Acharya S Watch: Josue V. Harari and the “Castrated and Crucified Attis”

In a word, "no", at the time of Jesus the sun was not rising in Pisces. If you really care about this stuff then put a little time in studying it with some good sources either in books or watching the video I provided. It is well sourced.

Unless you are going to Egypt and museums / libraries holding ancient manuscripts you have to be digging your information up from somewhere and I can almost 100% guarantee that while you might not have heard or read Acharya S. that whoever you have been getting info from is using her work and those she cites which have been thoroughly shown to be false.

There is NOTHING prior to 150 A.D. to support the idea of the Jesus myth and copy cats issues. That the zodiac did not show what they try to say it shows today. Again, spend a couple hours maybe a half hour at a time and just look at the information, verify it and see if you have been sold a bill of goods about the past by these supposed scholars.

I'll add this info:

The answer to this question lies in the fact that although today we know that the spring equinox moved from Aries to Pisces around the first century A.D., this would not have been the opinion of astronomers and astrologers at the time Mithraism flourished. The reason for this is that in the late Hellenistic and Roman periods there was an almost universally accepted standard that the spring equinox was located at 8° Aries (a figure borrowed from Babylonian astronomy, specifically Babylonian "System B"). [2] As Otto Neugebauer says, "we have ample evidence for Aries 8° as vernal point for the two centuries which straddle the beginning of our era," [3] and Neugebauer goes on to present exhaustive "proof for the continued use of the Babylonian norm of 'system B' for the vernal point [i.e., 8° Aries] during the first five centuries A.D." [4]

source

reply to post by racasan


What you described with your solstice pole idea is what would give you the tropical year (time from solstice to solstice). The time it takes to reach the same place with respect to the fixed stars is the sidereal year. Due to the wobble in the earth's axis, they are not the same. This is what gives us precession. What I referred to was the division of the sky into twelve equal parts of 30 degrees. Since the zodiac constellations are vastly different in size, how do you decide to divy the sky up equally? You have a genteman's agreement. That used in antiquity (referred to by scholars as Babylonian System B) differed from the IAU version by eight degrees. Thus, at the time, the sun would not rise in Pisces during the spring equinox until many centuries later.

The supposed connection to Orion is laughed at by Egyptologists. It is based not upon the sky as it appeared when they were built but as it looked 10,000 years earlier. And even then it is upside down. Check out this vid:

www.youtube.com...

As for the Egyptians, why would they show the decans system all over the place and never even hint at the zodiac? Because they didn't use it.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I'm hoping to be done in a few weeks. I finished most of the stuff on astrotheology and later dealth with Max Muller and the Solar Myth and the "Joshua sun cult" idea.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


According to my sky chart software this is what the sky looked like 2000 years ago on the morning of the spring equinox 0 AD



And if you want to check it for your self then try this software (its free and very good)
www.stellarium.org...

As to how I came across these ideas I have been a keen backyard astronomer since I was 5 and so I have an idea of how these things work

And as for the rising dying god thing, I have lived in parts of the world that still sing songs about John Barleycorn or the green man and the wheel of the year – trust me jesus is a n00b

labarum
reply to post by racasan

 

What you described with your solstice pole idea is what would give you the tropical year (time from solstice to solstice). The time it takes to reach the same place with respect to the fixed stars is the sidereal year. Due to the wobble in the earth's axis, they are not the same. This is what gives us precession.

But you would end up with a equinox either spring or autumn – right?
and the slight difference due to precession is negligible in the short term

What I referred to was the division of the sky into twelve equal parts of 30 degrees. Since the zodiac constellations are vastly different in size, how do you decide to divy the sky up equally? You have a genteman's agreement. That used in antiquity (referred to by scholars as Babylonian System B) differed from the IAU version by eight degrees. Thus, at the time, the sun would not rise in Pisces during the spring equinox until many centuries later.

As I said the system we use today has been developed over 1000’s of years but a workable calendar could be arrived at by much simpler observations – expecting these people to have had the whole thing worked out on day one is a bit silly
And Pisces is a bright easy to spot constellation (how they get fish from it I will never know) it would be apparent when the sun was inside its boundaries

reply to post by racasan


You are assuming "rising in Pisces" means rising in the constellation - it doesn't. It means rising in the sector of the sky assigned as "Pisces." In any division of the sky into twelve equal parts, you will end up with areas assigned to a constellation including another since the lengths of the constellations are vastly different. If you want to ignore that, then you can throw out the whole idea since there won't be equally assigned areas for your ages. You have to go with the areas as they assigned them - not us. In every source we have from the first few centuries AD, it states that the sun rose in Aries. That doesn't mean the sun rose in that constellation but that it rose in the area assigned "Aries."

