Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

[neilgodfrey]

What this is communicating to me is that any explanation that does not mesh with cosmology is wrong or inadequate.

Yes, that is what I think. any explanation that does not mesh with cosmology is wrong or inadequate. I agree with the broad idea presented by Joseph Campbell in his theory of the four functions of myth, which may be summarised as saying myth promotes awe, reason, law and identity. One way of putting it is that religion has four 'R's: reverence, reason, ritual and role.

And I think you have made it clear by now that this is a religion that you personally subscribe to. I would go further and suggest that Murdock's is coming from the same position.

What's worse, however, is that you are confirming that you have no interest in truly critical discussion unless it serves to evangelize your religious (that you define as scientific) views.

Within the second function, the role of myth in rationalising our place in reality, cosmology is absolutely central. As Campbell puts it in Occidental Mythology (1964): “a cosmological dimension deals with the image of the world that is the focus of science. This function shows the shape of the universe, but in such a way that the mystery still comes through. The cosmology should correspond to the actual experience, knowledge, and mentality of the culture. This interpretive function changes radically over time. It presents a map or picture of the order of the cosmos and our relationship to it.”

The idea that we can theorise about the emergence of Christianity while ignoring cosmology will hardly lead to accurate conclusions. The ‘map’ that Christian founders had of what Campbell calls ‘the order of the cosmos and our relationship to it’ is central to what they considered important.

Campbell did not say that Christianity was itself initiated as religion of "cosmology" in the sense you are conveying.

I appreciate that Neil knows more about religious cults than I do. But I suspect he may be imagining cultic trends where none exist. The idea of exploring what the ancients actually thought about cosmology in order to analyse the evolution of their religious ideas does not mean that we today should accept their irrational beliefs, whether in astrology or creationism. Ignoring that whole cosmic dimension because it reminds us of a cult is hardly a helpful method.

Understood, Robert, that you reject the irrational elements of ancient beliefs. But you were playing games with us when you were protesting that we were being insulting to you when we suggested your argument was about personal beliefs as much as an academic one: we now understand that you do believe in what you see as the ancient religion -- of course stripped of what you see as its older mythical or irrational trappings.

Unfortunately, not a single pertinent point I have made has registered with you. You mis-read every criticism that goes to the heart of your methods. You have missed completely where I identify a common form of cult-think. It has nothing whatever to do with whether or not we explore what ancients thought about cosmology etc. Try to re-read it again and get my point, if you will.

You have ignored alternative explanations for the evidence you have advanced over several posts, now -- such as the real nature of the interpretations of Philo and Josephus, and the scholarly explanations for the miracle-tales in Mark, and scholarly discussions explaining ancient cosmological belief systems. Worse, you indicate you have not read, or only read tendentiously, works that do not support your views.

[Robert Tulip]

Neil, what you are doing here, in terms of Campbell's schema of the four functions of mythology, is arguing that we can interpret Christian origins through study of the social function of myth (Campbell's third function) while completely ignoring the cosmological function of myth (Campbell's second function). All the analysis you provided earlier of how to read the loaves and fishes miracle was purely in terms of its relation to Jewish social tradition.

But the role of Christianity in advocating a new universal cosmology is fundamental to understanding its appeal and impact and meaning and origin. The nature of this new cosmology, with its astral links, became repugnant to the Judaising patriarchal tradition of the church, and the original alpha-omega cosmology was stamped out as heresy, replaced by a superficial supernatural heaven.

The power of this elimination of Gnostic ideas was massive, decisive for structuring the millennia of Christian belief. Your views, and those of most of the theologians you mention, who I have spent an interesting time looking up, are framed within the limited social vision of the meaning of faith, ignoring the problem of explaining how cosmology related to Christology.

So it does not surprise me that you argue (falsely) that bringing cosmology into the centre of theology is cultic. You would say that, since you appear to be committed to a widespread critical paradigm in which the cosmic dimension is derided and ignored.

Your comments have been very helpful for me in clarifying the presuppositions of why Murdock is despised and rejected by the academic establishment. The academy presupposes a separation between critical thinking and ancient views of human identity that are framed by cosmology. An effort to respectfully analyses these ancient views is seen as outside the pale. So there are simple truths, such as precession, which the academic establishment finds simply incomprehensible in principle, in terms of how the ancients may have used such observations to construct their mythic frameworks.

