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.
I am not stealing stars from other constellations, the 12 stars are not part of Leo and are literally connected to the top-most star of Virgo.
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.
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?
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.
What am I taking literally that is figurative or vice versa? Revelation 12 is figurative symbolism, unless of course you think Mary stood on top of the moon and wore a crown of 12 stars and had an actual dragon (Hydra) eat her baby.
Revelation 12 is allegorical, Mary did not literally stand on top of the moon or flee to the wilderness for 1,260 days after a dragon ate her baby, that it is all allegory. It seems as though you are trying to turn the allegorical into the literal, not me.
and Rome was still killing off Christians at the time
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!
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...
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.
I submit for your consideration that not all of "their own" actually ARE "their own", going by "their own" scriptures -
So it appears that not all "christians" can be lumped together, going by the definition set forth by their founder.
reply to post by nenothtu
and Rome was still killing off Christians at the time
What time frame are you talking about? There was no coherent religion of Christianity before the late 2nd century, when early church fathers began interpreting what were to be considered the "gospels". So how was Rome killing "Christians"?
edit on 8-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)
The basics of Christianity were espoused by Jewish mystics, the Essenes, way before the advent of Jesus. After the Jewish wars, Christianity was no longer Jewish in any way and Jewishness was an anathema in the Christian world.
reply to post by nenothtu
As you stated earlier, the zodiacs overlap one another during the transitional period meaning they take up 30 degrees of the zodiac by themselves then 1.5 degrees with the houses on either side of them, equaling 33 degrees in total for each house if you include the overlaps with the other houses.
33 degrees is the correct number, not 27.edit on 2/8/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
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".
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.
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.
Because the earth is rotating, there is apparent motion of the sun and moon, while the stars stay somewhat fixed in relation to the earth. The sun was mid-body along the ecliptic in Virgo the Virgin on September 11, 3 BC, and the moon was under her feet exactly from 6:15 to 7:49 pm on September 11, 3 BC. According to Dr. Martin, this great sign in the sky only occured on that one day in 3 BC.
reply to post by nenothtu
Does it really matter which came first? The fact is religions have been based around the zodiac for thousands of years, religions that came way before Christianity ever did. Whether the zodiac was based on the first religion or the first religion based on the zodiac doesn't matter one bit because the zodiac has been the basis for many religions since and after it was created.
I think it's quite obvious that astrology came first, not religion. Astrology was and has been the basis for religions for a long time so why would it be any different for the Greeks or Babylonians? They named the constellations then created religions around those personifications of the stars.
Lots of things are still under development, including any area of science you can think of and religions as well. Astrology is not somehow alone in that area.
Then it is quite proper to take up the problems inherent in astrology with it's modern proponents. One would not take up problems in astronomy with Galileo - he's dead. The very notion is ridiculous, and an attempt to deflect. I'm not allowing deflection any more.
The astrologers can make an estimate on when and where and age starts by studying which constellation the sun rises in front of in the morning, the uncertainty is because of the 1.5 degrees in overlap of each zodiac house, that's why the overlaps exist because no one is quite sure when and where they start or end, but a good estimate can be figured out nonetheless.
Why are those "good estimates" all over the map then? Why do they vary from "none" to TEN FULL DEGREES - A FULL 1/3 OF THE "SIGN" (2/3 of both ends are included)? If astronomy were involved rather than astrology, we have very precise measurements for where the sun rises at the vernal equinox on 21 March. Source
"Good estimates" my great aunt Hattie's fanny!
When Jesus was supposedly born we were in the gray area of moving from the age of Aries to the age of Pisces, the Romans picked a date somewhere in between and said "this is it" even though they weren't 100% sure.
I'll say there was a "gray area"!
Many astrologers believe that the Age of Aquarius has arrived recently or will arrive in the near future. On the other hand, some believe that the Age of Aquarius arrived up to five centuries ago, or will not start until six centuries from now. Despite all references provided by various sources, astrologers cannot agree upon exact dates for the beginning or ending of the ages.
there's your "gray area". They can't agree upon when an "age"starts within 1100 years, or how long it lasts. "Gray area" indeed! If astronomy were so imprecise, we'd still be trying to figure out whether the Earth revolved around the sun, or the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Aries is a sign associated with war and conquest, Yahweh existed in the age of Aries which is why he was so bloodthirsty. Pisces is a sign associated with love, Jesus exists in the age of Pisces which is why he taught about loving one another. Jesus is also said to have had a "twin" in Thomas, Pisces is represented by two "twin" fishes. The connections start to add up when you look at them as a whole instead of one by one.
Associated" in the minds of astrologers, perhaps - just more of their made-up nonsense. I note that war and conquest have nowhere near ended in this current(?) "age of love". Out of curiosity, since this twins business is news to me, can you point to the verse in the bible (we ARE talking about a bible figure, aren't we?) where Jesus claims to have a "twin" named Thomas? If you can do that, maybe I'll take a second glance at your "fishy" story.
Maybe you could deign to put your alleged "connections" out "as a whole" so they could be looked at "as a whole"? Cause I gotta tell ya, one by one they fall like a line of dominos.
Any religious person can and does warp their particular scripture to fit their worldviews. Astrology isn't alone in that area either. Religion is the BEST example for that concept.
I wouldn't say "any" religious person. For example, can you point me to any place where I have "warped scriptures to fit my worldview"? If you can, I promise to take another look and re-evaluate.
I have seen so many different angles being taken by believers in the thread, some saying astrology is bad, some saying it isn't, others saying it's not used in the bible at all, and still others saying that it is used in certain areas.
Moving targets you say? The believers in this thread so far have been sprinting back and forth.
It's not just the "believers" sprinting back and forth - but at least THEY are consistent in their OWN views, unlike the "True Believers" of this astrological nonsense. They may vary one from the other, but the True Believers are not even self-consistent.
And the Romans had a very subjective view on the constellations as well, the ones represented by the zodiac. This discussion is about Christianity and the ones who formed it, not other cultures on the opposite side of the world. I'm looking at it how the Romans would have, not the Shawnee or the Norse or whoever else, but the Romans. You seem to be oblivious to that.edit on 2/8/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
Maybe the connection is there, I'm not denying it is. The concept of one person having rule over 100 others could definitely be connected to the Roman centurion, but to say that the Vice President doesn't exist because of that? We know for a fact that he does exist and you're bringing in ridiculous ideas based on something that is known as fact.
Jesus' existence is up for debate, the Vice President's existence is not.
So which of the thousands upon thousands of denominations have it right? The Catholics who founded Christianity or any of the thousands that came afterward?
Jesus didn't found or start the Christianity we have today, Rome did. I know you or others won't see it that way but it's a historical fact.