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.
Of COURSE it matters! If the zodiac came second, then IT was based around the religions, not the other way around, and your "theory" falls apart. I expect you to kick and scream about that, so have at it. Even your premise here, that "religions have been based around the zodiac" crumbles to dust if there was no zodiac to be based around. Likewise for your attempt to base Christianity on the Babylonian zodiac, which does not meet the requirement that you yourself have set.
You THINK "it's quite obvious"? I THINK that it's quite obvious that religion came first. If it had not, there would have been no gods to see in the zodiac. Therefore, astrology cannot have been the basis for religions, but religions must have been the basis for astrology.
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.
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.
"Good estimates" my great aunt Hattie's fanny!
I'll say there was a "gray area"!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Move goalposts much? Yesterday it was "the Babylonians" rather than the Romans. I pointed out other cultures because YOU were using different cultures as well.
Pick ONE, and stick to it.
Otherwise, you're just "sprinting".
Then you'll have to find a different method of proving nonexistence - what applies to one most certainly applies to the other. If one line of "coincidences" leads to one not existing, then an equitable line of coincidences MUST lead to the same conclusion in the other case.
You don't get to pick just what fits your argument, then deny the same line of "logic" elsewhere.
I don't suppose that's for me to say, is it? I'm not a god, so I don't have to make those "hard" decisions. Again, there were Christians in existence long before (200 years prior, at a minimum, but more likely 400 years prior - depends on where one cites the beginning of the Catholic Church... I use the Council of Nicea, you may vary) there was a "Catholic Church". Check history.
Rome founded "Catholicism" (at the council of Nicea), not "Christianity", which existed long before. An argument could be made for Christianity predating Judaism, but I'm not going to make it here.Likewise for Islam - the argument could be made that it goes all the way back, not starting with Mohammed... but I'm not going to make that argument here, either. Let's just stick to documented and labeled "Christianity", to make it easier. It certainly existed before Catholicism.
That might be so, but I think your position on this issue is probably held by the majority of those on ATS. Personally I don't believe that history supports your argument, and I think neno has done a good job of demonstrating why that is. I think he's taken an unbiased approach here, which isn't something I feel you are capable of with regards to the subject of the OP. For the record, I am also admittedly biased, which is one of the reasons I have stayed out of the conversation.
I've enjoyed the debate between you both, but it seems like you aren't willing to budge on your position at all, even when the facts don't agree with it. It seems like you simply aren't willing to grant any legitimacy to the notion of a historical Jesus and the new testament being based on his legacy and teachings (all debates about his divinity or miracles aside).
I'm more than willing to accept Jesus as a historical figure with miracles aside, I'm even willing to admit that he was divine but only because we all are as well. What I am not willing to accept is the biblical portrayal of him, I believe it is a bastardization of the true Jesus. Jesus was a great teacher, not a miracle worker.
Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.
Yet the sign John saw was in the sky and was from God. Astrology is the study of divine signs within the stars. John saw an astrological sign, whether you want to admit it or not does not change that fact.
9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What you see, write in a book, and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.
12 And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 And in the middle of the seven candlesticks one like to the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the breasts with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like to fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shines in his strength. Revelation 1:9-16 (American King James Version)
Sirius rising in the east indicating a certain season is about to start is an astronomical sign, not an astrological sign from god such as the one John saw.
Like you said, astronomy and astrology aren't exactly the same thing.
Astronomy is the study of the natural, astrology is the study of the supernatural.
John's vision of signs in the sky was supernatural because it is said to have come from god, meaning it was an astrological sign, there can be absolutely no doubt about that unless you are wanting to change the meaning in order to fit your worldview.
Depending on which version of the bible you are reading it says either for sacred times or signs from god. The version I quoted clearly distinguishes these "signs" from keeping time.
Yet the stars are not part of the grouping of stars that make up Leo. Yes, they are in the area around Leo but they are also in the area around Virgo as well.
The circle of stars when looked at as a whole is connected to the top-most star, or head, of Virgo.
Crowns are circular and they are put on top of the head, the circle is connected to the head of Virgo.
You're ignoring the obvious here, it's so obvious that it's almost laughable that you are claiming not to see it and making excuses for it.
I'm not the only person who sees it that way my friend, I didn't just invent it myself.
The woman representing Mary is the most logical conclusion based on the fact that the prophecy by John is completely based on and connected to Jesus and the NT.
There's a theory that Jesus was born in September of 3 BC based on dates, festivals, and John the Baptist's birth that are mentioned in the NT.
Keep in mind, this theory is totally unrelated to the prophecy in Revelation dealing with the woman and the dragon and was calculated apart from that passage. It is based on the accounts of Jesus' birth in the gospels.
