Ant, that is evidence
No, it is creative speculation.
Remember, we are attempting to establish the existence of the historical Jesus based strictly on accounts extracted from sources that either directly or indirectly (off the cuff) document his person.
If you are taking pieces of information from entirely different sources that do not directly or indirectly mention Jesus, you are conflating unrelated and related sources to construct a hypothesis that goes beyond the direct evidence previously discussed (canonical, non canonical gospels, pagan, etc) . That is bridge building, par excellence. It distorts the meaning of the H J and his context. It's analogous to mixing your puzzle pieces with my puzzle pieces and trying to get one picture out of both. It is an approach that adds further complexity and obfuscation to the H J. It also is in direct conflict with the principle of Occams Razor.
Look again at the quote. There are a large number of similarities not only with symbolism from astrology/astronomy, but from prior myth as well. In fact, the similarities are abundant enough to fill entire books. To me, that is enough of a similarity
These rich additives of astronomy and astrology to the examination of the existence of the H J speaks to the essence of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy:
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy in which pieces of information that have no relationship to one another are called out for their similarities, and that similarity is used for claiming the existence of a pattern
This fallacy is often found in modern-day interpretations of the quatrains of Nostradamus. Nostradamus' quatrains are often liberally translated from the original (archaic) French, stripped of their historical context, and then applied to support the conclusion that Nostradamus predicted a given modern-day event, after the event actually occurred. For instance, the Nostradamus lines that supposedly predicted 9/11 were taken from three separate and unrelated passages and a fictional line was added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
These claims of astrological similarities are liberal interpretation attempts to build preferred conclusions and brand them as facts.
Claims of clandestine plots, suppression of evidence, and other sensational theories require extraordinary evidence.
I am astounded that critical minds continue to refuse to recognize this. They certainly do when it comes to the pseudo science that is Creationism.
The elements of Pseudo Science have lead me to wonder what the elements of Pseudo History are:
Atheist Michael Shermer says Pseudohistory is "the rewriting of the past for present personal or political purposes"
Atheist/Philosopher Robert Todd Carroll setsforth the criteria for a topic to warrant the term PseudoHistory. They are as follows:
That the work uncritically accepts myths and anecdotal evidence without skepticism.
That the work has a political, religious, or other ideological agenda.
That a work is not published in an academic journal or is otherwise not adequately peer reviewed.
That the evidence for key facts supporting the work's thesis is:
selective and ignores contrary evidence or explains it away; or
speculative; or
controversial; or
not correctly or adequately sourced; or
interpreted in an unjustifiable way; or
given undue weight; or
taken out of context; or
distorted, either innocently, accidentally, or fraudulently.
That competing (and simpler) explanations or interpretations for the same set of facts, which have been peer reviewed and have been adequately sourced, have not been addressed.
That the work relies on one or more conspiracy theories or hidden-hand explanations, when the principle of Occam's razor would recommend a simpler, more prosaic and more plausible explanation of the same fact pattern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohistory
You need to do some research here. Almost all of the above elements can be attributed to the product that Mythicists are currently promoting as being equal to or superior to modern historical scholarship. It simply does not have wings to fly - yet.
Notice again how Ocams Razor comes into play here. I believe it is apropos to this entire issue.
If you're asking for hard evidence that would lead to certainty, I would throw that back at you. Show us the hard evidence that would make you certain Christ existed. "Certainty" is a powerful word, which you're well aware of as a critical thinker.
Perhaps I was a bit too bold when I used the word "hard" to describe the available evidence. Fine, I will grant you that.
Please point out where I said Christs' existence has been established as certain. I believe I stated that the general consensus among historical scholars is that Christ more than likely was a true historical figure. I do not believe the existence of Christ is absolutely certain. I believe it is highly probable. I do not subscribe to any "When the moon is in the seventh house And Jupiter aligns with Mars" theories - as of yet.
Just a note that everything in this post is regarding only one half of the Jesus question; the half that proposes an alternative explanation for the character of Jesus. The other half is dismantling the incumbent explanation.
Fair enough, I guess.