Copernicus was reportedly more famous in his day for his work on precession than for his work on heliocentrism. Modernity picked up his paradigm shift of placing the sun at the centre, but failed to pick up his equally important shift of recognising the centrality of precession for cosmology, as the third motion of the earth. This problem of modern elision is analysed in a highly interesting way by Picknett and Prince in The Forbidden Universe, a magnificent book that explores the central role of hermetic ideas in the foundations of modern science.

[bcedaifu]

Copernicus was reportedly more famous in his day for his work on precession than for his work on heliocentrism.

Here, we may part company, Robert. Copernicus did no work, whatsoever, on heliocentrism.

Copernicus had been a medical student, studying in Italy, in 1500, a decade after Columbus had encountered the same Greek refugees from Constantinople, who had fled with hundreds of carefully copied texts, all in Greek, most written about the time of Aristotle. One of those authors, whose ancient texts had been brought to Italy, by those Greek scholars/monks, was Aristarchus, formerly head of the library in Alexandria.Columbus traveled west, to reach China from Spain, based upon the work of Aristarchus, and his successor as head of the library in Alexandria, Eratosthenes, who had computed the circumference of the earth.

Aristarchus had disputed Aristotle, and refuted (not"falsified") Aristotle's incorrect theory of geocentrism, based on careful study of optics and geometry. Aristarchus computed the distance between the earth and the sun, and it is Aristarchus, not Copernicus, who discovered Heliocentrism. Copernicus initially had given credit to Aristarchus, in his initial written version, however, at that time, the church had engaged in murder of many famous "heretics". Consequently, to avoid being labelled as a heretic himself, for quoting a pagan, Copernicus removed the reference, thereby failing to acknowledge Aristarchus' novel geometric model, which correctly predicted heliocentrism. Copernicus simply copied Aristarchus' research, without providing attribution. Galileo uncritically cited Copernicus' book, and proclaimed the latter as the person who had discovered heliocentrism, alas, omitting reference to Aristarchus. For sure, Copernicus himself, a medical student, and catholic clergyman from Poland, never performed a single measurement, or experiment, in his life, designed to unravel the mysteries of the universe. He was a dishonest scholar, (with justifiable anguish about the well being of his family!) and I take exception to anyone claiming the contrary. Had I lived then, I would have done exactly the same cowardly thing as Copernicus. I too would have failed to stand up to the tyranny of the Christian clergy. I don't blame Copernicus for protecting his family. I blame those who today, fail to acknowledge the legitimate history of EGYPTIAN supremacy, in matters of ancient solar relationships. For all I know, those two Greek librarians discovered some even more ancient scrolls in the famous library, explaining how to compute the distance to the moon, and to the sun, and how to compute the circumference of the earth. Brilliant experiments, which 99% of us, could not imagine today. Eratosthenes computed the circumference of the earth, using only two pieces of wood.

[Robert Tulip]

Copernicus did no work, whatsoever, on heliocentrism.

Thanks bcedaifu. I have analysed Copernicus' work in some detail here

I suspect that what you meant to say was that Copernicus was not the first to propose the heliocentric theory. Interestingly, several decades before the 1543 publication of On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, Leonardo da Vinci wrote in his Notebooks "The sun does not move". As you point out, Aristarchus held the same correct view. But Copernicus wrote quite a famous book, and had a paradigm named after him, so your "whatsoever" term is a bold claim.

De Revolutionibus provides this lyrical allegory of the sun:
“At rest in the middle of everything is the sun. For in this most beautiful temple, who would place this lamp in another or better position than that from which it can light up the whole thing at the same time? For, the sun is not inappropriately called by some people the lantern of the universe, its mind by others, and its ruler by still others. Hermes the Thrice Greatest [from Thoth the Egyptian God of astronomy and writing] labels the sun a visible god, and Sophocles’ Electra, the all-seeing. Thus indeed, as though seated on a royal throne, the sun governs the family of planets revolving around it.”

Copernicus summarised his findings with the statement “Since the sun remains stationary, whatever appears as a motion of the sun is really due rather to the motion of the earth.”

