Jump to content

The Crucifixion


PandaPirate
 Share

Recommended Posts

I read that the crucifixion is really symbolic (obviously) of the Sun dying on December 21st underneath the constellation of The Southern Cross.

 

This makes so much more sense than the idea of a "loving" god sending an innocent person to die for humanities sins (which god would ultimately be responsible for anyway.)

 

Anyone know something about this symbolic idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you're looking for but I have an astronomy program open right now and I'm looking at the Southern Cross (Crux) as it would have appeared on 12/22/33 (a Wednesday) from Jerusalem. This is the day of the Winter Solstice for that year. It was very low in the sky and only visible from about 2-9 am (I have the effects of the sun turned down so obviously sunrise would have caused viewing problems). It was highest in the sky around 5:40am.

 

The same basically holds true for the other possible solstices for "jesus'" life. 12/23/29 (Friday - Mars is out and about), 12/23/30 (Saturday - Saturn is out and about), 12/23/31 (Sunday - Venus and Mars are out together, the Moon and Saturn are about), 12/22/32 (Monday - Saturn and Juptier are out and about), 12/22/33 (Wednesday - Saturn and Jupiter are a bit cozier and the Moon is out), 12/23/34 (Thursday - Venus is out, the Moon is a sliver, and Saturn and Jupiter are good friends now), 12/23/35 (Friday - Saturn and Jupiter are still out but have gone their separate ways).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did find this:

 

Gospel Zodiac

The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun,

in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun,

and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.

-Thomas Paine

 

If Jesus was an historical character, he was one of a number of cultists who at that time were preaching Armageddon. The spin meisters who wrote the Gospels had no information on him except what grew to legendary proportions after several decades of oral story telling. The man, if he existed, was a nobody. It's what was written about him, combined with the brutal efforts of Church fabricators that made him so famous.

 

Fortunately, centuries of Christian book burning cannot erase the stars. By looking at the Gospels through the eyes of an astrologer, we can understand why the Gospels follow the same story outline. The tale of Jesus takes place within one Zodiac year. By breaking down the Gospels according to each of the twelve Zodiac constellations, we can track Jesus as the sun through references to each motif that the constellations correspond to.

 

Astrological timetables are enumerated into twelve ages based on a great cycle spanning almost 26,000 years. The age of Pisces began around 6 BCE, which is why the latter parts of the Gospels refer often to fish. Approximately in 2012 we enter the Age of Aquarius. Christians have been waiting for Jesus immediate return for 2,000 years. Luke gives hope that he might return in the Age of Aquarius.

 

Read the rest here;

 

http://www.usbible.com/astrology/gospel_zodiac.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from Wikipedia concerning the ages:

 

Unlike sun-sign astrology where the first sign is Aries, followed by Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces whereupon the cycle returns to Aries and through the zodiacal signs again, the astrological ages proceed in the opposite direction or order. Therefore the age before the Age of Aquarius is the Age of Pisces. Following the Age of Aquarius will be the Age of Capricorn, then the Age of Sagittarius and so on.

 

Astrological ages exist as a result of precession of the equinoxes. The stars and constellations appear to slowly rotate around the Earth independent of the diurnal and annual movements of the Earth on its own axis and around the Sun. This slow movement takes slightly less than 26,000 years to complete one cycle. Traditionally this rotation is calibrated for the purposes of the astrological ages by the location of the zodiacal constellations at the Vernal Equinox around the 21st of March each year. Approximately every 2,160 years a new zodiacal constellation appears at the Vernal Equinox. However zodiacal constellations are not uniform in size and so some astrologers believe that the corresponding ages should also vary in time - this however is a contentious issue amongst astrologers.

 

In 1929, the International Astronomical Union defined the edges of the 88 official constellations. The edge established between Pisces and Aquarius technically locates the beginning of the Aquarian Age around the year 2600. Many astrologers dispute this approach because of the varying sizes of the zodiacal constellations and overlap between the zodiacal constellations.[3]

 

I did not know how to explain this without looking it up. I had first learned of it in astronomy class. The dates the ages change are really controversial with some Astrologers claiming the age of Aquarius will begin in about 250 years, which I do not really believe. Then there is the constellation Ophiuchus, astronomers have added to make the list of constellations 13, because the sun travels through this constellation briefly for 18 days and I'm sure that will mess up calculations. Astrologers should have seen that one coming in the stars!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. I see. I actually worked very hard on a theory related to all this but it simply falls apart if you do any amount of research. Many of the elements that you can relate to the zodiac really are remnants from the OT. The OT is your connection to the zodiac most of the time (like the 12 tribes/70 elders->12 apostles/70 disciples). For the gospels you have things like "go into the city and find the guy with the water and follow him to the upper room" (paraphrase). This is about as close as you'll come to what you may consider "new" references to the zodiac.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Marty

What about the son (Sun) having 12 disciples (12 houses of the Zodiac). Also, a common xtian symbol is a fish, which is also the symbol for Pisces. Before the age of Pisces, it was the age of Aries, whose symbol is a ram (Jesus is said to be the lamb whose slaughter marked the end of the age of temple sacrifice Aries the Ram). Before that, it was Taurus, a bull, which was symbolized in Mythraism (and demonized in the golden calf made at the foot of mount Sinai). Jesus was born of a virgin, and the sign Virgo is directly opposite Pisces in the Zodiac wheel. jesus even said he'd be with us till the end of the age (of Pisces).

 

Although the one thing that I never really got is why they would put his birth at the time that is supposed to symbolize his death. It would make more sense, logically and theologically, if he died in December and was born in the spring. But I guess it wasn't really the early xtians choice. They basically had to steal the Pagan holidays that were already there. December was already "The Birth of the Invincible Sun and spring had its various fertility rites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the son (Sun) having 12 disciples (12 houses of the Zodiac).

What about it? You're punning words that don't pun in the ancient languages. I'm also not aware of anyone mentioning the sun having twelve disciples with those disciples being the zodiac or any stories even close to that (but I'd appreciate any pointers to them).

 

Also, a common xtian symbol is a fish, which is also the symbol for Pisces. Before the age of Pisces, it was the age of Aries, whose symbol is a ram (Jesus is said to be the lamb whose slaughter marked the end of the age of temple sacrifice Aries the Ram). Before that, it was Taurus, a bull, which was symbolized in Mythraism (and demonized in the golden calf made at the foot of mount Sinai). Jesus was born of a virgin, and the sign Virgo is directly opposite Pisces in the Zodiac wheel.

Okay. Fish equal xian. Ram/lamb equal "jesus." So is "jesus" part of Pisces or Aries?

 

And Mithra gets tossed in when it should really most likely be Asherah in the form of the calf (a Canaanite goddess). It could also be an Egyptian god as they had did have bull cults.

 

So the "fish" are opposite the "virgin" so that means that "jesus" was born from the virgin? I thought xians were the fish? So xians were born from the virgin? Jesus was the ram/lamb that went to Aries. If the fish/Pisces are really xians and/or "jesus" and the Ram/lamb/Aries are also really "jesus" then the virgin/Virgo/Mary is really what? It seems odd that it is what it is. It seems it should be something else.

 

That not withstanding I looked at the zodiac wheel. The scorpion is opposite the bull. Which one gave birth to the other? I hope the bull birthed the scorpion because, either that scorpion is huge, or it was a very difficult birth (or maybe a tiny little bull). Maybe I don't understand the birthing system of the zodiac wheel?

 

jesus even said he'd be with us till the end of the age (of Pisces).

So maybe until the end of the age of Pisces (seems a long time for people who were expecting his return "soon" perhaps even while some of them were even still living) or maybe they meant something else. My gut tells me they didn't mean over 2000 years unless they managed to figure out the secret to really long lives. Unlike other xians that are giving up the 2000+ years to "faith" these guys would have known the numbers going in and still wrote it that way. If they were just writing about the few months the sun went away during the winter then how bad off were they that they figured not everyone would make it to see his return? Maybe the energy writing a little book would be better spent on surviving?

 

Although the one thing that I never really got is why they would put his birth at the time that is supposed to symbolize his death. It would make more sense, logically and theologically, if he died in December and was born in the spring. But I guess it wasn't really the early xtians choice. They basically had to steal the Pagan holidays that were already there. December was already "The Birth of the Invincible Sun and spring had its various fertility rites.

I can tell you why this is. It's a simple answer really. You just need to know why things are the way they are (the super simple version). You almost hit it with "Sol Invictus" (but that came later). The sun dies and comes back. The cycle start over. January (Janus) is the god of doors and has two faces (one looking forward and one looking back). The Romans redid their calendar so January was the first month. This makes sense if you see it as the god looking both back towards the old year and forward towards the new (past/future). This is the time when the cycle starts anew.

 

Why does this matter? The Jews didn't have their new year in January but at two times of the year (officially one but hopefully I'll make it clear). One in Nisan and the other in Tishri. The one in Nisan is in spring and is when Passover occurs (this just happened) and the other is in fall and is their actual New Year (when the year count goes up). When does "jesus" die and resurrect? In Nisan. Not when their year count changes but when they start their festival cycle over again. It marks the beginning of their planting/harvest cycles. But there's more. If you read the story it has a very botched scapegoat story within it too. This only happens at the New Year in Tishri. In Fall. The story must have been rewritten to reflect a move from the Tishri celebration to the Nisan one. Can you see it now? Jesus did die at the end of their year (in their climate, like SoCal, they only really have 3 seasons...no fall). So just past Tishri you enter winter (the time you're looking for). Once the story moved to Nisan (the festival new year) he dies in spring. The Jewish year, in effect, mirrors their day. It goes from sun down to sun down. Tishri (fall/winter or September/October for us) until Tishri the next year. The move to Nisan (March/April) is almost like changing things to sunrise to sunrise. It also alters the (lost to the Jews) narrative this is all based upon (life coming from death and the grand cycle that is present in ancient pagan rituals which is why a deity always went into the underworld for this period only to return which can also be related to the zodiac).

 

The Jewish rituals have all the explanation required for what you're looking for.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the son (Sun) having 12 disciples (12 houses of the Zodiac).

What about it? You're punning words that don't pun in the ancient languages.

 

That's exactly what I've thought for the longest time. I'm glad I'm not the only one who caught that.

 

Although, I've not read the book Suns of God which is supposed to explain all this....and I don't know if I'd agree with it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The astrolgy theories are all pretty much out dated. Not that there are not astrological elements invilved, especially concerning the star of bethlehem. But this Zeitergeist stuff, it kind of falls along the lines of conspiracy theory, as per my understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, a common xtian symbol is a fish, which is also the symbol for Pisces.

 

The fish symbol , from what I've been told, comes from the use of an acrostic . The Greek word for fish was icthus/ixthus . The letters in the word "fish" in greek formed the first letters of the phrase: Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour. While the Pisces inference about the Christian use of the fish symbol is interesting, it appears that the fish developed independently from astrology as a sign that the wearer of the fish symbol was a follower of Christ.

 

I don't know if Pisces was a popular pagan symbol during the time of early Christianity, but perhaps the coincidence provided good cover for persecuted believers. Of course if the pagan symbol for Pisces was popular at the time, then the icthus wouldn't be a very effective identifier. I smell a coincidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The astrolgy theories are all pretty much out dated. Not that there are not astrological elements invilved, especially concerning the star of bethlehem. But this Zeitergeist stuff, it kind of falls along the lines of conspiracy theory, as per my understanding.

Well, Zeitgeist wasn't the first to expose the parallels between the two and admittedly, there are certain parallels. One of the first books written on the subject is Stowe's Bible Astrology from 1907.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Marty
Although the one thing that I never really got is why they would put his birth at the time that is supposed to symbolize his death. It would make more sense, logically and theologically, if he died in December and was born in the spring. But I guess it wasn't really the early xtians choice. They basically had to steal the Pagan holidays that were already there. December was already "The Birth of the Invincible Sun and spring had its various fertility rites.

I can tell you why this is. It's a simple answer really. You just need to know why things are the way they are (the super simple version). You almost hit it with "Sol Invictus" (but that came later). The sun dies and comes back. The cycle start over. January (Janus) is the god of doors and has two faces (one looking forward and one looking back). The Romans redid their calendar so January was the first month. This makes sense if you see it as the god looking both back towards the old year and forward towards the new (past/future). This is the time when the cycle starts anew.

 

Why does this matter? The Jews didn't have their new year in January but at two times of the year (officially one but hopefully I'll make it clear). One in Nisan and the other in Tishri. The one in Nisan is in spring and is when Passover occurs (this just happened) and the other is in fall and is their actual New Year (when the year count goes up). When does "jesus" die and resurrect? In Nisan. Not when their year count changes but when they start their festival cycle over again. It marks the beginning of their planting/harvest cycles. But there's more. If you read the story it has a very botched scapegoat story within it too. This only happens at the New Year in Tishri. In Fall. The story must have been rewritten to reflect a move from the Tishri celebration to the Nisan one. Can you see it now? Jesus did die at the end of their year (in their climate, like SoCal, they only really have 3 seasons...no fall). So just past Tishri you enter winter (the time you're looking for). Once the story moved to Nisan (the festival new year) he dies in spring. The Jewish year, in effect, mirrors their day. It goes from sun down to sun down. Tishri (fall/winter or September/October for us) until Tishri the next year. The move to Nisan (March/April) is almost like changing things to sunrise to sunrise. It also alters the (lost to the Jews) narrative this is all based upon (life coming from death and the grand cycle that is present in ancient pagan rituals which is why a deity always went into the underworld for this period only to return which can also be related to the zodiac).

