The Mystery Religion – Jesus (The Sun of God)

3NL1GHT3N3D1

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.

Actually, 8 of them ARE - that's what "Leonis" means - "of Leo".

As in...

Part.

Of.

reply to post by nenothtu

Where were the Catholics when the Jews were "inventing" Christianity?

Uhm, they were busy writing laws to undermine and outlaw Jewishness!

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


And finally (for this cycle), I'd like to point out...

You are attempting to get other members to defend an assumption they never made - i.e. the "connection" of Virgo, the "Woman of Revelations", and Mary. YOU introduced that assumption here, not them. You said specifically:

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 here:

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?

(Note well that the passage in Revelations never mentions "Mary", nor does it mention a virgin - only a "woman". What you are doing here is STARTING with an assumption of zodiacal inclusion, then trying to force a fit by making "facts" up for the sake of "connections" that don't exist)

THEN you try to get two other posters to defend YOUR assumption by trying to play it off as if they were the ones making it:

here:

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.

NO - he didn't equate it with Mary at all - quite the opposite, in fact. He explicitly denied the connections.

And here:

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.

As a matter of fact, she explicitly refuted the "moon" thing and the "crown" thing, and never mentioned the wilderness stay or the dragon's meal.

So she ALSO explicitly denied the connections you attempt to make her support here. Nowhere did she claim that "Mary stood on the moon" either allegorically OR literally, nor did she claim Mary (or Virgo) spent 1260 days in the wilderness, nor that "a dragon ate her baby", nor that Mary "had a crown of 12 stars". That's all on YOU.

It's intellectually dishonest, not to mention intellectually lazy, to attempt to force others to "defend" and assumption that YOU made. Defend YOUR OWN assumptions.

I'll title this post "The Assumption of Mary".

windword
reply to post by nenothtu

 

"Where were the Catholics when the Jews were 'inventing' Christianity?"

Uhm, they were busy writing laws to undermine and outlaw Jewishness!

Before they even existed?

Now THERE is a trick!

reply to post by nenothtu


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 windword


and yet Catholics still did not yet exist, even then... and Rome was still killing off Christians at the time... I'm just not seeing how Catholics could possibly pass laws against "jewishness" when Catholics did not yet exist.

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"?

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.

reply to post by nenothtu

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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 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.

reply to post by nenothtu

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...

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.

reply to post by nenothtu

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.

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.

reply to post by nenothtu

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.

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.

windword
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 same one you are - or at least the same one I thought you were talking about. I took my cue from this:

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.

"Way before the advent of Jesus", would seem to imply, well, way before the advent of Jesus. Did you mean another time frame by chance, and just accidentally used those words?

The Jewish Wars were around 70 AD. Did you possibly mean some OTHER time frame by use of that marker?

So how were Christians passing laws against Judaism if there were no Christians during that period?

3NL1GHT3N3D1
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)

Negative, sir. The "overlap" is neither one nor the other, so the "transitional" period, however you choose to define it, must be subtracted, not added.

If added, the circle totals 396 degrees, not the 360 that is included in the zodiac. As a matter of fact, I don't know of ANY circles are 396 degrees.

reply to post by nenothtu

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.

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.

"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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[/quote]

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.[4] Despite all references provided by various sources, astrologers cannot agree upon exact dates for the beginning or ending of the ages.

Source

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.

3NL1GHT3N3D1

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)

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".

3NL1GHT3N3D1

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.

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.

3NL1GHT3N3D1

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?

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.

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.

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.