Loaves and Fishes

[Robert Tulip]

It is literally impossible, so its origins deserve careful analysis. Ruling out magic, ... []

Your opening post starts with a dogmatic assumption. For me that would be more or less the same as someone writing "the bible being God's word the author of this text must be telling the truth".
It makes me immediately lose interest in reading any further.

Hello Andrew, thank you for your contribution.

My so-called "dogmatic" assumption to which you draw attention is that modern science provides a basically accurate cosmology. I don't agree that this is dogmatic in the conventional religious sense, since the teachings of dogma are usually supported by tradition and authority rather than by evidence and logic. Science is not a religion in this dogmatic sense.

Unfortunately, your comparison of my scientific assumption with claims of Biblical inerrancy is laughably inaccurate and indicates a gross failure of logic on your part. Your post reads to me as though you are a fundamentalist Christian who dislikes my assertion that we should try to exclude magic as an explanation for all claims. If you think that God can break the laws of physics, I disagree with you. We have abundant evidence that the universe obeys consistent ordered laws. God only breaks those laws in people's erroneous imagination.

You are welcome to carry out your plan to stop reading, since you would only drag the thread into ignorant and inconsequential squabbles, if your comment just now is any guide.

[neilgodfrey]

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.

For the record here are my public declarations deploring personal attacks on Acharya S / D.M. Murdock and my efforts to defend her against personal attacks on my blog, with a couple of other positive comments and my disappointment at her response to me tossed in.

http://vridar.org/2012/07/08/christ-amo ... ment-15636

I think some of the details Murdock notes have been pointed out in the past are of interest and worth investigation.

http://vridar.org/2012/08/03/only-schol ... ment-16382

I have removed three more comments from here, . . . one which was resurfacing quotations . . . of personal attacks on D.M. Murdock / Acharya S.

http://vridar.org/2012/09/30/michael-tu ... ment-17105

I am particularly disappointed in Robert Tulip for his personal attacks and psychological analysis of me to excuse his failure to persuade me; and also disappointed in D. M. Murdock whom I have never attacked personally — I have publicly deplored the personal attacks of others against her — calling me a “bigot”. A few times I have offered criticism but never abuse.

http://vridar.org/2012/09/30/michael-tu ... ment-17107

Sorry, Kritter, but I had not let several of your comments through partly because I suspected you were trying to make fun of Acharya S / D.M. Murdock and her supporters with illogical responses that were so embarrassing I thought they may possibly have been intended as a spoof. Because of that element of doubt I did not let them through.

http://vridar.org/2012/09/30/michael-tu ... ment-17055

I have never attacked Acharya/Murdock personally and I am sickened by some of the personal attacks I have seen.

http://vridar.org/2013/10/12/so-this-wa ... ment-40431

It’s ironic. I used to be appalled at the way so many dug their boots into Acharya S/D.M. Murdock — and I still am. I used to be appalled at the outrageous personal attacks made on the web against Tom Verenna. But I have no time for the way both of these individuals have proved themselves no better, and in some cases worse than, those who have personally attacked them.

http://vridar.org/2014/01/13/earliest-c ... ment-66196

I have never said I find Murdock’s work “offensive”. I don’t find it “offensive”. I have never “smeared” her. I have never, as far as I can recall, said Acharya/Murdock is contemptible. In fact, I used to write here in condemnations of smear attacks on her. I have always been, and still am, outraged by the treatment some people have dished out to her. And I will not allow smear or other forms of personal attacks against her here.

http://vridar.org/2014/01/13/earliest-c ... ment-66202

I do not allow personal attacks on Murdock here, either.

[Stephan Huller]

Why is the entire approach of this group so narcissistic? It is about the ideas not the person. My first major in university was psychology. I think there is a fundamental disconnect and it has to do with the differing socializing habits of males and females. The problem has a lot to do with the number of males who do the criticizing and the females that take things all too personally. The Acharya group inevitably equates criticism with 'personal attacks' but this really isn't so. The attacks only seem personal because they make it so.

Maybe religion was invented by men to escape the clutches and over-personalizing tendencies of women. That's what I find attractive about the concept of God. Something impersonal, transcendent and truthful.

