The Mystery Religion – Jesus (The Sun of God)

3NL1GHT3N3D1

Because astrologers today base the zodiac on the zodiac which was invented thousands of years ago, not one they want to invent today. Again, you'll have to take up your issue with the ones who invented the zodiac wheel of which countless religions have based their myths off of.

I believe you have it backwards here - the zodiac was based off of their religion, rather than the other way 'round. The religious conceptualization came first, and then, looking at the night sky, pareidolia took over, causing them to "see" their already existent gods in random scatterings of stars.

Also, astrology is still under development, from what I have been reading on it. For example, no one can agree upon when or how an "age" begins or ends, or how long it lasts. How can one say that christianity ushered in the "age of Pisces" when one does not even know when that age began, or how long it will last (or "lasted" if it's over)? This illustrates one of the core differences between the science of astronomy and the pseudoscience of astrology - astronomy is verifiable and repeatable, astrology is all over the map with no real consensus.

People can and do warp astrology to force it to say what they want it to say, to support what they want to believe. This thread is an excellent example of that concept. It's much more difficult to do so with astronomy, because of the science aspect. This is probably why people are insisting that "it's astronomy" when it supports their premise, but revert to astrology when it doesn't.

Moving targets. Gotta love 'em!

Well, we might as well add this information to this thread too, the information that Chirum pointed us to in this thread: The Vatican - Global Domination - The Sun God

Solarium Augusti
It was erected by the emperor Augustus, with the 30-metre Egyptian red granite Obelisk of Montecitorio, that he had brought from Heliopolis in ancient Egypt. The obelisk was employed as a gnomon that cast its shadow on a marble pavement inlaid with a gilded bronze network of lines, by which it was possible to read the time of day according to the season of the year. The solarium was dedicated to the Sun in 10 BCE, shortly after Julius Caesar's calendar reform. It was the first solar dedication in Rome.

The Vatican obelisk was originally taken by Caligula from Heliopolis, Egypt to decorate the spina of his circus and is thus its last visible remnant.

Sure looks like the Vatican thinks solar pagan imagery is important!

reply to post by windword


Over the course of a day, the sun appears to move across the sky, causing shadows to move on the ground over diurnal time.

I'm failing to see the relevance here.

Are you saying that sundials are "hidden pagan knowledge only readable by the initiated"? Or that "telling time is a pagan practice"?

Does that apply to telling time with a wristwatch, too?

reply to post by nenothtu


LOL! Is the watch on your wrist a "high temple" erected to the one true God?

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by pleasethink

 

I guess if you can't see it that means it isn't there? You're just looking for reasons to disagree, no matter how illogical they are. Do constellstions just all of a sudden cease to exist once you move from America to China?

edit on 2/3/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

They don't "cease to exist", they suddenly become different constellations - different connections of random dots. Different subjective and culturally-based interpretations.

Sort of like the way your interpretation is subjective rather than objective...

reply to post by windword


No. It merely adorns the "High Temple of the One true God".

But it still tells time, which is really it's only function.

EsotericGod

...................

Western zodiac


The body of astrological knowledge by the 2nd century AD is described in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, a work that was responsible for astrology's successful spread across Europe and the Middle East, and remained a reference for almost seventeen centuries as later traditions made few substantial changes to its core teachings.

....................

Hmmm strange... Is this not around the time Jesus was created?

I guess some would say "that depends on what you mean by "created", but I won't.

I'll say instead "give or take a few hundred years, which is inconsequential during an human lifetime. Sort of like the way you drive a horse and buggy to work every day. Same ball park time-wise, so precision doesn't matter, does it?"

3NL1GHT3N3D1

There is a clear connection to Christianity and the zodiac, there is no clear connection between the vice president and Roman centurions, so your analogy makes no sense at all.

They are both leaders of men, and to sharpen the point they both lead 100 men. Mighty strange chain of coincidences. The connection is clear, you just don't want to see it because it will disturb your religion - it doesn't involve a zodiac composed of random connections of randomly placed stars being applied to a targeted religion.

EsotericGod

reply to post by nenothtu

 

The same stars but not the same constellations. Constellations are culture-dependent. They are arbitrary groupings of stars based solely upon cultural input, not inherent in the stars themselves.

Right, I'm glad you understand this.

Now try to understand this.

The babylonians were the first to use the system upon which the zodiacal system was based.

Heres a short summary:

..........

Zodiac History

Babylonian astronomers at some stage during the early 1st millennium BC divided the ecliptic into twelve equal zones of celestial longitude to create the first known celestial coordinate system: a coordinate system that boasts some advantages over modern systems (such as the equatorial coordinate system). The Babylonian calendar as it stood in the 7th century BC assigned each month to a sign, beginning with the position of the Sun at vernal equinox, which, at the time, was depicted as the Aries constellation ("Age of Aries"), for which reason the first sign is still called "Aries" even after the vernal equinox has moved away from the Aries constellation due to the slow precession of the Earth's axis of rotation.

...........

As you can see, the Babylonians incorporated the 12 constellations long before the arrival of Christianity.

The constellations and the zodiacal system on which the bible is based originates from Babylonia.