There were a ton of astronomical occurrences in only a span of a few weeks within September of 3 BC, including the astronomical alignment described by John in Revelation 12.
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.
So calculations based on the biblical account say that Jesus was born on September 11, 3 BC and calculations based on astronomy say that the alignment described in Revelation 12 also happened on September 11, 3 BC.
These two calculations were done separately and based on different information yet they align perfectly with one another. Is that just a "superficial" coincidence as well?
Let's look at another interesting correlation which is 9/11. The "twin" towers were demolished on the same date that Jesus was supposedly born on. Jesus represents the age of Pisces which is represented by "twin" fish and even Jesus supposedly had "twin" in Thomas. Maybe 9/11 signifies the beginning of the end (or "destruction") of Pisces and the ushering in of Aquarius? Pretty interesting if you ask me.
And also, taking the horizon into account, the moon most definitely is underneath Virgo's feet. Look at the picture again and tell me the moon isn't under her feet from our perspective. You have one foot above another then the moon below both feet.
reply to post by nenothtu
Negative, since the zodiac depicts houses overlapping one another it could most definitely be interpreted as "either or" based on that depiction.
How does it matter? The zodiac still came before Christianity didn't it? We're talking about Christianity in this thread, you keep ignoring that fact for some reason. The focus is not on the religions that came before, it is on CHRISTIANITY in particular. Other religions are only complimenting the theory presented.
Key word "if" the zodiac came second. Logic dictates that religion is based around the zodiac, not the other way around. The Zodiac was created by personifying the stars then myhs were created around those personifications. It's the most logical conclusion. "If" the zodiac came first then my theory does not fall apart, and even "if" it didn't come first then it still doesn't fall apart because the zodiac still existed long before Christianity ever did.
You're using some convoluted logic to prop up your argument.
Same goes for you, you THINK the opposite of what I do. If the zodiac hadn't of came first, religions would have no gods to build myths around. The first thing you do in any good story is to create the characters first then form a story around them, the "characters" or gods were created by the personification of stars then the "story" or myths were formed around those chsracters.
Either way, the zodiac predates Christianity by thousands of years. Why are you ignoring that historical fact?
Oh I see, you're saying that the zodiac was based on Christianity even though the zodiac came before! If not, your argument is pointless and not relevant to the discussion.
Okay, with that logic we should ask a random Japanese person why a kamakaze pilot crashed into Pearl Harbor and base our conclusion entirely on whst he says. He should know why right? After all, we should ask modern proponents the reasoning behind age old ideas and concepts.
We have writings from Galileo surviving today. Would you prefer someone else's reasoning instead of getting it from Galileo himself? If so, why is it different for those who invented the zodiac? I'm not deflecting, only pointing out what I think are flaws in your logic.
As you and I have both stated before, those who put the zodiac together "fudged" it a little. Why did they put each zodiac house at 30 degrees plus 1.5 on each side? To fit it in a circle, to have a circle with houses representing equal parts of the whole. Maybe they liked congruency, so they "fudged" it.
Jesus was born in this "gray area" between the astrological ages of Aries and Pisces, the Romans "fudged" it a little. So what? They fudged a lot of things with the story of Jesus, particularly logic. Unless of course walking on waste is somehow logical, which it isn't.
The gray area still exists though doesn't it? Those who created the zodiac were not worried about a perfectly precise representation of the stars or constellations, if they were then Leo wouldn't be a lion it'd be a gathering of stars that "kinda sorta in a way but not really" looks like a lion.
And Christianity is another bit of nonsense based on the associations within astrologers minds. A guy walking on water and rising from the dead? Pure nonsense, but I guess it's okay because it's in the bible.
Thomas is called Didymus in John 20:24. Didymus means "twin" in Greek. This is fairly common knowledge if you know the bible. Thomas is also considered Jesus' twin in Gnostic writings.
Read the thread again, they're all listed within it.
The problem is you're only looking at them one by one and not as a whole. The connections are there but you're choosing to only look at them one at a time instead of seeing all the connections at once. All these connections as a whole point to Christianity being based on astrology and paganism.
All the churches holding pagan symbolism and Christian holidays deriving from pagan ones are more pieces to the puzzle but you choose to ignore them. I wonder why?
Read through the thread and see the varying views by different believers. Some say astrology is evil, others say not entirely, some say it's not in the bible, others say it is.
My views are very consistent, and they are that Christianity is based on astrology and paganism. I guess my consistency in pointing out astrological references isn't good enough though. Believers though? Their consistency is more than enough because they believe in the same god as you.