Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

[neilgodfrey]

Thank you for this direct and honest explanation. It has cleared up much for me. So in effect, then, you are arguing that your own "pantheistic view" is the correct interpretation of the Bible.

It would seem to me, then, that this explains why your or Acharya's arguments do not conform to the four fundamental steps of the hypothetico-deductive model.

[Robert Tulip]

Thank you for this direct and honest explanation. It has cleared up much for me. So in effect, then, you are arguing that your own "pantheistic view" is the correct interpretation of the Bible.

It would seem to me, then, that this explains why your or Acharya's arguments do not conform to the four fundamental steps of the hypothetico-deductive model.

This prompts me to respond to the comments at the link,

Let's apply the hypothetico-deductive model to the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. I use the steps as set out on the Wikipedia article you link to:

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Gather data and look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.

What are the previous explanations for this miracle? Are they satisfactory? Cogent? Simple? Both you and Murdock would be more persuasive if you could demonstrate that you have undertaken this first step. But in none of your arguments have I seen any in depth grappling with existing explanations.

On this first point, the basic premises that Acharya and I bring to analysis of Biblical texts include that modern science is correct, miracles are impossible, and the texts somehow evolved from meaningful stories into supernatural fantasy. Pantheism, as the philosophical religion of Spinoza and Einstein, provides a far more coherent and plausible set of assumptions than other approaches to religion, presenting a rational heuristic. Pantheism recognises the unity of reality, seeing that reality is ordered and comprehensible and that scientific knowledge provides the framework to consider questions of ultimate purpose and meaning.

I did an internet search for discussion of the loaves and fishes miracle, and only found Christian screeds that claim it shows the divinity of Christ through his miraculous power to break the laws of physics. That to me is not an explanation, but rather an illustration of why conventional faith richly deserves its contemptible reputation. I am aware of the Jesus Seminar discounting this event as highly implausible, but I have not seen any analysis that seeks to explain how the meme – the only miracle appearing in all four gospels, and twice in two – could have come into existence. If readers can point to anything sensible I would be grateful.

Suggestions that it is a conjuring trick – “Hey Rocky watch me pull loaves and fishes out of my hat. Looks like I need a new hat” – do not engage with the parabolic intent which led to the high prominence for this fanciful story in the Jesus Myth.

I see my reading as highly explanatory, that the loaves and fishes represented to the original communities the new equinox axis of Virgo and Pisces as an imagined source of abundance through connection between earth and the cosmos in a new age. Obviously this natural reading would have been anathematised by the supernatural orthodoxy, but I am not aware of a more plausible reading.

2. Form a conjecture (hypothesis): When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

Is nothing else yet known about the origin of this miracle? Why are they inadequate as explanations?

Clearly nothing is known about this miracle, by any sensible standard. I have just got out my copy of The Birth of Christianity, by John Dominic Crossan, an esteemed leftist theologian. In 650 pages of tiny font, including an index of about 700 scripture passages, I could not find one mention of this miracle. It appears the attitude is to ignore it as unfit for discussion, even though it is the most prominent miracle in the Gospels. It seems the only way we can try to explain how the loaves and fishes miracle has such a prominent position in the Jesus story is through conjecture and speculation, trying to imagine a coherent story as to why it was important, how it was corrupted, and what the details may mean. Perhaps it is just too confronting for Crossan, suggesting an abyss of meaningless collapse of identity, to explore the idea that maybe this miraculous parable illustrates that the original Jesus story was primarily mythical and cosmic, and the fictional Nazareth story was only added later for purposes of political protection and popularisation.

When Jesus lambasts the disciples as obtuse for their failure to understand the meaning of the five loaves and twelve baskets, there is an obvious Gnostic meaning that the five loaves are the five visible planets, the two fish are the sun and moon, the twelve baskets are the months of the year, and the 4000 or 5000 men are the estimated number of visible stars. But this Gnostic framework is incomprehensible for the illiterate, so Jesus has to allude to it in a hidden way.

The feeding of the four thousand at Mark 8 contains several mysterious verses. Immediately after he has performed the miracle, at 8:11 the Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. At 8:12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.”

