with her work. I could see the faults in it. I simply was not interested in pursuing it further. Then under pressure I made the big mistake of explaining to people like you why I did not like CC. To do that I had to be careful I had my facts right so I began re-reading very carefully trying to be wary of any misunderstandings as I went. For my efforts you and Acharya have engage in the most vicious personal attacks on me.
Maximos wrote:Is that how you begin an objective and sincere "review" - NO, so stop pretending you're innocent, Neil. You and Carrier have DESERVED every insult you've received for all those malicious smears directed at Acharya. A person with a conscience would be ashamed of themselves - not you, Carrier or Rook. Acharya and her supporters have every right to defend themselves against an endless stream of hate and malicious smears.

Neil, you owe her an apology for those trash "reviews." And her supporters never asked you to review "Christ Conspiracy" that was just another dirty tactic on your part. They were asking you to blog her mythicist position for discussion. So, *ALL* of this crap is on you, Neil, you started it and couldn't take the heat when they called you out on your utter dishonesty. That's what all of this comes down to.
[/quote]

What would you like to see put in this apology? Please quote me the passages in my reviews that I should retract. Please quote me the "smears" in my reviews. All of them.

Is it possible for anyone to argue against Acharya without being accused of smear? If so, how?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by neilgodfrey »

Let me just say, Maximos, that it is clear that Acharya and you are not interested in genuine critical argument. You have no defence for your views when subjected to the norms of logic and fundamentals of historical research methods. Your response is to attack critics who come from that perspective. It is very easy for targets of your personal attacks to be so numbed by their ferocity to shut up and say nothing about Acharya's work any more.

I myself am very tempted to pull my head in and never address your arguments again because of this pressure. But then it occurs to me that that's exactly what you and Acharya want -- for critics like me to shut up.

So I can only say that I am tempted to write more -- to avoid giving in to your personal attacks -- and do more to expose the fallacies of astrotheology.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply