It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Your ideas clearly doesn't compute when you look at the Babylonian idea of the constellation of virgo. Seen Below:
A woman holding a palm front or an ear of grain does not relate well to a woman with the moon as a footstool and a crown of 12 stars on her head. Virgo has 26 exoplanets — planets outside of the solar system — orbiting around 20 stars. Doesn't come even slightly close.
Marking the passing of the time with the rising and setting of the sun and the seasons is not astrology. It is keeping time.
Your not talking about what people do in sin that is against the religion, you are attempting to prove it is the religion itself and its teachings.... and this is something you are unable to do, since Babylonian astrology is against the religion itself.
People will always commit sin and go against the religion, but the chosen Messiah did not. He was without sin and I take umbrage to someone calling HIM a sinner.
reply to post by OpinionatedB
You can ignore it if you want to, but the passage is clearly referring to the constellation Virgo which has a "crown" of 12 stars around the area of its head. Study up on the constellations and their positions around one another and it will become clear. A sign appearing in "the heavens" is talking about the sky, and the sky is often referred to as the heavens within the bible, so a sign appearing in the sky is definitely based on astrology.
But you could also just ignore it and assume it's not true.
The moon being under Virog's feet is not a regular ocurrence, but it does happen at certain points in history where the moon is underneath the feet of the constellation Virgo. Did you visit the link I left? I assume you didn't.
Marking "sacred times" by studying the position of the stars is a form of astrology. Sacred relates to divine, deciding what times are divine (sacred) or not based on the stars is the definition of astrology.
The religion clearly uses astrology, astronomy, and the zodiac within its teachings and stories, so no its not against the religion. It may claim that it isbut that is a lie.
Jesus didn't write the bible nor did he form the church that decided what was kept and what was discarded.
edit on 2/4/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
Your premise is that the passage in Genesis is NOT talking about keeping time, but is telling you to look at Virgo to see a sign in the end of days, then according to your theory, this sign will have no choice but to happen in the middle of the day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
In the middle of the day, it will be impossible to see this sign you speak of, so you cannot gauge the sign by looking.
Also, you then need an additional 3 stars in Leo in order to have 12 stars, which don't currently exist... and then of course you need Leo not to be Leo anymore because crowns are not in the area of the head they are ON the head.
Your theory doesn't hold water. Let's see why:
The moon follow the ecliptic, with a plus or minus 5 degree variation. See illustration below, the red lines are the limits of the moons travel above or below the ecliptic, which is represented by the blue line.
I used Stellarium in order to gauge what the variations can possibly look like from earth, and have determined, from going through 2000 + years, that it will never look as if the moon is under Virgo's feet from earth view. It is always off by at least 5 degrees at the extreme closest point of the variation.
Anyone who chooses can use Stellarium in order to see this for themselves. It's a free program.
Therefore, fact does not support your theory.
Sacred Times, are things like the sabbath, which happens once every 7 days. It is a good thing to be able to mark when the sabbath should be, and it is a way of keeping time, as I have earlier stated. Quite a simple exegesis really and you don't have to delve into the realm of the astrological to do so.
Only if you take leaps and bounds away from very simple, rational explanations. Occam's razor explains that the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts is the most likely.
The New Testament is the teachings of Jesus, written by his apostles and followers in their own words and remembrances. In the first 4 books there is not deviation from a simpler form of Judaism. And again I reiterate, Judaism states clearly that Babylonian astrology is a sin and untrustworthy for anything.
If you believe the New Testament to be written by men rather than God therefore have a preference in searching for man made explanations rather than Godly, then go for the extravagantly fanciful explanations in lieu of simple and straight forward which then, of course, will lead you to hold tight to your beliefs. Which, by no means do I feel you don't have the right to do. You can believe whatever you choose, just don't be upset when logic wins in the hearts and minds of most people leading them not to follow in your footsteps.
No, its not ''clearly'' referring to Virgo. In revelations.... the woman with the ''12 stars'' also gave birth to boy. And you know constellation do not ''give birth'', so once again you are only looking at superficial similarities... ''a woman in the sky here and a woman in the sky there.''
@3NL1GHT3N3D1....You can ignore it if you want to, but the passage is clearly referring to the constellation Virgo which has a "crown" of 12 stars around the area of its head.
YOU made the claim that the woman with the 12 stars is virgo, of the zodiac. I showed you why she isn't. The ''connections'' are imaginary and superficial and your logic is ''X here and X there, so therefore they are one and the same''. You point out these superficial similarities but shy away from investigating into the details of the biblical narrative that you claim points to a zodiac sign.
