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

reply to post by racasan


he's semi correct. the constellation was called the sparrow in babylon but we know most of it today, as pisces.

reply to post by undo


Hi undo
That second picture – the Babylonian one there’s a bird, probably a swallow and it looks like it’s a single bright star on its own – only there is no such star so do you have any idea what that’s about?


oops I see you posted
actually I worked it out the single star has to be Deneb making the bird the Cygnus constellation - the scale of the map fooled me
commons.wikimedia.org...:Cygnus_constellation_map_inv.png


you might like this
www.skyscript.co.uk...
Pisces is still two fish and the swallow is Cygnus its the scale of the map that’s funky

reply to post by racasan


Please provide a Babylonian reference for the sun rising where you say it does and also a reference from the time period before Yeshua that it would be rising in Pisces at his birth. I think when you provide that then you will have proved your point.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I have no idea what you are asking for

reply to post by racasan


I'm sure you don't, but I think I was pretty clear. You keep saying that ancient astrology used the zodiac as we do, and believed as Acharya S. says that the sun would be rising in Pisces when Messiah came. Please show one pre-Christian example of the sun rising in Pisces at the time of Jesus birth.

Labarum has pointed out that they did NOT use the zodiac as modern people do, that they divided the sky differently and that it was off by 8 degrees from Pisces at the time of Christ. He has sited Ptolemy, and I would like for you to site and source where are coming up with your facts from.

reply to post by racasan


Actually, the one not getting it is you. When the sun was said to "rise in Pisces", "rise in Aries", etc., it has nothing to do with the actual boundaries of the constellation. That is not how astrology worked. That is not how anyone would have understood it. It is not even how the film Zeitgeist defined it since they used equal periods of a "great year" based on an equal division of the sky. The problem was they used the modern rather than the ancient division.

The zodiacal system has never used the actual boundaries of the constellations but equally divided sectors. The point that the sun rose in the boundaries of the constellation is true but completely irrelevant to astrologers then and now. As I keep pointing out, "rising in Pisces" has nothing to do with being within the boundaries of the constellation. It has to do with being within one of twelve sectors of the sky. They just happened to name them after relatively close constellations on the ecliptic but it never was defined that way. As I keep pointing out, you cannot, as Zeitigest did, define it by the IAU standard; you certainly cannot, as you did, just make your own standard; you have to use how the ancients used it. Otherwise, your arguments are completely anachronistic.

And since you mentioned it being one of Ptolemy's constellation, I will again mention that Ptolemy clearly stated the sun rose in Aries during his lifetime - over a century after the time of Jesus. How do you thing he got that? Do you think he was unaware of the boundaries? Of course not - it just was completely irrelevant since that is not how the system worked. I think Ptolemy is a pretty good judge on how the ancients saw things (and considering everyone else agreed, the point is not in dispute) and he obviously thought the actual boundaries of the constellation was irrelevant.

The problem is that Pisces could refer to two things: a constellation or an area of the sky; in astrology, "the sun rising in Pisces" would refer to the area of the sky - not the constellation. That is how it is used in every ancient source. While your graphic is absolutely spot on, it is utterly irrelevant to how anyone would have understood the concept. You are simply insisting your own pet definition must apply and you refuse to let the ancients speak for themselves. Thus your argument is without any historical leg to stand upon.

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by racasan

 

I'm sure you don't, but I think I was pretty clear. You keep saying that ancient astrology used the zodiac as we do,

when did i do that?

and believed as Acharya S.

show me where i said i agreed with Acharya S

says that the sun would be rising in Pisces when Messiah came. Please show one pre-Christian example of the sun rising in Pisces at the time of Jesus birth.

i have no idea what you are talking about here (or more likely you have no idea what you are talking about here)

Labarum has pointed out that they did NOT use the zodiac as modern people do, that they divided the sky differently and that it was off by 8 degrees from Pisces at the time of Christ. He has sited Ptolemy, and I would like for you to site and source where are coming up with your facts from.

i don't really go in for citing and sources because
en.wikipedia.org...