The other problem is that you are placing a lot of emphasis on a system that simply did not exist. Not in Egypt, not in Babylon, not in Greece, not in Rome. They had not even figured out precession until the second century BC so it is kind of silly to think MItra and Horus millennia earlier were based upon it. Not to mention that they didn't even use the zodiac at that point in time. The importance is that Zeitgeist claims this was an already existing template when Christianity appeared which is simply an impossibility.

reply to post by racasan


There is scant evidence any legend of John Barleycorn existed prior to the fifteenth century and none that he predated medieval Europe. While the Green Man is an ancient pagan symbol, there is only the image - we have no ancient pagan myths of the Green Man although some imaginative neopagans have made some up and claimed they were ancient.

labarum
reply to post by racasan

 

You are assuming "rising in Pisces" means rising in the constellation - it doesn't. It means rising in the sector of the sky assigned as "Pisces." In any division of the sky into twelve equal parts, you will end up with areas assigned to a constellation including another since the lengths of the constellations are vastly different. If you want to ignore that, then you can throw out the whole idea since there won't be equally assigned areas for your ages. You have to go with the areas as they assigned them - not us. In every source we have from the first few centuries AD, it states that the sun rose in Aries. That doesn't mean the sun rose in that constellation but that it rose in the area assigned "Aries."

I think you are referring to something called the equal house system where a 360 degree sky is divided in 12 for 30 degree section or houses a system that is probably only a few hundred years old

I am talking about a group of stars that have been given a name in this case Pisces, a zodiacal constellation because the sun passes through it and 2000 years ago the sun started rising in that constellation
Like so:

The other problem is that you are placing a lot of emphasis on a system that simply did not exist. Not in Egypt, not in Babylon, not in Greece, not in Rome. They had not even figured out precession until the second century BC so it is kind of silly to think MItra and Horus millennia earlier were based upon it. Not to mention that they didn't even use the zodiac at that point in time. The importance is that Zeitgeist claims this was an already existing template when Christianity appeared which is simply an impossibility.

A Greek dude is supposed to have worked out the procession thing in about 190 BC - do you think that means there was no procession until he worked it out?

labarum
reply to post by racasan

 

There is scant evidence any legend of John Barleycorn existed prior to the fifteenth century and none that he predated medieval Europe. While the Green Man is an ancient pagan symbol, there is only the image - we have no ancient pagan myths of the Green Man although some imaginative neopagans have made some up and claimed they were ancient.

yes sorry I was being colourful and clearly humans have lived on a planet with seasons for who knows how long and never once noticed those seasons repeat.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


my favorite is the debate between her and a sitchinite.
now there's some fun reading. sadly, the debate has been removed from the net. it was a good read, i tell ya

here i will repost the basic premise of her statement:

she claimed the word Anunnaki meant Gods of Heaven and Earth (remember she's a cosmologist of sorts). whereas Sitchin claimed it read, The Gods who from Heaven to Earth came. even christians who despise Sitchin, refuse to actually read the supporting text around their identity, a tactic they should be more than familar with (keeping it in context for translation and interpretation purposes). recently a video came out in the subject, entitled Ancient Aliens Debunked. In it the author claimed that the word Anunnaki had been translated by Michael S. Heiser and that it didn't mean they came to the Earth. Even though I normally enjoy Heiser's work, this was an example where he was wrong, as is Acharya.

here's a pertinent excerpt from a sumerian-akkadian text:

"Anuna, whom An conceived in the sky"

It says, "The Anuna, whom An conceived in the sky"
Now Dr. Heiser knows enough about grammar rules to know the Anuna are the subject the action is being done to. That conception is the action, and that the sky is the place the action is occuring. In effect, they are being conceived in the sky. .
so how do they get to Earth? answer: they come down from the sky.

doh. Acharya is wrong

reply to post by labarum


The Dying and Rising god mythology is an established motif in Near Eastern, Indo European, and Mesoamerican mythology.