Is there a female equivalent to 'man up' 'be a man' take it like a man'? I don't know but it always seems to me that women and men socialize differently. If something sounds stupid, males are more likely to say it to someone's face. Women on the other hand are more 'sensitive' to the emotions of people in the group. This was the same problem at the BC & H with respect to Pete. What do you do about a problem like Pete? The female moderators were expecting the group to act and socialize like females. But almost everyone there (save for the moderators) were males.

Males see 'giving it to someone' as a kind of 'baptism by fire.' Fire is purifying. Fire is destructive but it also brings out the truth. I really think if the feminized acolytes of Acharya can't take the heat then simply get out the kitchen. Stop whining like sissies. We can't see who is male or female unless the names of individuals are distinctive.

As sexist as this may seem - for men truth isn't personal. It exists 'out there' and needs to be tested, brutalized and ultimately emerge from the fire of testing unscathed. Again stop whining all the time. If you don't like forum go somewhere else.

[Peter Kirby]

This would sound a lot less sexist, of course, if you acknowledge that these personality traits can easily cross the lines of physical sex genitalia and of gender identity. (Which would then require rewording a lot of the stereotypes bluntly applied to "men" and "women.")

[Robert Tulip]

I know Acharya and her acolytes are oblivious to the significance of 21 CE that's why I am taking this seriously. They have figured out a way to fuck this up with their usual bullshit.

Stephan, I have not managed to “fuck this up with bullshit”. Cosmic allegory in the Bible is a complex topic which you do not understand that well, as you illustrated by your mistaken claim in this thread that there is no bread in the zodiac, despite the centrality of wheat to the symbolism of Virgo.

I assume the two lines form the Platonic chi (fixed stars, wandering stars). Interesting. You guys have been staring at the solution to everything without even knowing it. I bet DCH is the only other person to see it.

I tend to agree with the view that Plato’s chi in the sky described in the Timaeus was primarily meant as the zodiac and the galaxy, not the conventional claim that it is the zodiac and the equator. But this 21 AD point where X marks the spot does show the conventional Chi Rho triple axis in an elegant way, formed by the zodiac, the equator and the first fish of Pisces, in a way that was accessible to ancient naked eye astronomy, marking the Alpha and Omega point of the beginning and end of the Ages in a way that matches precisely to this conventional symbol.

Robert when you get a chance, please PM or post the most impressive 'statement' of your academic background. I have to give credit where credit is due.

My academic background arose from my family context. My father James Tulip was the head of the Department of Religious Studies and Associate Professor of English Literature at the University of Sydney, and my mother Marie Tulip was a feminist theologian, editor of the women’s liberation magazine Magdalene. I obtained an honours degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1985 for a philosophy thesis on precession in the Bible, and an honours degree of Master of Arts in 1991 for a philosophy thesis on The Place of Ethics in Heidegger’s Ontology, both from Macquarie University. I have not pursued formal academic work because my ideas of a new paradigm in religion are too way out for anyone else to talk about much. I work in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, where I am acting Director for Resources and Energy.

Modern astronomy calculates the precise date at which the equinox point crossed the perpendicular line of stars of the first fish of Pisces as 21 AD.

But the question again has to be - can this date of 21 CE be verified? I have done a quick Google search and found nothing.

The shape of Pisces is a triangle. A point in the sky is either inside the triangle or outside it. The equinox point where the sun crosses from south to north of the equator entered the triangle of the stars of Pisces on 15 September, 21 AD, according to the astronomy software Skygazer 4.5. This calculation involves zooming in to a level of magnification showing about one second of arc.

Verification of this claim involves acceptance that the ancients defined Pisces as this triangle of stars. That is readily seen by the ancient sky map from the ceiling of the Egyptian temple at Dendera, now in the Louvre in Paris, where this Greek constellation is depicted at the top of the picture as shown as two joined cords with fish at the ends.

Here is Jack Kilmon's take: …Kepler, … was observing the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. The two planets had converged to look like one larger and new "star." Kepler later remembered something he had read by the Rabbinical writer, Abravanel (1437-1508). Jewish astrologers maintained that when there was a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces, the Messiah would come. In ancient Jewish astrology, the constellation of Pisces was known as the House of Israel, the sign of the Messiah. Jupiter was the royal star of the house of David and Saturn was the protecting star of Israel, the Messiah's Star Since the constellation of Pisces was the point in the heavens where the sun ended it's old course and began its new, it is understandable why this conjunction would be viewed as a portent of the Messiah.