But is that not exactly what he has just allegedly done, perform a miracle as a sign from heaven? Does not the church see the bread and fish miracle as a sign from heaven? Is Jesus implying that this supposed miracle he just did is not a sign? Why does he not say to the Pharisees – “I just did a sign from heaven, ask the people who saw it.’ Does the non sequitur mean the miracle story is intended as allegory for something with deeper meaning, and not as literal fact? What could this deeper meaning be? Why is there such congruence between the symbols of the miracle and the main natural structures of the cosmos? John 6:26-7 helps to explain: “you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves, and were filled. Don't work for the food which perishes, but for the food which remains to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you.” The loaves are not a sign but an allegory for eternal life. And what is eternal life but the unchanging motion of the visible heavens?

3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis: if you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

I don't see this in your or Murdock's arguments. What would we expect to find in the data if your hypothesis is true?

The broad hypothesis that Murdock has presented in several detailed and closely researched books, and which I endorse, is that Jesus Christ evolved as allegory for the sun. If this is true, then we should expect to find abundant supportive and coherent solar imagery, of the type seen in the loaves and fishes miracle. The key solar theme in this miracle is precession of the equinox, that from 21 AD the sun was observed to start the natural seasons of spring and autumn in the signs of Pisces (fish) and Virgo (bread), shifting from the longstanding position since the time of Moses when spring began with the sun in Aries.

The consequences of this cosmic material are a revolutionary interpretation of Christian origins, seeing Christianity as emerging from a cosmic Gnosticism rather than the feeble traditional claim that Gnosticism was a later corruption of the big bang faith started from Nazareth.

What predictive power does your hypothesis have? I would expect to find numbers and images in the miracle story directly pointing to astrological phenomena known or understood in that day. I mean, I would expect the numbers to be clearly making astrological sense of the images in the story. All numbers and images would be related in an explanatory way. That is, the images would be explained astrologically (or astronomically) by the numbers and vice versa. Is that not a fair prediction to expect of your hypothesis?

This is simple. For more than a hundred years before Pilate, astronomers knew the equinoxes would shift from Aries and Libra to Pisces and Virgo in about 21 AD. There is a case that this knowledge in Babylon provided the framework of the 70 weeks, and also for the setting of the Christ story at the time of Pilate. Five loaves = five planets. Two fish = sun and moon. Twelve baskets = 12 months. 4000 or 5000 men = number of visible stars. While there is scope for astrological reading, the primary meaning can be seen through objective astronomy alone.

4. Test (or Experiment): Look for evidence (observations) that conflict with these predictions in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This formal fallacy is called affirming the consequent.

I never see this step followed by you or Murdock. I always see the logical error warned against here. That was the point of my comment to which you were responding. It appears by your own standard of the hypothetico-deductive model that your methods are not scientific and your conclusions are the result of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

You or others might have to explain the alleged fallacy, because I just don’t see it. We have a hypothesis, that Jesus evolved as allegory for the sun. This hypothesis is superior to conventional historicism, in being compatible with all known evidence, and providing grounds for an elegant explanation for why and how the Christ Myth became so dominant.

Affirming the consequent has the form
1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P.

In our example, that would imply
1. If Christ is the Sun, then the Bible will reflect this teaching in concealed form.
2. The Bible reflects this teaching in concealed form.
3. Therefore, Christ is the Sun.

But that is not actually the argument that Acharya or I have presented. This imagined fallacious reconstruction of argument ignores the abundant corroborating data, and the weakness of alternative explanations, especially the vacuous tradition of a miraculous Son of God.

We could similarly say
1. If evolution is true, then we will find examples of descent by modification.
2. We find examples of descent by modification.
3. Therefore, evolution is true.

This argument is formally fallacious, and obviously not enough to explain evolution. But the fallacious structure of the logic says nothing about whether in fact evolution is true. Rather, it illustrates that a complex hypothesis needs to seek broad support from a range of areas, and needs to provide a superior explanation compared to rival theories.

Portraying an argument in terms of the affirming the consequent fallacy is far from a sufficient basis to question a hypothesis. Hostile critics will habitually ignore the wealth of supporting data that corroborates a hypothesis, and will try to narrow the discussion to terrain where they perceive their argument is stronger. So in this case, critics of astrotheology will ignore vast areas of scholarship, such as parallels between ancient religions, the role of cosmology, and the intriguing problem of precession of the equinoxes, so they can misconstrue the debate in fallacious terms.

Here for ease of reference are all the Bible texts on the loaves and fishes miracle.

