Loaves and Fishes

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by Mental flatliner »

neilgodfrey wrote: Your response is to attack critics who come from that perspective.
This is the only response I've gotten from anyone in this forum save a very few.

Sorry, it just struck me as funny that you seem to have not noticed this is the modus operandi of this forum. You guys are doing nothing but conducting a battle of sources, none of which are historically authoritative. Despite the site's home page, none of you offer primary sources--you prefer finding opinions similar to your own and touting them as "brilliant".

Do I really have to tell you that this accomplishes nothing and at the end of the day you're as ignorant of history as when you began?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 10594
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by Peter Kirby »

neilgodfrey wrote: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.
Hit the nail on the head right there.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 10594
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by Peter Kirby »

Mental flatliner wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote: Your response is to attack critics who come from that perspective.
This is the only response I've gotten from anyone in this forum save a very few.
For you the forum is a video game (for someone who doesn't understand video games). It's a place to shoot off your mouth as rapidly and as loudly as you can, in an attempt to stroke your ego. It is anything but intended for a critical, dispassionate discussion of the topics under consideration here.

It's no big surprise that people are not thrilled to see your posts and aren't carefully crafting considerate replies.

You flung the poop, caveman, and the poop came flinging back.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by Stephan Huller »

Maybe Neil meant to say "I never criticized her as often as she deserved
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6175
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by neilgodfrey »

So you ignore my responses and just repeat yourself. Shout louder then I'll see things your way.

Maximos, you don't seem to have read any of my comments on my blog since all your quotes are from the freethought site. I'm sure you'd much rather read for yourself what I actually wrote, in full:

Review of Acharya S’s “The Christ Conspiracy” part 1

Review – Part 2 – of Acharya S’s “The Christ Conspiracy”

Part 3: Review of Acharya S’s “The Christ Conspiracy”

“Christ Conspiracy” chapter 3: The Holy Forgery Mill

You won't be interested when I tell you that I have several more responses to Casey's latest book on mythicists and one of those responses will be to show Casey's misrepresentation of Murdock's claims. That's right, I take Casey to task for the false and ignorant way he criticizes Acharya. I demonstrate that Casey evidently misread or did not read her books and made false allegations about her argument. But I'll be discussing his treatment of Doherty first before I get to his discussion of Acharya.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Robert Tulip
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by Robert Tulip »

neilgodfrey wrote:
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?
Dating of the shift of the March equinox from Aries to Pisces is somewhat controversial. The facts are as follows.

The constellation of Pisces consists of two fairly straight lines of faint stars, conventionally known as the first fish and the second fish. These two lines join together at the star Alpha Piscis, known as the knot or Al Rescha. The two lines of stars are depicted as ropes or cords holding the two fish. The first line is near perpendicular to the path of the sun, while the second line is roughly parallel to the path of the sun.

You can see this diagram I made of the moment when the spring point entered Pisces at htt p: / /fr eethou ghtnati on.co m/jesus-christ-avatar-of-the-age-of-pisces/
Image
It shows what the ancients could also see.

The equinox points whirl around the whole zodiac about once every 25765 years, at a speed of one degree of arc every 71.6 years. The speed of this motion was calculated roughly by Hipparchus in 134 BC, and could have been known in Babylon and Egypt far earlier.

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. The ancients could have used naked eye estimates to calculate this date to within a decade. While perhaps unlikely, it is not impossible that this calculation could be the basis of the seventy weeks prediction in the Book of Daniel, which fundamentalists assert calculated the baptism of Christ at 26-7 AD. Babylonian knowledge of precession could have understood for hundreds of years before Christ that the equinox would precess into Pisces in that decade, presenting a mythicist basis for subsequently placing Christ at that time.

Pisces is a constellation with a simple shape, and its perpendicular line of stars forms a clear boundary. To the east of that line is in Aries and to the west is in Pisces, as the diagram above shows clearly. Where this gets slightly complicated is that some theorists use arbitrary imagined boundaries rather than the stars themselves. For example, modern astronomy considers a constellation as an area of sky rather than a group of visible stars, and sets the boundary of Pisces well to the east of the first fish, at a point crossed by the equinox in the second century BC.

Another calculation method seems to use the traditional drawing of the rope shown in the picture, holding the fish well to the west of the actual line of stars, and so claims the equinox entered Pisces around the time of the Council of Nicaea.

My reasons for asserting that the ancient Gnostics understood that the equinox precessed into Pisces in the third decade of our era are its visual simplicity and its match to evidence. The visual simplicity is the theory that the ancients considered the constellations to be made of the visible stars, and Pisces has a clear line of stars which was crossed by the equinox at an exact date, which the ancients could calculate to within a decade, and which we can now calculate to a highly exact level of accuracy due to the clockwork power of mechanistic astronomy. The match to evidence is the placement of the passion of Jesus Christ during the rule of Pontius Pilate, and the symbolism of Christ as alpha and omega. Astrology, and the ancient lunisolar calendar, considers Pisces to be the last sign of the year and Aries to be the first sign of the year. At the moment that the equinox point crossed into Pisces, at the beginning of the year in the Jewish calendar on 1 Nisan,, the last physically became first, so to speak, the seasons matched the stars, and the earth entered a time of imagined celestial harmony, incarnating the beyond in the midst of the world.
jackmark
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 6:12 am

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by jackmark »

[quote="neilgodfrey"]So you ignore my responses and just repeat yourself. Shout louder then I'll see things your way.

Maximos, you don't seem to have read any of my comments on my blog since all your quotes are from the freethought site. I'm sure you'd much rather read for yourself what I actually wrote, in full:

You won't be interested when I tell you that I have several more responses to Casey's latest book on mythicists and one of those responses will be to show Casey's misrepresentation of Murdock's claims. That's right, I take Casey to task for the false and ignorant way he criticizes Acharya. I demonstrate that Casey evidently misread or did not read her books and made false allegations about her argument. But I'll be discussing his treatment of Doherty first before I get to his discussion of Acharya.[/quote]

I have already responded to you and you've been caught red handed (my posts have been removed and I've been banned for it)

Neil, you're so dishonest about it that you just created another blog maliciously smearing her again.

"The Confessional Epilogue: Christians and Acharya"

I have read your blogs in full as Freethought Nation actually provides the links, while you do not. From where I stand, they are the in the right and you've been busted and are just trying to lie your way out of it with the support of this dishonest forum.

The mods here have BANNED me with no warning or notification whatsoever, for exposing you and for telling the truth, which is not allowed here. Of course, you will continue to be allowed to spread your hate and malicious smears at Acharya because that's what this forum likes; ONE-SIDED views based on biases and bigotry. You've been caught red handed but, your full of BS excuses aren't you.

After you finish your Casey blogs on Doherty and Acharya, then, you could address the malicious smears from Carrier too: http: // ww w.freeth oughtn ation.co m/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771

Or do you not have the integrity or character to be honest enough to point out the errors and malicious smears from your hero, Carrier? I mean, it must be difficult when you're a Carrier fanboy/Cheerleader who doesn't have what it takes to call him out on anything since he can do no wrong.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by Stephan Huller »

You see Robert there is something of value in what you are saying (21 CE) but the rest is just nonsense (Daniel, 26 CE). That's the problem with Acharya. Mixing gold with shit.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by Stephan Huller »

BTW can anyone verify the 21 CE claims?
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Post by Stephan Huller »

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. 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. 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.
Last edited by Stephan Huller on Fri May 16, 2014 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply