The Mystery Religion – Jesus (The Sun of God)

3NL1GHT3N3D1

I haven't moved any goalposts, the Romans based their mythology off of the Greeks and the Greeks based theirs off of the Babylonians.

Of course you've moved the goalposts! Otherwise, you couldn't see Virgo in a furrow, or Dumuzi in a ram sheep, or a soldier in a centaur, or a bird's tail in a fish.

Roman mythology is very similar to Greek mythology, but very different from Babylonian or Sumerian mythology, which hold similarities to each other.

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.

Butbutbut - you said the same constellations are seen everywhere in the world! Then we start dancing when I point out that they aren't.

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

Did they now? Are you sure of that? Is this something we can discuss without you "sprinting"?

I'm still not quite sure how the Romans factor into it, anyhow - christianity started out Jewish, not Roman... Maybe we're really discussing Catholicism?

3NL1GHT3N3D1

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.

I'll stay in the same time period when you do. State the time period, and stick with it this time.

Is it the days of the Babylonian Empire, or the days of the Roman Empire?

3NL1GHT3N3D1

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.

If that were true, Gnosticism would have never existed, nor would there be any other evidence in existence now beyond Catholic "scripture and tradition". Clearly this is not the case, or there would be none but Catholics now.

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.

They chose poorly then, if they were trying to base Christianity on astrology.

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.

Because there are still writings extant from before Catholicism, and as a matter of fact they DO NOT have the same form as Catholicism - but then again, I never said they did... if I thought they did, I guess I'd be a Catholic, now wouldn't I?

DeadSeraph
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.

It's not for me, nor is it for the "True Believers" - I don't expect any of them will be converted. It's for the other people who wander into this thread. Without a voice of opposition to let them know this material is "questionable", they won't bother questioning it, and will just swallow the hook, line, and sinker.

Get it? "The hook, line, and sinker"? After all, this IS the "Age of Pisces" - unless it's the "age of Aquarius"... or something. Heck, if even astrologers don't know what time it is, how could I POSSIBLY know?

DeadSeraph

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?

Perhaps I should rest my case then - quit while I'm ahead so that I don't say something stupid and step in the goo. I think, really, I've just about beat this dead horse to a second death anyhow.

Aphorism
It is completely arbitrary where a heavenly body appears to be travelling through. This view is only ever relative to where we are standing, not to the heavenly body's actual position to the universe. Consequently, and since man isn't the measure of all things, the ages of aquarius and pisces are arbitrary, and nothing at all will happen when we enter that "age". It seems these people have merely created a superstition out of other superstitions.

YOu may not understand what The Mysteries are. It is less about God (although God is important, as he was seen as the great watchmaker, to use a metaphor) and more about nature

Imagine you are the first person to discover and then quantify the precession of the equinoxes. That is powerful information. Especially in a burgeoning agricultural era.

The whole fire and brimstone God....that is for the profane. For the initiate, there are teachings related to the world and cosmos that help create a framework for understanding. Even if this framework may have some flaws.

But when people say, "They knew the Earth wasn't flat...", it was the initiates to The Mysteries that knew.

As far as Pascha, it is traditionally understood that it was celebrated by early christians and the meaning is the same as what christians understand as Easter. Somewhere along the line, a lot of pagan similar traditions got incorporated into Pascha and it became Easter. This does not lessen the meaning for christians who would like to celebrate the Resurrection. It is similar to how Christmas, a celebration of the Birth, became some santa clause tree in house festival. None of these things really detract from people who understand what is being celebrated. It kind of seems some powerful people are trying to stamp out any true meaning in Christianity. Which kind of falls in line with the Gospel. So .......

Also, think of this. Why is it that people who traditionally have separated themselves from the society which they exist(Jews and Christians) inspire so much hatred throughout time? This is a good way of finding the truth. Once one sees that the hatred is unfounded and without purpose, but exists nonetheless(and in a persistent fashion), one begins to find the underneath of things. It is eye opening and mind expanding as to what the actuality actually is. There is an undercurrent of hatred flowing through people who reject traditional morality(ten commandments). This hatred is directed almost exclusively towards people who support it. Why if the Bible is fake, would this be so?

See John 15, Mathew 10:22, and probably most interestingly and relevant Mark 13.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Yes, Jesus and Paul both spoke of the mystery, and the unveiling of the mystery.


[Mat 13:11 KJV] 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
[Rom 16:25 KJV] 25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
[1Cr 2:7 KJV] 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
[1Cr 4:1 KJV] 1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
[Eph 5:32 KJV] 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
[Col 1:27 KJV] 27 To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

3NL1GHT3N3D1

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

Um, I'm not sure I'd say I "believe in the Abrahamic God" - not the way you, or Christians, or Jews, or Muslims conceive of it, anyhow. that's why I said "Abrahamic, perhaps" when you questioned me on it. "Perhaps", because it doesn't correlate with any recognizable religion in the modern day.

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.

It's not my faith in an "Abrahamic" God that keeps me from budging - it's the sheer illogic of the entire proposition you set forth that does it.

I personally don't see any facts being presented. The zodiac is not based on precisely depicting constellations or the sky,

Then it's not astronomy, after all. Glad we cleared that up.

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.

Of that, I have no doubt whatsoever. I've seen it in action. Glad we can agree on something!

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.

Well crap! Why are we trying to disprove his existence because he was "created by astrology" then?

He was what he was, and neither what you believe nor what I believe will change that by even a jot or a tittle. Whether or not he was a "miracle worker" or "divine" is, at best, peripheral to his message, and I'm not sure I'm prepared to go even that far, to give it even THAT much importance. The message was the important part, and the rest just distractions for the kids, magic tricks for the unbelievers or what have you.

IF, however, he never existed, then the message cannot have been delivered... and THAT IS crucial.

It's also why so many these days are desperately trying to "prove" he never existed.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.

Oh my... I have a MUCH more involved,and possibly convoluted, view of "salvation" than that dogmatic claptrap! I really SHOULD bow out...

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.

From what I've dug up over the years, it seems that the "Testimonium Flavianum" is generally considered accurate at it's basic, with the "interpolations" surrounding such exclamations by Josephus as "... if man he truly was". There is no good reason to presume that an "orthodox" Jew of the day would harbor such sentiment.

In other words, it's probably an accurate report of the death of a Judean preacher, but "spiffed up" by christians trying to wedge a shoe in the door.

reply to post by nenothtu

He was what he was, and neither what you believe nor what I believe will change that by even a jot or a tittle. Whether or not he was a "miracle worker" or "divine" is, at best, peripheral to his message, and I'm not sure I'm prepared to go even that far, to give it even THAT much importance. The message was the important part, and the rest just distractions for the kids, magic tricks for the unbelievers or what have you.

Quite.
What we 'believe' has nothing to do with the 'actual factual bits' of what is available.

IF, however, he never existed, then the message cannot have been delivered... and THAT IS crucial.

But - the message was delivered before, and after, his recorded existence, by other 'spiritual leaders'. So, would it not have surfaced anyway?

What do you consider to be "the message" that might or might not have been delivered?

It's also why so many these days are desperately trying to "prove" he never existed.

I don't get what you mean.

But, you know I love ya, neno!


(MORE SNOW!?? AYFKM??? Gha.)
LOL!!!

I just found this nice write up. I think it reinforces the "Sun God" theme of the Jesus story.

Suppose you had been a child living in Rome 1940 years ago; that is, a few years before Jesus is supposed to have been born. About a week before December twenty-fifth, you could have found everybody preparing for a great feast, just as they do in Europe today. To those Romans December twenty-fifth was the birthday of the sun. They wrote that in gold letters in their calendar. Every year about that time, the middle of winter, the sun was born once more and it was going to put an end to the darkness and misery of winter. So they had a great feast, with presents and dolls for everybody, and the best day of all was December twenty-fifth. That feast, they would tell you, was thousands of years old—before Christ was ever heard of. …

Just outside Rome there was an underground temple of the Persian God Mithra. Well, at midnight, the first minute of December twenty-fifth, you would have seen that temple all lit up with candles, and priests in white garments at the altar, and boys burning incense; exactly as you will see in a Roman Catholic church at midnight on December twenty-fourth in our own time. And the worshippers of Mithra would have told you that Mithra was a good God who had come from heaven to be born as a man and redeem men from their sins; and he was born in a dark cave or stable on December twenty-fifth.

Then suppose you asked somebody where the Egyptians who lived in Rome had their temple. You would have found these also celebrating the birth of their saviour-god Horus who was born of a virgin in a stable on December twenty-fifth. In the temple you would find a statue of figure of the infant-god Horus lying in a manger, and a statue of his virgin-mother Isis standing beside it; just as in a Roman Catholic church on Christmas day you will find a stable or cave rigged up and the infant Jesus in a manger and a figure of Mary beside it.

Then you might go to the Greek temple, and find them paying respect to the figure of their saviour-god in a manger or cradle. And if you found the quarters of the gladiators, the war-captives from Germany, you would have found these also holding a feast, and they would explain that December twenty-fifth (or mid-winter) was, all over Europe, the great feast of Yule, or the Wheel, which means that the sun had turned back, llike a wheel, and was going once more to redeem men from the hell of winter to the heaven of summer.
Bishop William Montgomery Brown, Science and History for Girls and Boys (Galion, OH: The Bradford-Brown Educational Company, 1932), pp. 138–139.f

www.nbufront.org...

reply to post by windword


This is awesome!! Perfect for 'boys and girls' in today's context.

And it was nearly 100 years ago:

Bishop William Montgomery Brown, Science and History for Girls and Boys (Galion, OH: The Bradford-Brown Educational Company, 1932), pp. 138–139.

edit on 2/9/14 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

reply to post by pleasethink

Emperor Hadrian 134 CE:

"The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Presbyter of the Christians, who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a minister to obscene pleasures. The very Patriarch himself, should he come into Egypt, would be required by some to worship Serapis, and by others to worship Christ. They have, however, but one God, and it is one and the self-same whom Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike adore, i.e., money."

Pliny the younger, proconsul of Bithynia, wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor Tragan (early second century), in which he reported the presence in his province of a group of people who gathered before daybreak on a certain day and sang hymns to Christ as a god. There is no evidence that this Christ was the Jesus of the Gospels. The Emperor Hadrian in a letter to the Consul Servianus (A.D. 134), asserts that the worshippers of the sun-god Serapis, in Egypt, were Christians, and that these sun-worshippers called themselves "Bishops of Christ." The worship of Serapis was imported into Egypt from Pontus, a province bordering on Bithynia. The Christians mentioned by Pliny the Younger were in all probability worshippers of Serapis.

www.nbufront.org...

So who do you think invented Christianity?

reply to post by wildtimes


I thought you might enjoy that!

reply to post by nenothtu

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:


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?

Read Revelation 12 again, it starts off by saying a sign appeared in "the heavens". What do "the heavens" represent in the bible? The sky. Genesis 1 says that god created "the heavens" and the Earth, you seem to be ignoring that fact, the heavens mean the sky, that is a fact and John said that in his vision he saw a sign in the sky.

It is allegory, but the allegory is represented by the stars in "the heavens". You're being very dense right now.

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?

Kindly point me toward where I said astrology and astronomy are the same thing. It seems like you're confusing me with another poster(s) because I never said such a thing. Astrology and astronomy are closely related but only because they deal with "the heavens" or sky.

Oh, I guess you ARE... now.

I have been... this whole time.

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?

Again, point me toward where I said any of this. Why are you trying to put others words in my mouth? Are you addressing me or every other poster in this thread that seems to agree with me on a basic level?

"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.

If a sign in "the heavens" comes "from god" then it is astrology, what don't you get about that? A sign appeared in the sky from god, that is the definition of astrology! Stop being so dense.

If god doesn't dabble in astronomy then why did he send John a vision which dealt with a sign in the heavens? Why did Jesus say signs would appear in the sun, moon, and stars before his second coming? If signs signify god coming back this signs are directly related to ASTROLOGY.

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?

No, what it's actually like is if a Christian believes god created a sign in the sky on which to base a prophecy or that they believe signs will appear in the sky before Jesus comes back, that means they believe god uses astrology to mark when he will come again.

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...

Like I said, depending on what version you read it says the stars will mark either "sacred times" or will be used as "signs". What are the signs for? To mark sacred times such as the second coming of Jesus. Jesus says so himself.

You can quote it again if you'd like, it won't change the meaning though. The only reason it would change is if you don't want to see it in your own mind.

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".

Every depiction of Leo is different, as are the other depictions of the other constellations. Just because the stars seem to be part of the hind leg of Leo in this depiction doesn't mean it will in others. Besides, the 12 stars are just as close to Virgo as they are to Leo and the stars are not part of the main grouping of stars that constitute Leo, they are their own grouping.

Revelation doesn't mention a lion taking a dump, so I don't see how it would be as legitimate when talking about the prophecy in Revelation. You seem to forget that this grouping of stars is directly related to Revelation in this theory (fact). I wonder why?

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.

So why are they not part of the stars that are connected together to mark Leo? They're only in the area of those stars, NOT connected to them. One of the stars within this grouping of 12 is the top-most star of the constellation Virgo. Why do you keep ignoring that important detail?

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

So now you're moving back to literal, I thought it was allegorical? So you like to Chang it from literal to allegorical to suit your case? Typical.

A crown is most certainly "connected" to the head by the fact it is touching the head. The circle of stars is literally connected to the head of Virgo by the head being a part of the circle. I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over here. The connection is so obviously there that it's ridiculous.

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?

No I don't see your point. The woman in Revelation 12 is commonly associated with the Virgin (Virgo) Mary. You're acting like people on the other side of this debate have to agree with that association when they don't. The fact that it exists apart from this debate is all that matters.

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?

Well since the prophecy is dealing with Jesus and it is part of the NT, it is only logical to see the woman giving birth to a boy who would be taken up to god as a representation of Mary and Jesus. The clear and obvious connection to Virgo is a dead giveaway, I can't help that you refuse to see it.

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...

Why would he leave any of it up to interpretation by using allegory for that matter? If you think it is allegory as you stated earlier then it is meant to be left up for interpretation. Stop moving the goalposts back and forth.

Probably because you're not thinking logically but illogically. It's hard to see logic when you're not thinking with it.

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".

Where are you getting this information from? First you said it happens once every 18 years now you're saying it happens once every month. Why are you contradicting yourself? Either it's once every month or once every 18 years, which is it?

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".

Again, where are you getting this information from? Did he specifically say that the conjunction happened on September 11? Or was he speaking of all the astronomical alignments that happened around that date?

It's not superficial just because you want it to be.

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.

Now you're going off on a different tangent. I never said the Babylonians orchestrated 9/11, but I can see how you'd think that if you're thinking illogically.

What I'm saying is that those in power, no matter the time period, orchestrate events around astrology and set them up in a way that makes them correlate with astrology. It has always happened and always will, that's how they work.

I don't think I ever said the towers looked like fish, where are you getting this stuff from? Are you sure you're in the right thread?

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.

Again, where are you getting this information from? You can't just put these things out there without giving some kind of reference or anything.

reply to post by nenothtu


No need to feel bad, I'm smart enough on my own my friend.

The gradient or gray area is a combination of both houses on the zodiac wheel. It is an overlap. You went from overlap then to gray area and now to gradient. Keep the goalposts moving though, I like moving targets.

reply to post by nenothtu

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.

I pick comparative religion, I am comparing the Babylonian, Greek, Roman, and Christian religions. I've stated that multiple times already, you sure do have a short memory.

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.

I think the discussion is about the Babylonians and their religion compared to the zodiac they created, not anything before that. Written history began about 5,200 years ago meaning the modern form of religion being in written form (Bible, Quran, Torah, etc.) could not have existed before. Astrology has been found as far back as 25,000 years ago with cave paintings by cavemen.

With that in mind, astrology has existed far longer than written religion.

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.

Early religions were based on the movement of the sun, moon, and stars in the sky, that much is clear with paganism and sun worship cults such as the Babylonians. Religion and its myths were based on those movements, not the other way around.

People looked up into the sky saw these movements and had pareidolia within the formations of the stars and created constellations out of these groupings then created characters and gods based on this pareidolia and movement. As I said, astrology and the study of the sky predates written history by thousands of years so myths couldn't have been written down until after these constellations were named and personified.

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.

So why are you bringing in religions from entirely different areas and time periods that came after Christianity? I'm using comparative religion with religions that came BEFORE Christianity, you're using religions that came AFTER Christianity. The topic of this thread is about what Christianity is based on, a.k.a. what came BEFORE it.

Hopefully you will see how your stance is wrong. The Shawnee came long after Christianity, sun worship cults and paganism came before. Your use of comparative religion is not conducive to this discussion nor does it keep it on the right track which is comparing Christianity to religions that came BEFORE.

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?

Not according to the bible or god. Revelation talks of a sign appearing in "the heavens" (sky) I in John's vision that correlated to Virgo in more than one way, Jesus says that "signs" will appear in the sun, moon, and stars to mark the end and his second coming. Signs in the stars associated with god is the definition of astrology. You are mistaken to believe astrology is looked down upon in the bible.

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!

Okay, I've seemed to have forgotten what this is even about? How is this even relevant to the topic? Astrologers use the same zodiac and houses invented by the Babylonians 5,000 years ago.

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..

Okay, this is beside the point and not relevant to the discussion. Romans have records of the I use of the zodiac. If you want to know their reasoning behind it then read the records they left behind.

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?

You're ignoring the overlap of the houses. Each house takes up a total of 33 degrees on the zodiac wheel with 1.5 on either side being shared with another house, meaning the zodiac is still 360 degrees but with a total of 36 degrees of the circle constituting areas of overlap where houses share the same space. It does not add or subtract to the total at all, you only see it that way because you're not understanding the concept of the overlaps.

Look up "astrological cusp". If someone is born "on the cusp" of two zodiacal houses are considered to share signs of both the zodiac houses, hence "overlap".

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.

It was a typo, it was meant to say water. But thanks for blowing it out of proportion, I would think that would have been obvious, or maybe you never make mistakes.

"The Romans" is not just my thesis, it is a thesis that came before me and will exist after me. Also, walking on water is a reference to the sun rising and setting over the ocean. It "walks on water" over the horizon. It is pagan symbolism. Orion, the son of the pagan god Poseidon, is said to have walked on water, so Jesus isn't exactly unique when it comes to the miracles he supposedly performed.

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?

Astronomy is based on precision, astrology is based on "fudging" it to fit in with myths being created. The zodiac is a "fudging" of astronomy, astrology is a "fudging" of astronomy.

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"?

Maybe in your mind I haven't proven in it, but I have a feeling that that's because you have a belief in the Abrahamic god which Christianity is based around.

Orion is said to have walked on water, Dionysus and Bacchus are said to have risen from the dead, Dionysus and Bacchus are said to have turned water into wine, Mithra was said to have healed the sick and given sight to the blind, Mithra had a last supper with 12 apostles and had a ritual very similar to the Eucharist. As we know, these were all pagan gods and as we know paganism is based on astrology and the natural world.

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.

We're talking about comparative religion with religions that came during and before Christianity. Gnosticism formed alongside Christianity and deals with the same figure as in Christianity: Jesus, so yes we can use Gnostic writings to make these connections. Or are you now against comparative religion all of a sudden?

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!

Debunked according to who? You? Are you the end all be all on the subject? If that's the case I have debunked Christianity being original. Looks as if we're at a stalemate.

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.

They don't stand individually according to who? You? I guess you're of the mindset that a part is greater than the whole? Once you start looking at the connections as a whole, you begin to see a pattern, that pattern is that Christianity mirrors paganism and astrology in many many different ways. You blocking it out doesn't change the fact that Christianity is based on earlier paganism.

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?

You've never seen pictures of the Vatican or the early churches apparently, you know, the ones built at the formation of Christianity? Windward and other posters have posted pictures detailing them, but I guess you don't want to remember them so you don't.

The winter solstice will point you in the right direction as far as Jesus being in a cave and popping out for a woman to see him after 3 days.

And yes, we're still talking about the Romans, hence the pagan symbolism being a part of churches Rome built early on.

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.

Funny, because I see you as the one flailing around like a drowning man moving goalposts and sprinting back and forth. My points have been consistent throughout this entire thread, you on the other hand keep going back and forth unbeknownst to yourself.

So you consider your opinion as "evidence" now? Great! That means my opinion counts as evidence for me as well. Thanks for making it easy on me.

But you associate your god with the Abrahamic god, which explains why you're defending an Abrahamic religion. You have a bias toward Abrahamic religions, I don't. I'd call that a conflict of interest.

reply to post by nenothtu

Of course you've moved the goalposts! Otherwise, you couldn't see Virgo in a furrow, or Dumuzi in a ram sheep, or a soldier in a centaur, or a bird's tail in a fish.

Roman mythology is very similar to Greek mythology, but very different from Babylonian or Sumerian mythology, which hold similarities to each other.

In what way have I moved the goalposts? Me pointing out another correlation to Christianity and astrology does not mean I'm moving the goalposts.

I don't recall ever saying I saw Virgo in a furrow or any of those other things. It would help if you stopped inserting your own illogical argument into mine. I know logic is hard to grasp for an illogical mind, but you'll get the hang of it eventually.

Butbutbut - you said the same constellations are seen everywhere in the world! Then we start dancing when I point out that they aren't.

Butbutbut - if you were paying attention instead of forgetting my argument after reading it, you'd see that I already admitted I was wrong about that earlier in the discussion. I've owned up to it already, why not accept it?

Did they now? Are you sure of that? Is this something we can discuss without you "sprinting"?

I'm still not quite sure how the Romans factor into it, anyhow - christianity started out Jewish, not Roman... Maybe we're really discussing Catholicism?

You're not sure how Rome factors into Christianity? How about them slaughtering Christians then forming the Catholic church on top of their corpses? Yeah, Rome played a huge part in Christianity's formation, the biggest actually. I'd hope you'd know that by now.

I'll stay in the same time period when you do. State the time period, and stick with it this time.

Is it the days of the Babylonian Empire, or the days of the Roman Empire?

The time period of the 4th century and before. You know, since this thread is about what Christianity is based upon, that means what came before Christianity and preferably in the same area.

Stick to the 4th century and earlier and within the same area, that would be amazing if you could do that instead of claiming Rome stole something from a culture that didn't even exist yet.

If that were true, Gnosticism would have never existed, nor would there be any other evidence in existence now beyond Catholic "scripture and tradition". Clearly this is not the case, or there would be none but Catholics now.

Gnosticism served as a leverage for the Catholic church, they used it as an "opposing" force and labeled it as heretical to the "true" teachings of the Catholic church. Instead of the Catholics perverting Gnostic teachings, Catholics claimed that Gnostic perverted their teachings. The former is actually the truth, you attain "salvation" through attainment of knowledge and understanding, not believing in a scapegoat sacrifice that has no real world evidence to support it.

They chose poorly then, if they were trying to base Christianity on astrology.

Except for what's in the gospels and Revelation then sure I guess you could say they chose poorly.

Because there are still writings extant from before Catholicism, and as a matter of fact they DO NOT have the same form as Catholicism - but then again, I never said they did... if I thought they did, I guess I'd be a Catholic, now wouldn't I?

Yes, Gnosticism, you pointed that out already. You seem to be under the impression that this post was directed toward you when it wasn't. I never claimed you said they did or that you're Catholic, in fact you've already stated that numerous times already, so why are you implying that I did? I think you're seeing ghosts.

reply to post by nenothtu

Um, I'm not sure I'd say I "believe in the Abrahamic God" - not the way you, or Christians, or Jews, or Muslims conceive of it, anyhow. that's why I said "Abrahamic, perhaps" when you questioned me on it. "Perhaps", because it doesn't correlate with any recognizable religion in the modern day.

Yet you still associate your god with the Abrahamic god in some way, otherwise there wouldn't even be a "perhaps" in the equation.

It's not my faith in an "Abrahamic" God that keeps me from budging - it's the sheer illogic of the entire proposition you set forth that does it.

How is it any more illogical than a man rising from the dead after 3 days of rotting in a cave? How is it any more illogical than thst same man floating into the sky never to be seen again? How is it more illogical than a virgin giving birth to a baby? You do realize a man is required in that process right?

You seem to be turning a blind eye to the sheer illogic of the proposition of the biblical Jesus and how he is represented. You seem to have no problem with the sheer illogical propositions set forth by the bible. Why is that? Oh yeah, you associate your god with the Abrahamic one.

Then it's not astronomy, after all. Glad we cleared that up.

There was nothing to clear up, I never said that astronomy was astrology. You're seeing ghosts again.

Of that, I have no doubt whatsoever. I've seen it in action. Glad we can agree on something!

If the block is circular then it'll fit in a circular hole. Revelation is the circular block, Virgo is the circular hole. I've put my case forward, you are the one seeing it as a square block when it isn't. It's pretty obvious to anyone without an inclination toward the Abrahamic god such as yourself.

Well crap! Why are we trying to disprove his existence because he was "created by astrology" then?

He was what he was, and neither what you believe nor what I believe will change that by even a jot or a tittle. Whether or not he was a "miracle worker" or "divine" is, at best, peripheral to his message, and I'm not sure I'm prepared to go even that far, to give it even THAT much importance. The message was the important part, and the rest just distractions for the kids, magic tricks for the unbelievers or what have you.

IF, however, he never existed, then the message cannot have been delivered... and THAT IS crucial.

It's also why so many these days are desperately trying to "prove" he never existed.

When did I ever say a man who taught Jesus' message never existed? The Bible's portrayal of that man is what is in question, not the existence of the message and therefore the man. My point is Rome got a hold of this message and then molded the identity and story of the speaker into astrology.