Mark 6:38 He said to them, "How many loaves do you have? Go see." When they knew, they said, "Five, and two fish." 6:39 He commanded them that everyone should sit down in groups on the green grass. 6:40 They sat down in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties. 6:41 He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed and broke the loaves, and he gave to his disciples to set before them, and he divided the two fish among them all. 6:42 They all ate, and were filled. 6:43 They took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and also of the fish. 6:44 Those who ate the loaves were five thousand men.
Mark 8:1 In those days, when there was a very great multitude, and they had nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples to himself, and said to them, 8:2 "I have compassion on the multitude, because they have stayed with me now three days, and have nothing to eat. 8:3 If I send them away fasting to their home, they will faint on the way, for some of them have come a long way." 8:4 His disciples answered him, "From where could one satisfy these people with bread here in a deserted place?" 8:5 He asked them, "How many loaves do you have?" They said, "Seven." 8:6 He commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground, and he took the seven loaves. Having given thanks, he broke them, and gave them to his disciples to serve, and they served the multitude. 8:7 They had a few small fish. Having blessed them, he said to serve these also. 8:8 They ate, and were filled. They took up seven baskets of broken pieces that were left over. 8:9 Those who had eaten were about four thousand. Then he sent them away. 8:10 Immediately he entered into the boat with his disciples, and came into the region of Dalmanutha. 8:11 The Pharisees came out and began to question him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, and testing him. 8:12 He sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Most assuredly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation." 8:13 He left them, and again entering into the boat, departed to the other side. 8:14 They forgot to take bread; and they didn't have more than one loaf in the boat with them. 8:15 He charged them, saying, "Take heed: beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod." 8:16 They reasoned with one another, saying, "It's because we have no bread." 8:17 Jesus, perceiving it, said to them, "Why do you reason that it's because you have no bread? Don't you perceive yet, neither understand? Is your heart still hardened? 8:18 Having eyes, don't you see? Having ears, don't you hear? Don't you remember? 8:19 When I broke the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They told him, "Twelve." 8:20 "When the seven loaves fed the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They told him, "Seven." 8:21 He asked them, "Don't you understand, yet?"

Luke 9:10
He took them, and withdrew apart to a deserted place of a city called Bethsaida. 9:11 But the multitudes, perceiving it, followed him. He welcomed them, and spoke to them of the Kingdom of God, and he cured those who needed healing. 9:12 The day began to wear away; and the twelve came, and said to him, "Send the multitude away, that they may go into the surrounding villages and farms, and lodge, and get food, for we are here in a deserted place." 9:13 But he said to them, "You give them something to eat." They said, "We have no more than five loaves and two fish, unless we should go and buy food for all these people." 9:14 For they were about five thousand men. He said to his disciples, "Make them sit down in groups of about fifty each." 9:15 They did so, and made them all sit down. 9:16 He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to the sky, he blessed them, and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the multitude. 9:17 They ate, and were all filled. They gathered up twelve baskets of broken pieces that were left over.