And yet, according to YOUR OWN link, the Baylonian constellations were different than the constellations you base your entire theory on.

NOT "constellations in a different part of the world", but the constellations in the VERY part of the world under discussion. different constellations.

You'll have to revisit history and revise the date for your zodiac if you intend to continue the attempt at correlation. The Babylonian zodiac no longer applies.

Virgo in particular needs new connections - or the "sign" must be revised date-wise (and culture-wise) in order to maintain your thesis, since that constellation has figured so prominently in the discussion. The Babylonian zodiac doesn't have it.

reply to post by nenothtu

No. It merely adorns the "High Temple of the One true God".

Heresy! I tell ya! Heresy!

Catholicism doesn't mean "new" "unique" "the one true way" ..... It means "Universal" There is no surprise that Solar Worship would be a incorporated into early Catholicism, along with some good ole hero worship, in order to make their religion truly "universal" and compatible with the majority of the target population of the time.

The only people that would argue against the vast amount of evidence to this fact are people with something to hide! IMHO

windword
reply to post by nenothtu

 

No. It merely adorns the "High Temple of the One true God".

Heresy! I tell ya! Heresy!

Not the first time I've been called a "heretic", nor will it be the last. No cherries are awarded to you.

Catholicism doesn't mean "new" "unique" "the one true way" ..... It means "Universal" There is no surprise that Solar Worship would be a incorporated into early Catholicism, along with some good ole hero worship, in order to make their religion truly "universal" and compatible with the majority of the target population of the time.

I cannot even begin to imagine caring less about Catholicism. I thought Christianity was the topic here.

The only people that would argue against the vast amount of evidence to this fact are people with something to hide! IMHO

OR - it could be equally and just as fairly stated that "the only people that would argue in favor of such vague and tenuous 'connections', even to the point of mixing and matching mythologies to suit the premise, and thereby manufacturing 'data', are people trying to hide something and sweep it under the rug, IMHO ".

I guess it's really reader's choice, isn't it?

reply to post by nenothtu

I cannot even begin to imagine caring less about Catholicism. I thought Christianity was the topic here.

LOL! I'm pretty sure Catholics invented Christianity!

3NL1GHT3N3D1

Confusion is the name of the game with Christianity, keeping even its own divided amongst each other.

edit on 2/4/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

I submit for your consideration that not all of "their own" actually ARE "their own", going by "their own" scriptures -

19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

21 Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?'

23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

So it appears that not all "christians" can be lumped together, going by the definition set forth by their founder.

windword
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I cannot even begin to imagine caring less about Catholicism. I thought Christianity was the topic here.

LOL! I'm pretty sure Catholics invented Christianity!

You are, of course, entitled to your belief in the matter. That does not make it an objectively correct assumption, however. Where were the Catholics when the Jews were "inventing" Christianity?

3NL1GHT3N3D1

My premise is not about Genesis not being about keeping time, my premise is that it says the stars are there for signs and to mark "sacred times", a.k.a. using the stars to predict and know when god claims a day as sacred.

Let's look at the KJV of the verse.

.........

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:

.........

Let them be for signs? What kind of signs? Maybe the kind that Revelation 12 speaks of? Obviously, what other kind of sign would appear in the heavens other than the ones the stars are made for in Genesis? Why does Revelation say a sign appeared in the heavens with stars? It is an astrological sign that Revelation is speaking of, you can't deny that can you? It's obvious by the terminology used in the passage.

There are all sorts of "signs" beyond the mere astrological interpretation of "sun sign". "No smoking" signs are indicators taht you should not smoke. "Stop signs" are indicators that there is an intersection coming up, traffic will be moving crosswise to your direction of travel, and if you don't stop, you might get graunched by one of those vehicles.

"Sign" can just mean "indicator". Sirius is not a "sun sign", nor is it even IN a "sun sign", yet when it rises in the east, it's a "sign", and indicator that a warm, wet season is coming up, and it might be a good time to plant crops.

Looking at the bible passage you quote, I see no mention of "sacred times". I see only mention of "seasons, days, and years". It's only basic timekeeping, not any sort of "sacred sign".

You're mistaken, the crown of 12 stars is not a reference to Leo, it is a reference to a formation of stars between Leo and Virgo. It looks like this:

12 stars sitting at the head of Virgo. Virgo means "virgin" and the woman mentioned in Revelation is said to be the "Virgin" Mary. You can't get any more obvious or clear cut than that.

Look more closely at your own graphic here. Fully EIGHT (that's 2/3 for the math-challenged) of your "crown of Virgo" stars are IN LEO, not Virgo. Look closely - they are named "such and such Leonis". "Leonis" is genitive case for "Leo", meaning "of Leo"... not "of Virgo". Furthermore, you really ought to delve into those stars, and then get back to us as to why you believe they are bright enough to be "coronation material", bright enough to be a "crowning glory", bright enough to be mistaken for.... a crown.

Also, I really wanted to re-post and refresh your association of Virgo with Mary, just to point out that it was YOU who initiated that association, in light of upcoming posts to be responded to.

Here's where the moon will be in relation to Virgo on September 23, 2017.