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
Yeah definitely superficial, I mean who would think he was talking about something in the sky with him mentioning the moon, sun, and stars? Those things are all in the sky, but come on! He obviously wasn't talking about anything up there, even if he did say he saw a sign in the sky. No, definitely not.
Who cares if the twelve starred crown mirrors the 12 stars above Virgo's head? And who cares if the woman in Revelation is supposed to be the Virgin Mary and Virgo stands for virgin? Who cares about the fact that the sun and moon align with Virgo in the exact same way he describes about the Virgin Mary in Revelation? I mean we all know a woman can stand on top of he moon, but we know a constellation can't have a baby! It's so obvious that those connections don't matter!
All these connections with astrological references and alignments are just "superficial", I mean stars can't have babies! That seals the deal, we should just ignore the connections and only focus on that one thing.
Good argument, let's just cover our eyes and act like the connections don't exist.edit on 2/5/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
the only ''connection'' is that of superficial similarities. An X here and an X there. Thats all that this thread is about. Either get into the details or stop assuming that the biblical narrative means something else.
3NL1GHT3N3D1...Good argument, let's just cover our eyes and act like the connections don't exist.
sk0rpi0n the only ''connection'' is that of superficial similarities. An X here and an X there. Thats all that this thread is about. Either get into the details or stop assuming that the biblical narrative means something else.
reply to post by OpinionatedB
So what was this "sign from the heavens" (sky) that dealt with stars?
So are you saying the biblical narrative of Mary has her with the moon at her feet and wearing a crown with 12 stars on at some point before giving birth to Jesus? Are you also saying Mary ran into the wilderness for 1,260 days after giving birth to him? If not then you are being hypocritical by not following your own rules.
The connections are far from superficial, you just see it that way because if it is true (which it is) then you would be proven wrong and would have to admit that the Bible's story is heavily influenced by astrology and based on myth. You have too much pride to admit you are wrong. You haven't proven anything, you've only shown you are emotionally and psychologically glued to the myth and will not acknowledge anything that goes against it, no matter how logical the argument is. Of course you'll say I'm being illogical, but it is you who is being illogical by not changing your views with new information.
Even more personal remarks.
The symbolism is clear cut and easy to see for those with eyes to see. You do not have eyes to see, you have been blinded by religious dogma and the threat of eternal punishment if you think any differently.
Why don't YOU get into the details?
All you've done so far is stick your fingers in your ears and pop in 2 or 3 times to say "stars can't have babies so you're wrong" or "the connections are superficial"
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Jesus age of 33 representing the 33 degree thing, ONLY because of the number 33.
I don't know. Why don't you tell me?..
In what way was he isolated?..
By just focusing on the astrology thing you are not seeing the full scope of the problem
One does not need to believe in Jesus ''religiously'' to logically conclude that Jesus and his disciples were NOT symbols of the sun, zodiac etc. I am not even debating astrology, just the premise that the bible narrative actually pointed to a completely unrelated field of study, i.e astrology. If somebody 2000 years ago really wanted to propagate astrological teachings, they could have comfortably done so without an elaborate cover up story featuring an entire generation or two of Israelites.
@OpinionatedB... These people are holding to a belief that is unable to be proven, and are resorting to name calling and insults toward all who disagree based on fact.
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
The "source material" for Jesus aka the Bible, was NOT at all about cosmology/zodiac but an account of a man who lived 2000 years ago. So I find it absurd that some people who are inclined towards the zodiac have made Jesus, of all people, a symbol of something that Jesus was not about.
So far we have :
Jesus description of being "light" representing the sun, which is also "light".
Jesus 12 disciples standing for the 12 of the Zodiac, ONLY because of the number 12.
Jesus age of 33 representing the 33 degree thing, ONLY because of the number 33. etc.
Such connections are superficial and nothing else.
The fact that the Bible narrative says the woman had a baby disproves your premise that she is actually "virgo".
reply to post by OpinionatedB
Each Zodiac is 30 degrees. Not 33. They made up the 33 degree thing to make it the same as Jesus' death in Christianity. It has no basis in the zodiac. 360 divided by 12 is 30. 3 degrees of each constellation overlaps, (1.5 degrees to each side) so only 27 degrees are fully in each constellation without any overlap. That is the astrological Zodiac.