Matthew 14
He withdrew from there in a boat, to a deserted place apart. When the multitudes heard it, they followed him on foot from the cities. 14:14 Jesus went out, and he saw a great multitude. He had compassion on them, and healed their sick. 14:15 When evening had come, his disciples came to him, saying, "This place is deserted, and the hour is already late. Send the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves food." 14:16 But Jesus said to them, "They don't need to go away. You give them something to eat." 14:17 They told him, "We only have here five loaves and two fish." 14:18 He said, "Bring them here to me." 14:19 He commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass; and he took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave to the multitudes. 14:20 They all ate, and were filled. They took up twelve baskets full of that which remained left over from the broken pieces. 14:21 Those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Matthew 15:32 Jesus summoned his disciples and said, "I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days and have nothing to eat. I don't want to send them away fasting, or they might faint on the way." 15:33 The disciples said to him, "Where should we get so many loaves in a deserted place as to satisfy so great a multitude?" 15:34 Jesus said to them, "How many loaves do you have?" They said, "Seven, and a few small fish." 15:35 He commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground; 15:36 and he took the seven loaves and the fish. He gave thanks and broke them, and gave to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes. 15:37 They all ate, and were filled. They took up seven baskets full of the broken pieces that were left over. 15:38 Those who ate were four thousand men, besides women and children. 15:39 Then he sent away the multitudes, got into the boat, and came into the borders of Magdala. 16:1 The Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven. 16:2 But he answered them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' 16:3 In the morning, 'It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Hypocrites! You know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but you can't discern the signs of the times! 16:4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and there will be no sign given to it, except the sign of the prophet Jonah." He left them, and departed. 16:5 The disciples came to the other side and had forgotten to take bread. 16:6 Jesus said to them, "Take heed and beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 16:7 They reasoned among themselves, saying, "We brought no bread." 16:8 Jesus, perceiving it, said, "Why do you reason among yourselves, you of little faith, 'because you have brought no bread?' 16:9 Don't you yet perceive, neither remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you took up? 16:10 Nor the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? 16:11 How is it that you don't perceive that I didn't speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 16:12 Then they understood that he didn't tell them to beware of the yeast of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
John
Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him, 6:9 There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these among so many?" 6:10 Jesus said, "Have the people sit down." Now there was much grass in that place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. 6:11 Jesus took the loaves; and having given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to those who were sitting down; likewise also of the fish as much as they desired. 6:12 When they were filled, he said to his disciples, "Gather up the broken pieces which are left over, that nothing be lost." 6:13 So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with broken pieces from the five barley loaves, which were left over by those who had eaten. 6:14 When therefore the people saw the sign which Jesus did, they said, "This is truly the prophet who comes into the world." 6:15 Jesus therefore, perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king, withdrew again to the mountain by himself. 6:16 When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, 6:17 and they entered into the boat, and were going over the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not come to them. 6:18 The sea was tossed by a great wind blowing. 6:19 When therefore they had rowed about twenty-five or thirty stadia, they saw Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing near to the boat; and they were afraid. 6:20 But he said to them, "I AM. Don't be afraid." 6:21 They were willing therefore to receive him into the boat. Immediately the boat was at the land where they were going. 6:22 On the next day, the multitude that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other boat there, except the one in which his disciples had embarked, and that Jesus hadn't entered with his disciples into the boat, but his disciples had gone away alone. 6:23However boats from Tiberias came near to the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 6:24 When the multitude therefore saw that Jesus wasn't there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats, and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 6:25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?" 6:26 Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly I tell you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves, and were filled. 6:27 Don't work for the food which perishes, but for the food which remains to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For God the Father has sealed him." 6:28 They said therefore to him, "What must we do, that we may work the works of God?" 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." 6:30 They said therefore to him, "What then do you do for a sign, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you do? 6:31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness. As it is written, 'He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.'" 6:32 Jesus therefore said to them, "Most assuredly, I tell you, it wasn't Moses who gave you the bread out of heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread out of heaven. 6:33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." 6:34 They said therefore to him, "Lord, always give us this bread." 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will not be hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

[Roger Pearse]

On this first point, the basic premises that Acharya and I bring to analysis of Biblical texts include that modern science is correct, miracles are impossible, and the texts somehow evolved from meaningful stories into supernatural fantasy.

As someone who read hard science at a major world university in my younger days, I don't really care for this use of the word "science". I feel I that ought to point out that "modern science" is not an ideology/religion, as more or less inferred above, which can be "correct" in that sense. Likewise scientists have no opinion on whether anything is "impossible"; it merely remains to be proven. I never met a scientist who was a 19th century rationalist (which is what is being expressed).

A question for the humanities -- the literary history of an idea -- doesn't fall within the realm of science anyway. It's a scholarly question. But the words "petitio principi" spring to mind.

[Robert Tulip]

Modern science is an ideology. It claims that evidence about material reality is true, and that the universe obeys consistent and coherent physical laws, as described in major theories such as relativity, quantum mechanics and evolution, working towards a grand unified theory of everything.

Just because many scientists lack faith in science does not mean science is not an ideology. I am currently in debate with some of these scientific non-believers, who take their non-belief to the consistent logical extreme of arguing, like the crazy Bishop Berkeley, that they have no way to know if the universe really exists. That is the absurd and dangerous logical conclusion of the sort of anti-ideology movement that Roger Pearse describes.

Science is the most powerful ethical value in the world today, but it is hamstrung by the sort of perverse Humean logic, following Popper's ideological assault on Plato, that says we have no way to know about our basic intuitions on causality, time and space. These problems were largely solved for philosophy by Immanuel Kant with his doctrine of necessary ideas, but the solution has been forgotten among those who insist science is not an ideology.

