It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Mystery Religion – Jesus (The Sun of God)

page: 19
19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
[reply to post by nenothtu
 




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.


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.



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.


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.



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.


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.



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!


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.



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.


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.



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.


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.



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.


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?



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.


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.

edit on 2/8/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




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".


I haven't moved any goalposts, the Romans based their mythology off of the Greeks and the Greeks based theirs off of the Babylonians. The Shawnee or Norse did not base theirs off of the Greeks or Babylonians so the cultures you referenced aren't really related to the topic in any way.

I pick the Babylonians, but the Romans come along with them because they derive their myths from Babylon.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




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.


Your line of reasoning makes no sense because you're comparing something that existed 2,000 years ago with something that does in fact exist today, I'm comparing two things that existed at the same time 2,000 years ago. At least try to stay within the same time period as I am if you want to make your case.

edit on 2/8/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




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.


Yet Rome and the Catholic church had sole possession and control of information pertaining to Christianity after killing most if not all the Christians that existed before the Catholic church. They had sole possession and control of history within that area as well.

The victor writes history, Rome won their fight against Christianity which is why they got to choose what did and didn't go into the bible. They wrote history, not the people they killed.



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.


So how do you know it existed in the same form and with the same doctrine as the one Catholicism legalized? Rome were liars from the start, what in the world would make you think they'd legalize and help to spread the actual truth? The idea is nonsensical and illogical.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Your patience and perseverance are laudable. I'm astounded you have had the mental fortitude to see this discussion through 18+ pages when you are clearly wasting your breath. As I said earlier, it would be more productive talking to a wall. At least the wall will listen.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


The same can't be said about me?
Now my feelings are hurt because I feel like I'm talking to several walls at once.

I think I'm doing a better job at supporting my case than anyone else so far, but I guess walls can't understand that.

edit on 2/8/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


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 respect your differing point of view but sometimes I wonder what the point of such a lengthy debate is? If you are unwilling to change your position when there are good arguments against it, why bother having the discussion in the first place?
edit on 8-2-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 




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.


Of course it may be the opinion of the majority of people on ATS, this is a conspiracy centric website isn't it? That's bound to happen because what I'm presenting is a conspiracy, the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world: religion.

I'd hardly say nen is unbiased, he believes in the Abrahamic god and Christianity is the biggest and most popular Abrahamic faith.



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 don't think anyone on the other side of it the debate are willing to budge either, after all they do have faith in the Abrahamic god.

I personally don't see any facts being presented. The zodiac is not based on precisely depicting constellations or the sky, it is based on man's ability to fit square blocks into circular holes through personification and idea-forms. Even I can fit a square block into a circular hole then depict it on paper.

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.
edit on 2/8/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 





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.


Now we are getting somewhere. This seems curious to me, because you've spent page after page of this thread seemingly attempting to debunk the new testament and chalk up Jesus ministry as allegory and symbolism that is robbed from more ancient traditions. Yet you are claiming you are willing to concede that the man himself may have existed and had a ministry in Judea. Why is the conjecture on ancient mystery religions necessary (especially when the bulk of it has been debunked by actual historians and experts in ancient mythology) if the more reasonable position can be taken that Jesus life and crucifixion were based on the events of a real mans life?

I'll link this particular article which presents some excellent points as to why the theory presented in the OP doesn't hold water. I don't expect you to concede to it, since it is clearly written by a Christian apologist, but the facts are still presented therein and can easily be verified if you bother to do the research. The idea that Christianity is based on ancient pagan religions simply crumbles when it is held to the light of proper scrutiny, and if you bother to look, you can find completely unbiased scholarly sources that affirm these facts.

The only way we can consider the OP in any reasonable way is when we look at what happened to Christianity after it was adopted by rome, and how it was co-opted by the pagan romans and essentially blended with previous pagan practices (for instance Christian events in the bible being represented on pagan holidays). This in no way invalidates the core of the new testament, since by all accounts it predates the roman catholic church by at least 200 years (as neno pointed out).



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


As far as documents that support Catholic doctrines such as the death and resurrection of Jesus and that believing in that scenario "saves" you, no document from the NT survives from before the 4th century, around the time of Catholicism's legalization and formation at the Council of Nicaea.

Rome had complete and total control over the history of that area in that time and the only reference to Jesus outside of church tradition by Josephus has glaring signs of interpolation, especially in the "Testimonium Flavianum", the only reference to Jesus' resurrection outside of the bible and church tradition. Now why would they need to interpolate this into a historians work if it was without a doubt true? In my opinion, it was to have a contemporary source outside of Christianity supporting the lie that they created.
edit on 2/8/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/8/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


That simply isn't true.

Source

We have fragments from manuscripts of the book of John dating to 125AD.