The Descent of Inanna myth clearly features the death of Inanna at the hands of the underworld Anunnaki, a period of three days where she is dead and Ninshubur seeks help, followed by her resurrection with the aid of Enki's creations.

In the Ba'al Cycle Ba'al-Hadad is clearly slain by Mot, and remains dead until Anat challenges Mot and flays, beats, burns, and grinds Mot up. Ba'al-Hadad is then brought back from the dead.

In Norse mythology Odin's son Baldr is clearly killed by Hodr (tricked by Loki), and remains dead until the end of Ragnarok when he returns with the surviving Aesir to create the new world.

Those aren't redactions, or corrupted by Mystery Schools, or any of that. They are the myths, as they were written down by the people who recorded them. Just as Jesus is another myth, along similar lines, written down by the people who believed in him.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


If Jesus was a myth then the Roman's would not have had much trouble shutting down a few loons. The fact was they never claimed Jesus was a myth 2000 years ago because too many people saw his deeds or knew someone else who did.

This "Jesus Myth" stuff came up almost 2000 years later when no one was left, but history proves Jesus was real. I like how historical finds keep proving the life of Messiah:

Court: "James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" ossuary inscription not proven as forgery

Mystery continues to surround an ancient burial box that is inscribed with the words, "James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," after a Jerusalem court found Oded Golan, a private collector of antiquities, not guilty of forging the inscription.

The court said the 2000-year-old box will probably "continue to be investigated in the archaeological and scientific arena, and time will tell," according to a report from Reuters. The court's decision puts an end to a legal battle that began in 2004 when Golan was indicted.

Source

How can you truly prove this ossuary held Jame's bones and in fact was Jesus brother? Well, that is what will keep the naysayers denying it, but the box does say that it was of James the son of Joseph and Jesus brother dates from the correct time period according to the experts.

That is quite some myth.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Mettinger and other who are experts in the languages of the ANE have dealt with the Inanna story and she never actually dies in the conventional sense. Rather, magic is used to transform her body into that of a corpse whereby the underworld would have power over her. The magical instruments she had been given had been taken at various stages of her descent. The story has her return for part of the year but Dumuzi must take her place.

As for Baldr, he died and stayed dead. His body was cremated. For him to rise, all the world had to weep for him and it did not happen. The myth says he will return when the time comes for the gods to be destroyed and the new world is created, but that is in some universe to be named later.

Mettinger also points out that there is no real relationship between Jesus and any D&RG. His story is based in the Jewish messianic hopes of the Second Temple Period and not in recurring natural cycles. As I mentioned earlier, you do not find scholars of the ANE giving the D&RG hypothesis seriously today. It is a dead issue.

reply to post by racasan


The problem is that the very system you are defending assumes an equal sign zodiacal system. In fact, that is the way astrology was done at that time. The system assumes a "great year" known to the ancients where the cycle of approx. 26,800 years was divided into equal segments. What you are describing simply was not how astrology was done and seems a bit of grasping at straws. The fact remains that the system of astrotheology as described in Zeitgeist simply did not exist.

As for precession, of course it occurred prior to Hipparchus discovering it just as gravity occurred before Newton. But to construct some elaborate system that used a thorough knowledge of precession prior to anyone understanding it would be like assuming there was a belief system using Newton's theory of gravitation prior to 1687. Precession (like gravity) occurred but there no one understood it so any theory based on them understanding it is a nonstarter.

reply to post by labarum

do you not understand the picture I provided?
Here’s the software I used
www.stellarium.org...
check it out for yourself

2000 years ago the sun when viewed on the spring equinox started to move into Pisces – that is a fact

I showed how the solstices and equinoxes can be ascertained even with very simple Stone Age methods

Maybe if you asked an astronomer about the asto bits in astrotheology instead of focusing just on theology that might help

arpgme
Not everything she says is true.

But the basic things she is saying is.


Jesus is a copy of Horus. Almost everything about Horus was stolen to create the story of Jesus, including the names of "The Word", "The Lamb of God", etc.

Others Scholars looked at these facts and the only things they disagree with in regard to The Horus and Jesus connection is that there is no evidence that Horus had 12 disciples and a few other things...

but most of the things about Horus was copied and used for "Jesus" ...