Lewis Carroll mocked those who can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Yes there are scientists who have no opinion on whether anything is impossible, but they are to that extent crazy and stupid. Many things are indeed impossible. For example, it is impossible to feed 5000 men with five loaves and two fish, have twelve baskets of food left over, claim this is not a sign from heaven, do the same whole thing again with slightly different astral numbers for 4000 men, and have the entire extraordinary episode escape historical notice except in a work of sublime fiction.

[beowulf]

If you have such a low opinion of Science, why do you feel the need to disguise astrology as science?

[Robert Tulip]

If you have such a low opinion of Science, why do you feel the need to disguise astrology as science?

I have an extremely high opinion of science. As I just said in my last comment that you responded to, "Science is the most powerful ethical value in the world today".

I do not disguise astrology as science. That question just reflects that you do not understand my views.

[neilgodfrey]

Let's apply the hypothetico-deductive model to the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. I use the steps as set out on the Wikipedia article you link to:

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Gather data and look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.

What are the previous explanations for this miracle? Are they satisfactory? Cogent? Simple? Both you and Murdock would be more persuasive if you could demonstrate that you have undertaken this first step. But in none of your arguments have I seen any in depth grappling with existing explanations.

On this first point, the basic premises that Acharya and I bring to analysis of Biblical texts include that modern science is correct, miracles are impossible, and the texts somehow evolved from meaningful stories into supernatural fantasy. . . . . .

I did an internet search for discussion of the loaves and fishes miracle, and only found Christian screeds that claim it shows the divinity of Christ through his miraculous power to break the laws of physics. That to me is not an explanation, but rather an illustration of why conventional faith richly deserves its contemptible reputation. I am aware of the Jesus Seminar discounting this event as highly implausible, but I have not seen any analysis that seeks to explain how the meme – . . . .

Suggestions that it is a conjuring trick – “Hey Rocky watch me pull loaves and fishes out of my hat. Looks like I need a new hat” – do not engage with the parabolic intent which led to the high prominence for this fanciful story in the Jesus Myth.

I see my reading as highly explanatory . . . .

(Not trying to misrepresent by deleting passages, Robert -- people are invited to return to the original to see the full context. Just trying to cut the length.)

Unfortunately this is as I feared. You are not aware of alternative scholarly explanations. You appear not to know how to find out what other explanations there are. An internet search as you appear to describe won't cut it. Looking at the Jesus Seminar alone work won't cut it, because that project was only looking at the question of historical authenticity in the Acts of Jesus. But even if you had read the Seminar's Acts of Jesus you would have been led to many other questions and sources where the origins of the gospel stories are addressed in the literature.

Your use of "meme" also worries me. That is not a scientific reality that has been proven to exist. It is merely a hypothetical metaphor proposed by Dawkins. You need to adhere to concepts that have been tested and/or theoretically grounded in the scholarly literature.

In responding to the critical question you begin and end with enthusiastic assertions of the explanatory power of your own thesis. But that is what we are trying to establish through the tests of the method you say it must pass. You do not appear to have read into the origins -- theological and literary-critical -- of the gospel narratives. You never refer to any of the dozens of relevant authors or works.

What worries me most is your tone of crusading, question-begging and misrepresentation and caricature of alternatives: Conventional faith deserves its contemptible reputation . . . Hey Rocky . . . evolved from meaningful stories into supernatural fantasy . . . .

No-one who seriously addresses the question of origins of these miracle stories doubts they had a "meaningful origin". But your use of the term is question-begging, yes -- as if there are no alternatives. You come across as having only looked positively on your own side of the argument and your only acquaintance with the other side is a jaundiced look at only a smattering of "internet hits" and a reading of one work by Crossan that was not addressing the question.

That's how you come across -- I am not trying to be abusive or insulting. I hope you don't see here cause to rail back on me with insult once again.

2. Form a conjecture (hypothesis): When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

Is nothing else yet known about the origin of this miracle? Why are they inadequate as explanations?

Clearly nothing is known about this miracle, by any sensible standard. I have just got out my copy of The Birth of Christianity, by John Dominic Crossan, an esteemed leftist theologian. . . . . It appears the attitude is to ignore it as unfit for discussion, even though it is the most prominent miracle in the Gospels. It seems the only way we can try to explain how the loaves and fishes miracle has such a prominent position in the Jesus story is through conjecture and speculation, . . . Perhaps it is just too confronting for Crossan, suggesting an abyss of meaningless collapse of identity, to explore the idea that maybe this miraculous parable illustrates that the original Jesus story was primarily mythical and cosmic, and the fictional Nazareth story was only added later for purposes of political protection and popularisation.