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.

edit on 8-2-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)


Edit to note: There are a wealth of reasons why the "Caesars Messiah" theories don't hold up to scrutiny, one of which is Paul (who is thought to have written his earliest epistles in 51AD, a mere 20 years after the crucifixion). There are a number of other reasons why this theory is easily debunked, which I don't wish to get into here. Quite frankly I'm tired of discussing it here, but you can see my signature for more info if you are willing to consider opposing viewpoints.
edit on 8-2-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


"A tiny fragment", not a full document, and even it is dated to 100 years after Jesus died. The oldest full document of any gospel is dated to the 4th century.

I believe that there was a gospel or story about Jesus written down, but I believe it was reworked and interpolated upon using Dionysian Imitatio.

Now if the fragment has a mention of Jesus' resurrection or a miracle he performed then maybe I would think about it, but then again it would still be 100 years after the fact.

ETA: I don't believe Jesus was Caesar.
edit on 2/8/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Then how do you explain this?

This is clearly part of John and is verbatim what is presented in modern translations. It relates the part of John where Pilate questions Jesus about whether or not he is king of the jews, and is written in greek (not latin). How do you reconcile these facts with your conspiracy theory?

Again, it seems obvious to me that your own bias is clouding your judgement, and that despite being continually proven wrong in your assertions, you keep shifting goal posts and refusing to consider that you may in fact be wrong.

edit on 8-2-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1

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.



No, John saw a "sign" in a vision, a dream - not "in the sky". NOWHERE does he say it was an astrological "sign" - that's all YOU.

The "vision" begins thus:




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)



If you believe he literally "saw" anything in the sky, then you must also believe he literally "saw" a man with fire in his eyes and a sword sticking out of his mouth - which condition MUST have been terribly uncomfortable!

It's either allegorical, or it's not - which are we going to go with?




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.



But a "sign" is a "sign", all the more so since both are in the sky, and both are just stars. You all are the ones wanting to conflate astrology with astronomy - NOW you're backing up?




Like you said, astronomy and astrology aren't exactly the same thing.



Oh, I guess you ARE... now.




Astronomy is the study of the natural, astrology is the study of the supernatural.



Huh? I thought it was "the basis for the calendar" and all that. I thought you all were claiming it for a "science". NOW it's suddenly become "the study of the supernatural" and not the natural? It's no longer "nature observation of the sky"? Astrology suddenly isn't a "science" any more?




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.



"Coming from God" in no way means it's "an astrological sign". Quite the opposite - I'm given to understand God condemns astrology and astrologers, so it's illogical to claim that he dabbles in it.

UNLESS, of course, you are referring to Babylonian gods, or Roman gods, or maybe Greek gods... I can't say THEY didn't dabble in astrology, as I have insufficient data to make an determination on that.

That's like claiming that because a christian believes God created Sirius, that the Sirian rising is an "Astrological sign" - but we've already determined that Sirius rising isn't "Astrological", haven't we?

Or are we going to back out of that one, too?




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.



I read all of them, but more to the point, your quote did NOT say it was for "sacred times" or "signs from God". It decidedly did NOT "distinguish these 'signs' from keeping time". It very clearly stated that they ARE for keeping time. Do I need to quote it AGAIN? I can, if I need to...




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.



Better look at your graphic again - they ARE part of the grouping of stars that make up Leo, in particular his hindquarters. It's every bit as legitimate to say (and more so, since they are in Leo) that they signify "Leo taking a dump" as to say that they signify "Virgo wearing a crown".




The circle of stars when looked at as a whole is connected to the top-most star, or head, of Virgo.



As they are also connected to the hindmost parts, or ass, of Leo, and more so since they belong in the Leo constellation, right down to their very names.




Crowns are circular and they are put on top of the head, the circle is connected to the head of Virgo.



Crowns are not "connected to the head", they encircle the head - your stars do not.




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.



laugh away at what you see as "obvious" - your laughter sounds a bit manic from here.




I'm not the only person who sees it that way my friend, I didn't just invent it myself.

LINK

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.



And yet NONE of the posters you attempted to require justification from for an association they never made have made that claim - only YOU. See where this is going?

I'm not real big on predicitive "prophecy", but don't you think John would have known the story about Mary being a virgin and would have included that little bit, instead of leaving it wide open as a "woman standing on the moon with a crown", none of which other than the "woman" part applies to Mary?

Why would he have left it open to interpretation as Hagar instead, and with a clearer link to Hagar with the whole "wandering in the wilderness" bit? When did Mary "wander in the wilderness"? When did a dragon eat Mary's baby - or Hagar's for that matter? When was either of them coronated queen?

I'm just not seeing your "logic" here...




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.


Source

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?



Yes, "superficial". The "alignment" had the moon on the wrong side of the ecliptic - it was even further away from her feet, not even approaching "under" them. The "alignment" occurs once a month, EVERY month, and this one was not even particularly close, certainly not "under her feet".