Jesus is a copy of Snoris. Snoris was actually a pre pagan god. Dont believe me? Well, prove me wrong.

You can argue all you want but you will never prove me wrong.

This is what I am referring to:

en.wikipedia.org...

One thing that cannot be explained by these web site and documentaries, documentary is being generous because they are really editorials or opinion pieces, is why people from those times would not have known and why it took close to two thousand to come to light.

Why? Well because it is unlikely to be true. Especially since there is no evidence from that time.

racasan
reply to post by labarum

 

do you not understand the picture I provided?
Here’s the software I used
www.stellarium.org...
check it out for yourself

2000 years ago the sun when viewed on the spring equinox started to move into Pisces – that is a fact

I showed how the solstices and equinoxes can be ascertained even with very simple Stone Age methods

Maybe if you asked an astronomer about the asto bits in astrotheology instead of focusing just on theology that might help

I am not disputing the graphic you described but just pointing out that it is irrelevant. I also never disputed the solstices could be found. However, when describing what the ancients used for "rising in the sign of Pisces", you cannot use how you wished they had defined but how they actually defined it. As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, the sky was divided into twelve equal sectors and, given the vastly different sizes of the constellations along the ecliptic, this ended up with overlap where some of the area in a larger constellation would end up in that of a smaller one. If you ignore how they divided the sky, you have no basis for claiming something rose in different signs of the zodiac since that is how the zodiac was defined. Simply put, the zodiac is defined circa in the first millennium BC as a twelve sign system with twelve equal sectors centuries before precession was even understood. Any importance given to prior ages as described in Zeitgeist (with the bull for Taurus, ram for Aries, etc.) depends on an equal sector division; without it, you might as well forget the whole thing since no one used the zodiac except as described in the twelve sector system developed in Babylon. You are simply arguing for a use of the zodiac that flatly contradicts how the zodiac was actually used in antiquity and for some other reckoning for which there is ZERO evidence that anyone defined it as such. Again I could point out the famed astronomer/astrologer Ptolemy who wrote over a century after the time of Christ:

"For this reason, although there is no natural beginning of the zodiac, since it is a circle, they assume that the sign which begins with the vernal equinox, that of Aries, is the starting-point of them all"

The significance here is that the greatest of all astrologers, who certainly knew what "rising in Pisces" would have meant to his contemporaries, still held the sun was rising in Aries well into the second century AD. So did other of the astrologers and astronomers of late antiquity. There is not a single source that claims the sun was rising in Pisces. You cannot claim, as Zeitgeist does and you also assert, that the system would have been well understood, when everyone who would know about it disagrees with you.

i think you can verify this for yourself. although they had the 12 zodiacal constellations, they did not all comprise the same groups of stars and it appears they had 18 constellations listed. for example, google "babylonian pisces"
among other things it says:

The current definition of Pisces is the youngest of the zodiacal constellations. The "Swallow" of Babylonian astronomy was larger, including parts of Pegasus. Late Babylonian sources mention DU.NU.NU "The Fish-Cord"

now i've seen a pic of that while looking up information about sumer. they had something called "As above, so below," which mirrored the sky onto the earth and vice-a-versa. in the pic, the great square of pegasus was present. it was called I.Iku (the paradise) and contained the land between the 2 rivers (eden). The Fish-Cord represented the two rivers, the euphrates and tigris.

you can see 2 star charts of it here, a modern version and a babylonian version
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

reply to post by labarum


I really don’t know how you are not getting this

Pisces is one of Ptolemy’s 48 constellations its probably one of the oldest constellations going back to Babylonian times and more – if you could get astronomer from points in history going back as far as Babylon and asked them to point at what they thought was Pisces the would probably all point at the same place in the sky

Another way of defining the equinoxes is the day on which the sun rises exactly due east – a fact the ancients would have found very interesting
solar-center.stanford.edu...

2000 years ago the sun on the spring equinox started to enter the constellations of Pisces – that’s a fact

forget all about the sky divided into 12 thing that’s not what I am talking about – I know the constellations are different sizes – so please stop beating this same straw man let it go – I agree with you, if this is what Acharya S is claiming then I agree with you its wrong – ok for what I hope is the last time for the love of logic stop!!!!!



But I’m wondering – if I pointed this Pisces thing out to anybody else they would have no problem with it – so why exactly are you so stuck on this point?