Stephan, thanks for this material from Jack Kilmon. Jupiter and Saturn are conjunct every 19.85 years, a period that the Mayans appear to have used as their main generational time unit the Katun. Their next conjunction in 2020 will be in tropical Aquarius but sidereal Capricorn. I have done a detailed astronomical study of the cycles of the gas giant planets, summarised at an essay on The Gas Giant Planets, the Great Year and the Holy City outlining how the triple conjunction cycle of 178.9 years of Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune may resonate with earth’s precessional wobble, and exploring speculative links to religious themes.

I disagree with Kepler’s claim about the Star of Bethlehem as primarily referring to the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction, as I consider this nativity myth is an astral story referring to Orion, Sirius and Argo.

[Stephan Huller]

What I mean by "fuck this up by their usual bullshit" is - you don't have to do anything to the date. 21 CE was the official date of the crucifixion according to the Roman historical records. You don't need to do anything to the date. It was the date. The cross carried by Jesus is a "sign" in the truest sense of the chi in heaven. Just leave it alone. Since you didn't seem to know that a priori and were if anything trying to add years to this result to get to what you thought was the "right date" I knew you really allowed the astronomical evidence to stand as it was.

You've stumbled on to the answer to everything, my friend. Let that be a lesson to you. Just follow the evidence to the truth. Not the other way around. If you were clever take this to the next level. Go to a professional astronomical organization corroborate your findings and then publish it in a journal STRIPPED OF ANY OF THE USUAL "ADDITIONAL STUFF."

As I said if this holds up you've found something precious

[Stephan Huller]

And there's more. I've been telling people at these forums for some time that the word 'gospel' derives from Hebrew. I won't get into what it means (or go into it too deeply) but it has everything to do with the Jubilee. The Jewish religious year starts on the first of the first. But when it is a Jubilee messengers (a term in Hebrew that translates to 'evangelists') were sent out to let everyone know the Jubilee was coming. My friend Rory Boid, an Australian who is one of the only authorities on the Samaritans whom the Samaritans actually respect (in no small part because he is fluent in all the languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic and Greek) made clear to me that it is fairly ambiguous how long the Jubilee lasts. The period of announcement is six months (7/1 to 1/1) and this was part of the Jubilee year. But how long did it go beyond that? My guess now is that if Jesus came down at the beginning of the seventh month (or perhaps more likely during the festival of Booths) to go into the synagogue and announce the Jubilee (cf. Stromata Book One the important variant where Jesus isn't just reading Isa 61 and its 'year of favor' reference) and Clement of Alexandria says quite explicitly Jesus's ministry lasted for a year, it is interesting that the end of the gospel would correspond with September. In the Apocalypse of Peter the Transfiguration is the end of the gospel. Notice the 'booths' that Peter wants to set up. In a year long ministry (and the crucifixion occurring at a fixed month) it is natural then that the coming down and going up occur on the traditional date of the Festival of Booths.

Anyway, that's my 'fucking up the evidence.' We all do it. But please keep your head clear and strip down your discovery to its barest bones and get it published.

[Stephan Huller]

FWIW here is the reference from the Samaritan Arabic commentary on the Torah, on Leviticus 25:9. Slightly condensed and slightly re-arranged translation from my life long friend it seems Ruaridh Boid formerly of Monash University:

The High Priest and the King acting together are to send heralds out on the Day of Atonement (i.e. the tenth of the seventh month) to go into all countries over the next six months blowing the shofar in every land and region [not just Canaan] with the announcement [= bashâ’ir, plural of bashîrah] of the information of the approach of the Jubilee Year and the release of captives so that it reaches the whole nation”.

Clement seems to infer at one point that the gospel read '15 Tybi' rather than 15th year of Tiberius but also that Jesus instead of reading Isaiah 61:2 has the following:

“And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," [Luke 3 1, 2]. and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: “He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel.