Not much of a "perfect" alignment, and certainly not unusual.

The conjunction of Jupiter and Regulus mentioned in the videos, but not in Revelations, occurred on 13 Sept., not 11 Sept. It was not "hanging in the south", it followed the normal course of the sky, rising in the east, and setting in the west. The "magi" would have been running around in circles over the course of a night "following" it.

"Superficial".




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.



Those damned Babylonians, always meddling in future events and blowing up buildings across the planet! And the nerve of those architects, making their buildings look like fish!

This runs right past "superficial" and enters the arena of "reaching". The "end of Pisces and beginning of Aquarius" depend upon who you are asking - and I suspect how much they have been drinking - or how blurry their eyes are when they look at their charts.




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.



Interesting you should bring that up, since I was thinking along similar lines concerning the horizon. First, at the time and date specified, Virgo was nowhere to be seen, being under the horizon, and on the other side of Earth (from Israel and the Middle East, that is - the area in question), but more interestingly, when Virgo rises above the horizon, she is upright, not laid on her side, making the position of the moon OBVIOUSLY to the side of her feet, rather than under them.

edit on 2014/2/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.


I feel bad now, like the other poster did. This is like beating a dead horse, or shooting piscids in a barrel.

What part of "between" or "transition" are you not getting? If it's "transitioning", it's not "either/or", it's neither. It's transitioning. That means a gradient, not one or the other. A gradient between the two.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


"LOL! I'm pretty sure Catholics invented Christianity!"

This has got to really some up the level of logic that goes into this argument. Literally feel stupider for reading this. This is like I'm a planet, and stupidity is gravity, and the closer I get to these type of arguments the more stupidity grasps me and pulls me in. Pretty soon I will be wondering how to spell "I" and forgetting how to breathe.

Catholics did not invent Christianity. Just for clarity. Read a book please. Any book. Just read something. Learn to read. Anything involving reading really. Also, I believe it was agreed upon that Rome did incorporate pagan tradition into their worship. No surprise there. Just look for a spot in the Bible where it tells you to say "Hail Mary's", or hide eggs for easter, or celebrate the sabbath on Sunday. I say abandonment of this thread is likely. Ignorance is being accepted, not denied.

For all christians, please do not allow this silliness to influence your thoughts. This is what is called an uneducated argument. It's purpose is to incorporate foolishness and breed ignorance. It is usually done by people who consider themselves smart, yet don't even fully grasp their own argument. There is no debating these types of people. If you read what has been written, you could become what less intelligent then you were when you began. Just like the priests who thought it was terrible to have the Bible translated from latin to whatever language the people who they were controlling were speaking, this is the same type of philosophy. Don't listen to what you can learn yourself. Listen to what I tell you.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Like I said, if it had mention of his resurrection or a miracle he performed I would consider it, but it doesn't, it has a total of 5 verses out of the entire gospel, hardly proof that Jesus performed miracles or rose from the dead.

I believe Jesus' story was written down, but it was later interpolated upon to include the resurrection and miracles using Dionysian Imitatio. Interestingly enough, Dionysian derives from Dionysus who shares attributes with of Jesus and John the Baptist.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 





posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pleasethink
 


Anyways, I was cut off. Listen to yourself. Find information yourself. It is an age of information, and all these things are available to you if you seek to find them. Please think.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1

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.



We are either engaging in "comparative religion", or we are not. Pick ONE stance, and stick to it.

Anything else is just "sprinting".

Other religions only matter if they "compliment" your premise, and they don't matter if they don't? That's called "Selection bias", and is an error.




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.



What is convoluted about saying that something must first exist before anything else can be based upon it? If there were no "gods" to see in the stars to begin with, how would anyone have seen them?

How far back can you verify astrology? I can verify religion back at least 38,000 years, and possibly 400,000 if I try really hard. Can you verify the existence of astrology that far back?

If you can't you're just stabbing in the dark, swinging blindly.




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.



There is no particular reason that the conception of gods had to be in the stars. Many primitve societies, even now, see their gods on the Earth around them, or even under it, rather than in the sky. There IS a particular reason that there would have to be a conception of "gods" BEFORE they could be "seen" - in the stars or anywhere else. Therefore, it is logical to assume that religion came before man "saw" them in asterisms. Furthermore, those asterisms change from culture to culture, based on their local gods and legends - which asterism is the Jewish god? which is Jesus, as I understand he's conceieved of by christians as a god? Remember, you said that the asterisms come first, and that the gods are based upon them - not the other way around.




Either way, the zodiac predates Christianity by thousands of years. Why are you ignoring that historical fact?



Because we're doing "comparative religion" until specified otherwise, until you stop "sprinting" in and out of it. Your entire premise rests on those "other religions", which is why you had to bring in "comparative religion" for backup. Now you don't like it. Boo hoo.