Ok, if you say so, but what you propose is not offered with anything scholarly to back it up. You show nothing in antiquity to support what you are saying, and it is that which you seem to be contrary in the thread and supporting the opposite of the OP. You see, you not liking sources is interesting because then it's just your opinion and like rectums we all have them.

So, you won't defend what you say with anything factual or scholarly so be it. Your mind is made up regardless of the facts.

are we arguing over whether it was the age of pisces or not, when jesus was born?

my personal view is that zeitgeist is partially right but not for the reasons they think

reply to post by racasan


some of the stars of modern day pisces, were in the sparrow constellation. some of the stars were in the fish cord, which were in the great square of pegasus. so modern day pisces was originally a conglomeration of the babylonian constellation called the sparrow, cygnus and parts of the great square of pegasus.

labarum
reply to post by racasan

 

Actually, the one not getting it is you. When the sun was said to "rise in Pisces", "rise in Aries", etc., it has nothing to do with the actual boundaries of the constellation. That is not how astrology worked. That is not how anyone would have understood it. It is not even how the film Zeitgeist defined it since they used equal periods of a "great year" based on an equal division of the sky. The problem was they used the modern rather than the ancient division.

Oh not this again
The zodiacal constellation the sun rises in on the spring equinox changes very slowly over time – procession – right?

The zodiacal system has never used the actual boundaries of the constellations but equally divided sectors. The point that the sun rose in the boundaries of the constellation is true but completely irrelevant to astrologers then and now. As I keep pointing out, "rising in Pisces" has nothing to do with being within the boundaries of the constellation. It has to do with being within one of twelve sectors of the sky. They just happened to name them after relatively close constellations on the ecliptic but it never was defined that way. As I keep pointing out, you cannot, as Zeitigest did, define it by the IAU standard; you certainly cannot, as you did, just make your own standard; you have to use how the ancients used it. Otherwise, your arguments are completely anachronistic.

Stop beating this straw man I’m worried you will hurt your arm

And since you mentioned it being one of Ptolemy's constellation, I will again mention that Ptolemy clearly stated the sun rose in Aries during his lifetime - over a century after the time of Jesus. How do you thing he got that? Do you think he was unaware of the boundaries? Of course not - it just was completely irrelevant since that is not how the system worked. I think Ptolemy is a pretty good judge on how the ancients saw things (and considering everyone else agreed, the point is not in dispute) and he obviously thought the actual boundaries of the constellation was irrelevant.

I personally could not give a flying duck what Ptolemy said – the man thought the earth was flat

now if you look at the picture i provided you will see that the sun is just about to enter Pisces - meaning it was still in Aries in fact its tricky to work out when the sun did enter Pisces the best estimate i have seen is: Shephard Simpson interpretation: began ca. 100/90 BC and ends ca. AD 2680. but it could be 100 years or more either way

The problem is that Pisces could refer to two things: a constellation or an area of the sky; in astrology, "the sun rising in Pisces" would refer to the area of the sky - not the constellation. That is how it is used in every ancient source. While your graphic is absolutely spot on, it is utterly irrelevant to how anyone would have understood the concept. You are simply insisting your own pet definition must apply and you refuse to let the ancients speak for themselves. Thus your argument is without any historical leg to stand upon.

And yet the sun was starting to rise in the constellation of Pisces and it started doing it just as a new sun god is alleged to come along – go figure

reply to post by racasan


What you call a straw man is just plain evidence. They did not use the term the way you do. End of story. You can howl, cry, display your pretty graphics, but it will not change history. You simply are speaking of the history of a subject and have not actually bothered studying that history. Ignorance is curable except when it is willful.