Interestingly enough I have something for your interest too I hope. I figured out how the bread fits in with the zodiac. It is apparently Jewish and first appears in Philo and then is reused by Clement:

Clement has learned from Philo to interpret the sacred table of the temple in terms of the zodiac, "And loaves are placed on the seventh day on the sacred table, being equal in number to the months of the year, twelve loaves, arranged in two rows of six each, in accordance with the arrangement of the equinoxes; for there are two equinoxes every year, the vernal and the autumnal, which are each reckoned by periods of six months." (Philo, Spec. Leg. i 1 72; cf. Jos. Ant. iii 1 82). Yet Clement's interpretation is very different than Philo's perhaps because he is referencing Ezekiel 41:22 multiplying "three cubits high" by "the length thereof two cubits" to arrive at the conclusion that "the table which was in the temple was six cubits." When he factors in some other measurements he notes that "they add, then, the twelve cubits, agreeably to the revolution of the twelve months, in the annual circle, during which the earth produces and matures all things; adapting itself to the four seasons. And the table, in my opinion, exhibits the image of the earth, supported as it is on four feet, summer, autumn, spring, winter, by which the year travels."(Stromata 6.11)

[Robert Tulip]

21 CE was the official date of the crucifixion according to the Roman historical records. You don't need to do anything to the date. It was the date. The cross carried by Jesus is a "sign" in the truest sense of the chi in heaven. Just leave it alone.

What is your source for this claim? I have never heard of it. The closest I could find was http://cojs.org/cojswiki/index.php/Cruc ... ent,_21_CE Crucifixion Bone Fragment, 21 CE

Since you didn't seem to know that a priori and were if anything trying to add years to this result to get to what you thought was the "right date" I knew you really allowed the astronomical evidence to stand as it was.

I was just citing the traditional Christian interpretation of Daniel as prophecying the ministry of Christ as beginning at the baptism by John the Baptist in 26 AD. That conventionally matches the 69 weeks of years from Ezra. Taking the first google listing http://biblelight.net/dan927.htm gives Ezra's decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 457 BC as 483 years or 69 weeks of years before 26 AD as a reading of Daniel 9:24.

You've stumbled on to the answer to everything, my friend. Let that be a lesson to you. Just follow the evidence to the truth. Not the other way around. If you were clever take this to the next level. Go to a professional astronomical organization corroborate your findings and then publish it in a journal STRIPPED OF ANY OF THE USUAL "ADDITIONAL STUFF."
As I said if this holds up you've found something precious

The Chi Rho cross is a symbol for the movement of the equinox into the constellation of Pisces in 21 AD. As a scientific hypothesis, this claim is partly falsifiable against examination of the astronomical boundaries and dates. Full assessment would require demonstrated coherence with ancient knowledge, as something known and used by Bible authors in constructing the Christ Myth. The elements of the Chi Rho cross map the ecliptic, the equator, and the line connecting the magnitude 3.7 stars Alpha Piscium, Al Rescha, the knot, and Eta Piscium, Kullat Nunu, the fish cord, past the faint star Omicron Piscium, Torcularis septentrionalis.

Richard Hinckley Allen states of Omicron, the closest star in the first fish to the solar ecliptic path

“ο, 4.6, appeared in the 1515 Almagest as Torcularis septentrionalis, a translation of ληνός [winepress], erroneously written for λίνος [Linos – line or thread, or from Strong’s “the name of a mythical minstrel, perhaps from linon (for the string of a musical instrument)”], this star being on the Thread northeast from α. But the Latin word should read Torcular.”

This means the star closest to the centre of the Chi-Rho cross that marked the dawn of the Age of Pisces in the sky is translated as Northern Winepress, which looks to be a modern mistranslation from Northern Line or Northern Thread.

The Alpha and Omega symbols traditionally included in the Chi Rho cross diagram indicate the position of this date in 21 AD as the beginning and end of an imagined Great Year of precession of the equinoxes, at the end of the Age of Aries and the beginning of the Age of Pisces.

[Stephan Huller]

There is much that can be said (and has been said) about this but it all starts with this http://st-takla.org/books/en/ecf/201/2010036.html

The official documents of the Roman government said 21 CE. The date has scholarly support cf. Vardaman. Also Schwartz's reconstruction of Josephus