This is not a scholarly approach, Robert. It is ad hominem. It is sarcastic. And it is blaming Crossan for not addressing a point that he did not see relevant to the theme of his work. And because you don't see an alternative explanation in one book you assume that any explanation offered in the literature is "conjecture and speculation"? You even suggest Crossan is "too fearful" to face the truth. What sort of academic argument is this? It is conspiracy theory you are presenting here, not scholarly argument.

When Jesus lambasts the disciples as obtuse for their failure to understand the meaning of the five loaves and twelve baskets, there is an obvious Gnostic meaning that the five loaves are the five visible planets, the two fish are the sun and moon, the twelve baskets are the months of the year, and the 4000 or 5000 men are the estimated number of visible stars. But this Gnostic framework is incomprehensible for the illiterate, so Jesus has to allude to it in a hidden way.

This is all question begging. This is the interpretation that has yet to be tested -- and compared with other scholarly explanations of which you are clearly unaware.

The feeding of the four thousand at Mark 8 contains several mysterious verses. Immediately after he has performed the miracle, at 8:11 the Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. At 8:12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.”

But is that not exactly what he has just allegedly done, perform a miracle as a sign from heaven? . . . .

You have not yet studied the much of the vast scholarly literature on the gospels and on the way they are written and your rhetorical questions and uninformed manner of interpreting Mark shows. Your tone is not exploratory but rhetorical.

3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis: if you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

I don't see this in your or Murdock's arguments. What would we expect to find in the data if your hypothesis is true?

The broad hypothesis that Murdock has presented in several detailed and closely researched books, and which I endorse, is that Jesus Christ evolved as allegory for the sun. If this is true, then we should expect to find abundant supportive and coherent solar imagery, of the type seen in the loaves and fishes miracle. The key solar theme in this miracle is precession of the equinox, that from 21 AD the sun was observed to start the natural seasons of spring and autumn in the signs of Pisces (fish) and Virgo (bread), shifting from the longstanding position since the time of Moses when spring began with the sun in Aries.

The consequences of this cosmic material are a revolutionary interpretation of Christian origins, seeing Christianity as emerging from a cosmic Gnosticism rather than the feeble traditional claim that Gnosticism was a later corruption of the big bang faith started from Nazareth.

Unfortunately you have missed the point. Such a prediction is too vague to be meaningful. Many different hypotheses could predict abundance of solar imagery. ("Coherence" is an interpretation -- that remains to be tested.) We see many instances where 12 of anything can be interpreted astrologically by the astrologically minded. Predictions need a bit more precision than what you are saying here.

Your last paragraph presents a false dichotomy.

What predictive power does your hypothesis have? I would expect to find numbers and images in the miracle story directly pointing to astrological phenomena known or understood in that day. I mean, I would expect the numbers to be clearly making astrological sense of the images in the story. All numbers and images would be related in an explanatory way. That is, the images would be explained astrologically (or astronomically) by the numbers and vice versa. Is that not a fair prediction to expect of your hypothesis?

This is simple. For more than a hundred years before Pilate, astronomers knew the equinoxes would shift from Aries and Libra to Pisces and Virgo in about 21 AD. There is a case that this knowledge in Babylon provided the framework of the 70 weeks, and also for the setting of the Christ story at the time of Pilate. Five loaves = five planets. Two fish = sun and moon. Twelve baskets = 12 months. 4000 or 5000 men = number of visible stars. While there is scope for astrological reading, the primary meaning can be seen through objective astronomy alone.

This does not clarify anything for me. The 5 planets and the moon and even the sun were broken up into tiny shards, by means of a prayer, and those shards were carried by 12 months (presumably the disciples are also months because they are 12?) to far more men grouped by 100s and by 50s (what do those numbers "clearly" represent?) than there are visible stars. What does the green grass represent here? What is green in astrological symbolism? And why are only "men" counted in the total number? Why are these numbers said to be "lost without a shepherd"? And why are the months only making an appearance as baskets after the disintegration of the planetary bodies? And how can the months be understood as containing countless fragments of all the planetary bodies after the substance of those planetary bodies have been consumed by all the visible stars?