Every ancient source of the period stated the sun rose in Aries on the SE. The fact is that "Aries" or "Pisces" referred to a sector of the sky - not a constellation. It did in astrology then and does now. The IAU standard does the same - only with an 8 degree difference. The boundaries of the constellation had nothing to do with how the ancients used astrology, cast horoscopes, etc. The twelve areas of the sky were what mattered; the use of nearby constellation names were only a convention.

Your comments on Ptolemy just put the exclamation point on your lack of historical knowledge and perspective. First of all, you stating Ptolemy thought the earth was flat is hilarious. Ptolemy quite clearly stated the earth was spherical. Now, he was a geocentrist but so was everyone else. Perhaps you should actually read the ancient sources before making comments on them.

More importantly, it is what people like Ptolemy believed that is what the argument is about. It doesn't matter if they were all stupid and had bad breath to boot; we are arguing about what ancient people thought. Your ideas can only hold water if there was someone in the ancient world who would have thought that way. Unfortunately for your system, there wasn't. Thus, you have no case.

Feel free to comment further but I think I'll end my half of the conversation here. I think the evidence is pretty clear.

i'm still hoping someone will clarify if this argument is over whether or not it was the age of pisces when jesus was born.

reply to post by labarum


Here is the problem we are having

It is difficult to say which is the most popular method to divide the Great Year into twelve astrological ages. There are two popular methods. One method is to divide the Great Year into twelve astrological ages of approximately equal lengths of around 2160 years per age based on the vernal equinox moving through the sidereal zodiac.[14]

And this is what you are saying is an astrological age (and I have no problem with that but)

Another method is to significantly vary the duration of each astrological age based on the passage of the vernal equinox measured against the actual zodiacal constellations.[15] Each of those twelve sections of the Great Year can be called either an astrological age, Processional Age or a Great Month,[16] the last term being more common in earlier texts.

en.wikipedia.org...

and this is what I am saying it is – from the purely practical stand point that when the sun is in a zodiacal constellation on the spring equinox then that is the astrological age

And since as you have said the ancients wouldn’t have split the sky into 12 equal parts before 0 CE then >if< they used the idea of an astrological age (and I think they did) then they must have used the simple observation of is the sun in a zodiacal constellation then that must be the astrological age we are in

ok?

reply to post by undo


I’m not sure what the arguments about – but it sure is fun

(yes its the Pisces thing)

reply to post by racasan


Since you brought up something new, I will respond.

The wikipedia article is referring to how authors have defined astrological ages today. It has nothing to do with how things were done in antiquity. Thus, an anachronistic argument. It doesn't matter if someone writing an astrology book in 1996 thinks that is the way to go.

The second point is that I never said the ancients would not split the sky into twelve equal parts before 0 CE. In fact, I stated they did it in the first millennium BC centuries prior to the discovery of precession. What I stated did not occur prior to 0CE is any evidence that any god of the ancient world was based upon such a system. It simply is not present.

reply to post by labarum


look I get it, you want to use the definition that lets you keep little baby Jesus – and that’s fine with me

racasan
reply to post by labarum

 

look I get it, you want to use the definition that lets you keep little baby Jesus – and that’s fine with me

edit on 7-10-2013 by racasan because: (no reason given)

you can keep jesus with or without the concept of the age of pisces, in fact, i think it's pretty relevant.

great red dragon in revelation = draco the dragon constellation
woman crowned with 12 stars and the moon under her feet, and pregnant with the sun, is the sun rising in virgo at her midsection so that she appears to be clothed with the sun.
the prophecies are multi layered.

reply to post by undo


Oh sure no problem
who couldn’t believe a story about a Jewish wizard that makes a magic garden and puts a man made out of mud and a woman made out of ribs and a magic apple tree in it and even though he is all knowing total fails to spot the talking snake who convinces the rib woman to eat a magic apple and so the Jewish wizard has to have himself nailed to some wood 2000 years later so he can get himself to forgive himself for whatever rule it was he feels was broken in the first place

What’s not to believe?