On scientific method: “It will be realized that the sun occupies the middle of the universe by the principle governing the order in which the planets follow one another, and by the harmony of the entire universe, if only we look at the matter, as the saying goes, with both eyes.”

[neilgodfrey]

All the analysis you provided earlier of how to read the loaves and fishes miracle was purely in terms of its relation to Jewish social tradition.

No it wasn't. It was based on literary source analysis. Where did I even mention "social tradition"?

So it does not surprise me that you argue (falsely) that bringing cosmology into the centre of theology is cultic. You would say that, since you appear to be committed to a widespread critical paradigm in which the cosmic dimension is derided and ignored.

? I have never argued that bringing cosmology into the centre of theology is cultic. Please re-read what I did say. I have never said the "cosmic dimension" is to be derided.

You are misreading me completely. Please re-read what I did say.

If you can't change your mind about what I said then quote me the passages that you believe confirm what you are imputing to me here now.

Your comments have been very helpful for me in clarifying the presuppositions of why Murdock is despised and rejected by the academic establishment.

Firstly, I am not part of the academic establishment so I don't see how my thoughts tell you about their motives. Secondly, Murdock has done much to bring about ill-will towards her by her abusive personal attacks on anyone who dares criticize her views. Thirdly, I have in the past protested against the savage personal attacks on Murdock herself. Fourthly, for my efforts, I myself was attacked by her when I offered my honest criticisms - criticisms that you and she interpreted as personal attacks. Fifthly, part of the cult-mentality is this monotonous persecution-victimization syndrome: every criticism is perceived as a personal attack or denigration. It's not.

The academy presupposes a separation between critical thinking and ancient views of human identity that are framed by cosmology.

I don't know what you meant by a separation of critical thinking and ancient views of human identity.

But when you speak of "ancient views of human identity that are framed by cosmology" you are simply begging the question. You always do that.

An effort to respectfully analyses these ancient views is seen as outside the pale.

It outside the pale on your side. You are the one who refuses to admit any possibility that you could be wrong. You dismiss any scholarship that does not accept your views. There is only one possible outcome of any "critical enquiry" for you. Any alternative view is "smoke and mirrors" to you.

So there are simple truths, such as precession, which the academic establishment finds simply incomprehensible in principle, in terms of how the ancients may have used such observations to construct their mythic frameworks.

No, they don't. We have Ulansey for starters. But you and Murdock go way beyond what the evidence allows. That's where you jump the rails of the 'hypothetico-deductive' method you profess to follow.

Copernicus was reportedly more famous in his day for his work on precession than for his work on heliocentrism. Modernity picked up his paradigm shift of placing the sun at the centre, but failed to pick up his equally important shift of recognising the centrality of precession for cosmology, as the third motion of the earth. This problem of modern elision is analysed in a highly interesting way by Picknett and Prince in The Forbidden Universe, a magnificent book that explores the central role of hermetic ideas in the foundations of modern science.

That's nice. But again new-age books like this go way beyond the evidence. Yes we know science grew out of ancient concepts. Alchemy produced chemistry; astrology produced astronomy, etc. But to say that modern physics somehow validates hermeticism and is garbage.

[neilgodfrey]

I missed the main point in my previous post.

Let's suppose for sake of argument that I was using "social tradition" to explain the miracle of the miraculous feeding. Does not the fact that another model (social tradition, literary-historical criticism) can explain far more of the content of the miracle suggest to you that it is of superior explanatory value than a model that can only explain a relative fraction of the details?

My model explains far more of the miracle than yours. So why should I embrace your model?

[Robert Tulip]

All the analysis you provided earlier of how to read the loaves and fishes miracle was purely in terms of its relation to Jewish social tradition.

No it wasn't. It was based on literary source analysis. Where did I even mention "social tradition"?

In terms of a functional analysis of religion, you argued for seeing the miracle as “a midrash on various OT passages (Psalms, Exodus, 2 Kings) demonstrating the superiority of Jesus to the prophets and the superiority of the new Israel to the old.” That places it squarely within the Jewish social tradition, and fails to engage with a higher meaning in terms of cosmology.