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.



Why would I say that? Astrology is forbidden by Christianity - YOU are the one trying to associat the two at all! You are trying to inject other religions (which I guess you don't want to talk about now) into christianity IF we can't talk about them any more, how on Earth are you going to successfully inject them?




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.



Not unless he is a current kamikaze. Babylonian astrologers are long dead - but modern astrologers yet live, and can be quizzed. A "random Japanese person" is unlikely to be a kamikaze, but if we meet one who espouses that philosophy, and IS a modern kamikaze, then of course it would be proper to ask them why!




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.



On matters of astronomy, yes. On matters specific to Galileo's thoughts, no. For example, I would not peruse Galileo's writings for information on proper motion of stars. In other words, I would not attempt a modern discussion with a long dead astronomer, since it's unlikely he could rise from the grave to answer my questions, r give me answers to more recent innovations that have occurred since his death - like Rome basing Christianity on the zodiac of dead Babylonians..




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.



They didn't. The figure of 30 degrees plus 1.5 per side per "sign" leads to a circle of 396 degrees, not 360. 360 degrees has been the division of a circle (in "degrees") since Sumerian times. There is a reason for that, and a reason for the 12 divisions. Hint: the numbers "3" and "4" also factor into the division, and there are reasons for that, too - not esoteric, supernatural, "hidden religions within religions" reasons, either.

Also - I've still not found the figure of "1.5 degrees" for the alleged "transitions". Can you point to that, somewhere other than this thread, please?




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.



Can you point me to a Roman story about Jesus "walking on waste"? I've not heard that one before. I agree, walking on waste is illogical, and just plain nasty. that in no way changes the fact that your thesis is fraught with fudge factors in an attempt to force a fit where one does not exist. It's not relevant to astrological origins postulated for Christianity. Not "the Romans" thesis, YOUR thesis.




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.



Yet another of the differences separating "astrology" from "astronomy". It does seem that an attempt at precision was the name of the game, however - why else would they have attempted predicitons of planetary motions and seasonal changes, if those predictions were imprecise and could not be counted on?




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.



I can prove that war and conquest still exist - all one has to do is look around. You have NOT proven an association of christianity with astrology. Therefore, it cannot be said that "christianity is based on associations within astrologers minds". Walking on water and rising from the dead are not astrological concepts, so those don't prove that associaton, either. Is this some more "sprinting"?




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.



Yes, it does. That in no way specifies WHOSE twin he was, much less specifying him to be Jesus' twin. It seems that a little detail like that would have been recorded in the account of Jesus' birth, not just in the Nag Hammadi library. Speaking of that, are we going to include Nag Hammadi and Gnostic writings in general in our sprinting attempts now? I may be at a disadvantage at first, but I bet I can get up to speed pretty quick. I thought we were just using canonical biblical texts to "prove" the link, but if not, we can open THAT can of worms, too.




Read the thread again, they're all listed within it.



ALL of them? As a whole? Nothing hidden behind your back for later use? That's pitiful, if it's true - they've all been debunked!




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.



Not so. If NONE of them can stand individually, neither can they stand collectively. Without some support, there is NO support. If you don't believe me, try balancing an elephant on a twinkie - you'll become a believer fast, after you try to balance that elephant on a whole crate of twinkies!

Not to mention irritating the elephant.




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?



I've been in a lot of churches, but never one with "pagan symbolism". Maybe I just don't frequent the right kind of churches. Being a non-christian, I'm probably not qualified to speak on their holidays - I don't know much about them, other than Christmas and Easter. I don't celebrate Christmas, and Easter is sort of vague in it's timing - it falls into both Jewish camps and "pagan" ones, and is calculated based on the Jewish calendar. What part of it points to "pagan" origins? I really don't know, so you'll have to school me on that one. I'm vague on the pagan origins of the whole "dude got sealed in a tomb and sprung from it without anybody seeing, then getting found missing by a chick" theme. What part of the astrological zodiac points to that one?

We ARE still talking about Roman astrology, aren't we?





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.



Sure, they vary one from the other, as is expected, but they are at least self-consistent.




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.



If your views are so consistent, why all the sprinting and reaching? every time you point out an alleged "astrological reference", and it gets knocked down, the reaching starts, the dancing and sprinting starts. All the flailing looks like a drownng man, really. the only consistency I've noticed is your insistent belief in associating Mary and Virgo, an admirable dogged determination when held to in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The latest reach seems to be "well ya gotta take 'em as a whole, because individually they can't stand", and I have to wonder where it's going to go now.

I seriously doubt that many here, if any, believe in the same God that I do - but that's neither here nor there, and probably a proper subject for another thread, which will likely never happen.



edit on 2014/2/9 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join