In other words, your explanation raises many questions. I have read far simpler explanations in the scholarly literature that do not present us with such conundrums.

4. Test (or Experiment): Look for evidence (observations) that conflict with these predictions in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This formal fallacy is called affirming the consequent.

I never see this step followed by you or Murdock. I always see the logical error warned against here. That was the point of my comment to which you were responding. It appears by your own standard of the hypothetico-deductive model that your methods are not scientific and your conclusions are the result of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

You or others might have to explain the alleged fallacy, because I just don’t see it. We have a hypothesis, that Jesus evolved as allegory for the sun. This hypothesis is superior to conventional historicism, in being compatible with all known evidence, and providing grounds for an elegant explanation for why and how the Christ Myth became so dominant.

Affirming the consequent has the form
1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P.

In our example, that would imply
1. If Christ is the Sun, then the Bible will reflect this teaching in concealed form.
2. The Bible reflects this teaching in concealed form.
3. Therefore, Christ is the Sun.

But that is not actually the argument that Acharya or I have presented. This imagined fallacious reconstruction of argument ignores the abundant corroborating data, and the weakness of alternative explanations, especially the vacuous tradition of a miraculous Son of God.

Robert, you are missing the point entirely. Simply piling up mountains upon mountains of corroborating data (while not even being aware of the alternative scholarly explanations) proves nothing. Conspiracy theorists pile up mountains of data to "prove" their arguments but they remain ignorant of or contemptuous of any other explanation.

Your example is a non sequitur in this instance, actually. Your example should read:

1. If Christ is the Sun, then the Bible will reflect this in abundance of images that are recognized as astrologically significant to the original audiences (and we will not find sound alternative explanations)

2. The Bible can be read in a way that reflects this in abundance of images that are recognized as astrologically significant to the original audiences (and we don't find sound alternative explanations)

3. Therefore Christ is the Sun.

[beowulf]

If you have such a low opinion of Science, why do you feel the need to disguise astrology as science?

I have an extremely high opinion of science. As I just said in my last comment that you responded to, "Science is the most powerful ethical value in the world today".

I do not disguise astrology as science. That question just reflects that you do not understand my views.

I don’t understand religious thinking at all.Scientific Astrotheology?

Science is not an ethical value, it has never been an ethical value; science is only a useful understanding of the physical world.

[Garon]

I'm not a scholar nor do I claim any scholarly education. The so-called miracle of feeding the people with five loaves of bread and two fish could simply be a story about Jesus teaching people to share. The twelve baskets of scraps didn't fall from the sky. People carried food with them when they traveled.

[Robert Tulip]

Scientific Astrotheology?

Astrotheology is a purely scientific approach to religious studies, looking at the abundant presence of cosmology in ancient myth and investigating how the thought patterns (memes) evolved into Christian doctrine. The challenge is to show how and why the astral memes were suppressed and forgotten. Abundant scientific/historical evidence may be found to support this investigation, and the resulting hypothesis that Christianity emerged from astrally oriented origins, as documented in Murdock's book The Christ Conspiracy.

Science is not an ethical value, it has never been an ethical value; science is only a useful understanding of the physical world.

Of course science is an ethical value. Scientific values are all about basing decisions and opinions on evidence and logic rather than on tradition and authority. The emergence of the ethic of scientific knowledge is the decisive historical trait of modernisation, as a force for prosperity, knowledge and progress. People who place low value on evidence and logic are corrupt and evil. This is a basic political reality seen in global movements to promote transparencey and accountability.

My earlier comment that science is an ideology was not meant in a disparaging sense, but rather to say scientific knowledge provides the basis for true ideology. I would though disparage the ideology that holds we cannot know anything, which it seems Roger Pearse has supported by falsely claiming that "scientists have no opinion on whether anything is "impossible"".

The fascinating thing here is that the vast power of the Big Lie of historical Christianity has corrupted the debate so badly that many scholars are incapable of reasoned dialogue about hypotheses that challenge their emotional assumptions. That problem of paradigm shift in religious studies is not to suggest a conspiracy, any more than geocentrism was a conspiracy at the time of Galileo. The central point is that Christ did not exist, so he had to be invented. That is what happened, using the astral framework of precession. Voltaire's observation about God extends to the entirety of Christian faith.