Now, in relation to your latest comment, there is a need for functional analysis, as I have mentioned from Joseph Campbell. How do Bible stories promote reverence, reason, ritual and role? My view is that midrash is just the method, operating at the level of ritual function, whereas cosmology indicates the intent, operating at the higher level of rational meaning. The point is to have a way to explain the nature of reality. As Copernicus later showed, the hidden knowledge of precession is central to a true understanding of terrestrial cosmology. The loaves and fishes miracle encodes an accurate description of the star clock of history, in a way that was knowable to the authors, and that meshed with their messianic intent.

I have never said the "cosmic dimension" is to be derided.

Okay, maybe 'derided' is too strong. What I was getting at what that you characterised my view that “any explanation that does not mesh with cosmology is wrong or inadequate” as confirmation bias. So, you have stated that an adequate explanation of the loaves and fishes material is possible that ignores a possible cosmological intent, and that to insist on a cosmological dimension in the miracle story is just reading into it what I want to find, like some sort of pareidolia. Combined with your earlier blanket dismissal of astrotheology, I think it is fair to read that as deriding the cosmic dimension in this miracle story.

I don't know what you meant by a separation of critical thinking and ancient views of human identity.

Modern critical thinking since the enlightenment has separated the mechanistic cosmology of astronomy and science, understood as true, from the hermetic cosmology of astrology, understood as false. This separation is known as disenchantment: “the cultural rationalization and devaluation of mysticism apparent in modern society. The concept was borrowed from Friedrich Schiller by Max Weber to describe the character of modernized, bureaucratic, secularized Western society, where scientific understanding is more highly valued than belief, and where processes are oriented toward rational goals, as opposed to traditional society where for Weber "the world remains a great enchanted garden”.”

I am not arguing for any simplistic mystical enchanted view, but my point is that to understand the ancients, this dimension of their philosophy has to be taken into account, in a way that can be difficult from a purely disenchanted Weberian sociology. Ancient views of human identity tended to integrate scientific observation with magical claims of astrological connection. There are obviously main elements of such ancient thought that do not stand up to critical scrutiny, but serious analysis is needed of how these ideas arose and were used, and how they help to explain other religious ideas, such as the Christ Myth.

Against the desacralized anomie of modernity, Carl Jung called for recognition of archetypal symbols as a means for the numinous to return from the unconscious. Astrotheology fits within this tradition, for example with Jung’s use of the Mithraic Time Lord as frontispiece to his work Aion, where he explores the idea of Christianity in relation to the zodiac age of Pisces. Ernest Gellner analysed what he called "re-enchantment creeds" that have tried to make themselves compatible with naturalism. While Gellner saw enchantment as negative, Acharya’s take on enchantment seems ambiguous, and I regard enchantment positively in terms of intentional construction of new scientific myths.

when you speak of "ancient views of human identity that are framed by cosmology" you are simply begging the question.

The cosmic heuristic as a method to study ancient thought is not circular logic. The question here is whether ancient views of human identity were framed by cosmology. Cosmology has long been central to religion. Cosmology is why for example churches are still built with their altars to the east. Cosmology is why Christmas follows the solstice and Easter follows the equinox. Cosmology is why the Apocalypse encodes the Milky Way Galaxy in its allegory of the River of Life, and the zodiac in its allegory of the Tree of Life. Cosmology is why Ezekiel described the four cardinal stars as the four living creatures. Cosmology is why The Lord’s Prayer says “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. Cosmology is why Genesis 1:14 says “God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years."

To illustrate the centrality of sun worship in Ancient Israel, see this article about the book Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel by Biblical Scholar Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor. And how interesting that a google search for solar worship in ancient Israel primarily turns up material discussed by Murdock.

The problem of anti-cosmic bias is deeply entrenched, and in fact goes back to the real ten commandments of Exodus 34, where the patriarchal victory is celebrated with the Josiahite injunction “break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and cut down their Asherim.” The astrotheological suggestion for equality for the Asherim goes against this entrenched Biblical patriarchal prejudice.

You dismiss any scholarship that does not accept your views.

That is untrue. Yes, I do dismiss all scholarship that unquestioningly assumes the historical existence of Jesus Christ, or that promotes miraculous fantasy, to that extent, just as physicists will dismiss scholarship that fails to take into account current knowledge. But I have learned a lot from reading conventional theology, and true ideas come through amidst the dross.