The alignment of the moon in this picture seems to be very similar to the one shown in yours. This is a cyclical thing as well, meaning this will not be the first nor the last time this alignment takes place. As you can see, the moon is clearly at the feet of Virgo. If you cannot see that then you are nitpicking and/or turning a blind eye to it.

That "alignment" (such as it is), occurs every 18 odd years. What makes the 2017 occurrence special? Furthermore, as mentioned, the orbit of the moon takes it along the ecliptic, +/- 5 degrees above or below it, running in that 18 year cycle. At this point - the closest, it is only FIVE DEGREES closer to Virgo than when it is on the ecliptic... only HALF the distance to "Virgo's feet", not "under them". Further add the complication that the orientation of Virgo relative to the horizon (as an observer would observe it) changes over the course of a night (or day, as is the case during this "alignment"), and we see that when Virgo rises, the moon is BESIDE her feet, not under them... i.e. when the sun rises in Virgo, the moon is beside her feet, not under them, and never will be UNDER them.

Again, the KJV says otherwise. It says that the stars are for signs, a.k.a. astrological signs from god like the one mentioned in Revelation 12 and the one that led the three wise men to baby Jesus.

Alleged association with "astrological signs" treated above.

So what was this "sign from the heavens" (sky) that dealt with stars? You're really reaching here to disassociate the sign in Revelation with an astrological sign. The terminology, obvious connection to Virgo, and the heavenly signs mentioned in Genesis make it painfully clear what it really is, an astrological sign.

STILL treated above. The sign could say "Eat at Joe's" and you would still try to reformat it into an astrological "sign" when that association is not mentioned in your quote of the original.

Politicians make promises on their campaign trails then break them after being elected all the time. Just because someone or something says not to do something doesn't mean they aren't doing it themselves.

Didn't I get cobbed earlier for accusations of introducing politics into the argument? How is it you get a pass on the same thing?

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.

Not only that, but from what I'm finding, the 1.5 degrees of "transition" are not universally recognized - as a matter of fact, the only place I've found so far for the 1.5 degree value is... this thread. It appears to be an attempt to force an association that is non-existent.

EsotericGod

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

........

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.

.........

And there are hundreds more but i am not going to waste my time and list them all.

You say the connections are superficial yet you don't seem to indicate that the connections are there and they are evident.

So now we have dropped back and punted, fallen from "1000" to mere "hundreds" - but STILL an unsupported - and probably misleading - supposition. Can we get a list of at least a few dozen? Or can you not "waste your time" to support your own argument?

If there was only three connections then it can of course be dismissed upon the fact that is is superficial but; in regards to the fact that over 90% of the bible and teaching of Jesus can be attributed to cosmology, It makes me think otherwise.

90%? Really? Care to support THAT, then?

Don't you find it strange that cosmology is forbidden in the bible.

Not really - it could lead to spurious discussions like, well, like this one... IF it were "forbidden". "Cosmology" isn't forbidden, however - astrology is.

Yes i understand this but it has been argued that we do not enter a new house simply overnight. the 1.5 degrees is the transitional period through which we change house (zodiac).

"Many astrologers consider the entrance into a new astrological age is not a single moment of time but a process commonly referred to as `the cusp', by which one age initiates its influences in a slowly increasing way before the end of the previous age. For example, Ray Grasse states that an astrological age neither begins at an exact day or year." Age Cusp

Of course, It doesn't have to be 1.5 degrees. It could be 0.2 degrees.

There are many references that can be attributed to Jesus being a metaphoric figure for the sun, therefore the 1.5 degrees for the transitional period is a reference to Jesus' death at the age of 33.

I submit that the figure was chosen specifically to create that correspondence where it otherwise would not exist, and not for any intrinsic reason. As you point out, there is no consensus whatsoever in the matter, and the value varies with the point the valuator is trying to make, rather than as any sort of "natural law" inherent in either astronomy OR astrology.

It is simply made up in order to try to force a correspondence.

EsotericGod

The Babylonian zodiac is a form of astronomy so of course, they both matter.

Because they both involve stars? That's sort of like saying that a rocket ship and an automobile are the same thing, that an "automobile is a form of rocket" because they are both propelled by combustion.

EsotericGod

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

"Jesus was the symbol of the sun in the house of Pisces. "

...........

According to your perception. According to the Bible account Jesus did not say that. He stressed on moral day-to-day living, he wasn't making cryptic references to astrology.

..........

Not according to my perception, but rather according to the multiple references that can be attributed to cosmology.

That. Right there.

That "attribution" IS your perception. It is subjective. The "attribution" is YOUR perception, your interpretation, unsupportable by the source documentation.

So, yes, "according to your perception". Your interpretation after attempting to inject externals, and attempting to equate "cosmology" ("the study of the cosmos") with "astrology", which is the study of sun signs and portents. "Cosmos" takes in a very large area. Astrology, in contrast, confines itself to a very narrow strip of sky and specific extraterrestrial bodies.

EsotericGod

Where does it say that the Jews hated Jesus? An honest question as I honestly do not know.

The gospels make the case that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus, which is something generally not done without some degree of hate.