A key point here is the bizarre culture war about this material. I have just read most of Frank Zindler’s superb essay collection dissecting Erhman’s populist book Did Jesus Exist?. I dismiss Ehrman’s book because it is a work of dark art politics, not scholarship. There is a big paradigm shift occurring from supernatural to natural views on religion. When advocates of obsolete views seek to engage in dialogue – something that almost never happens – the discussion can rapidly become mired in assumptions, prejudice and incomprehension. And then writers like Ehrman recall their homiletic preaching lessons, and engage in rhetoric, not investigation. So I welcome this discussion here, where we can try to uncover some of the presuppositions and methods surrounding Biblical paradigms.

We have Ulansey for starters.

As I have noted earlier in this thread, Ulansey presents an implausible precession theory, linking Mithras to the star group Perseus where a precessional view would have to link Mithras to Aries. Ulansey rejects Frank Zindler’s argument that Christ is Avatar of the Age of Pisces, so it is clear that Ulansey has a superficial understanding of precession in religion. This illustrates that scholarly debate on these topics is in its infancy.

But you and Murdock go way beyond what the evidence allows. That's where you jump the rails of the 'hypothetico-deductive' method you profess to follow.

A hypothesis should extend beyond what is provable by evidence to present an argument for how the evidence can fit into a coherent and predictive story. Paradigm shift begins with a new unifying idea to explain discrepancies in older views. That is what is happening now in religion, similar to what has previously occurred in geology, biology and physics.

new-age books like [The Forbidden Universe] go way beyond the evidence. Yes we know science grew out of ancient concepts. Alchemy produced chemistry; astrology produced astronomy, etc. But to say that modern physics somehow validates hermeticism and is garbage.

I don’t think you know what you are talking about here Neil. Your description of The Forbidden Universe as “new age” is telling, as if that were a serious criticism. Hermetic thinkers such as Giordano Bruno, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Copernicus and Newton provided foundations for modern thought which have been treated in a highly selective way by the dominant disenchanting trend, which has ignored the rational cosmology that started the Renaissance and enabled the empirical discoveries of the scientific enlightenment.

[stephan happy huller]

Your description of The Forbidden Universe as “new age” is telling, as if that were a serious criticism.

If it wasn't embarrassing to be described as 'new age' why is it that you resist what seems to be a natural description of your beliefs? You cite individuals from centuries ago as if research hasn't progressed beyond the 15 - 19th centuries. The fact that you read outdated material also explains why you develop this false dichotomy between 'faith' and reason as if these were absolute concepts. You don't like it when your theories are defined as archaic, you don't like it when they are said to be new age. When are you going to acknowledge that your research is different that all contemporary investigations because it begins with outdated research and assumptions? Stop reading useless information, stop beginning with stupid assumptions and you will be amazed to see how much better your research becomes. Better yet make a friend with a 'real' contemporary scholar (i.e. one that hasn't been dead and buried for 300 years) in the field of Biblical studies. Garbage in garbage out sums up your theories.

[Robert Tulip]

If it wasn't embarrassing to be described as 'new age' why is it that you resist what seems to be a natural description of your beliefs?

Stephan, I do not in the slightest resist description of my ideas as New Age. In fact I welcome it, especially as a way to open dialogue about cosmology in religion. My point about Picknett and Prince was that Godfrey assumed calling them 'new age' was a criticism, when in fact it shows they are forward looking, innovative, curious and rational. Now obviously there is magical superstition in popular new age movements, but these movements are grounded in an accurate scientific vision that it seems you and others find emotionally repugnant. Like Acharya, I am trying to explain how Christianity relates to the Age of Aquarius against a purely scientific framework.

I appreciate that patriarchal supernaturalists will cling to their obsolete old age views, and will fail to comprehend basic ideas in new age thought. I am trying to articulate the nature of a paradigm shift in religious studies that is now occurring. Explaining how precession structures Biblical cosmology is a basic starting point.

[stephan happy huller]

But surely those who resist your theories are not all of one ilk. If someone claimed that Jesus was a cat and faced a wide spectrum of rejection and ridicule it would follow all those who opposed 'Jesus the cat' were dog-lovers or motivated by 'loyalty to their dog' even though there is a longstanding rivalry between dog and cat owners.