 

The Jewish rituals have all the explanation required for what you're looking for.

 

mwc

 

Ah, that makes so much more sense now! Thats not the first time I've gotten a better grasp on something by learning about the jewish roots at it all! Thanks mwc!

 

I never quite got the sun/son thing either, but there seems to be an awful lot of "coincidences" as far as the zodiac symbolism goes. We all know xtianity is a hodgepodge of pagan beliefs, and that the zodiac is much older than xtainity and even Judaism, thus is Pagan in origin. Why is it so wrong to see much Zodiac symbolism in the stories, even if it is only partial. I mean, the next age coming is Aquarius, and before jesus was captured and killed he told his followers to find a man with a bucket of water, the symbol of Aquarius. Could that one thing be coincidence? Maybe. But when I look at all of them I see a common thread in a lot of it. I didn't mean to imply that is the "true xtianity", but I do see a lot of it in there none the less.

 

I think I had first read about all this with that Arycra S. woman or however you spell her name, and I do realize she is not the most respected, to put it lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never quite got the sun/son thing either, but there seems to be an awful lot of "coincidences" as far as the zodiac symbolism goes.

I wouldn't call them "coincidence." Astronomy (what we'd call astrology) is ancient. Look at all the giant stone circles and the like. How can this stuff not cast its shadow on religions? It is essentially the basis for religion in many ways. And that's part of what I wanted to get across. The authors wouldn't necessarily have to add it in for it to get in. All they'd need to do is reference the Jewish texts (combined with the "world" around them since they'd be aware of the pagans and their stories) and it would carry forward on its own. So was it a conscience effort? Something they wanted and/or needed in there?

 

We all know xtianity is a hodgepodge of pagan beliefs, and that the zodiac is much older than xtainity and even Judaism, thus is Pagan in origin. Why is it so wrong to see much Zodiac symbolism in the stories, even if it is only partial. I mean, the next age coming is Aquarius, and before jesus was captured and killed he told his followers to find a man with a bucket of water, the symbol of Aquarius. Could that one thing be coincidence? Maybe. But when I look at all of them I see a common thread in a lot of it. I didn't mean to imply that is the "true xtianity", but I do see a lot of it in there none the less.

I don't know if it is "wrong" to see the symbolism there. The example you gave is one I said is more than likely related to the zodiac. When you look at both G.Mark and G.Luke they relate the story using a man with a jar of water showing them an upper room. G.Matthew alters this to remove the jar of water and the upper room. Both are elements relating to astrology and the man carrying water was woman's work. So the Jewish text, which did not care for either of these items, has a slightly different take while the Greeks have it.

 

So which came first? Was someone removing the astrology or adding it? Or was the text altered simply because of the male doing woman's work? That doesn't explain why the upper room is not present in G.Matthew (surely they could have met a man and he could have showed them to the large upper room minus the water jar). It's a fairly overt reference so I would guess whoever changed their text did so on purpose.

 

The only thing I know is that there were pagan influences (origins) in these Jewish rituals. I know that what was going on in the passion is based on those rituals. So I can probably exclude a conscience effort on the part of the author of including any of that in the texts. It was simply carried over from the old rituals. As I mentioned in my previous post the only major changes I see are in the parallels to the rituals themselves. There's nothing indicating that I should look into the "pagan" aspects in deeper including any astrology. The only thing one might consider astrological could be the darkness but it's hard to interpret that especially in light of the man with the water jar (meaning the darkess and similar references are quite vague while the other is very obvious is you wish to look at them as astrological references).

 

I suppose symbols and whatnot carries into AM's territory so maybe I should watch myself. ;) It's also been about 3 years since I truly looked over this whole thing in relation to astrology so my mind is a bit rusty on the particulars. I may be overlooking something that has come to light since then.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
I think I had first read about all this with that Arycra S. woman or however you spell her name, and I do realize she is not the most respected, to put it lightly.

I recommend to read also Mike Licona's refutation of Acharya S

 

Answering Acharya S: Part 1

Answering Acharya S: Part 2

 

and refutation by James Holding here. Interesting stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I think Acharya is going too far at times, there are things which leads to questions regarding the link between Christianity and astrology:

 

The sign of the Pisces, in Chartres Cathedral, 1220.

w17_7187c_pisces.jpg

So some Christians must have connected these dots before.

 

Magi seeing signs in the sky about a king being born, isn't that astrology?

 

In Job, God supposedly say that he controls the stars:

Job 38:31 But the stars are also my work. You cannot move the stars from their positions in the sky. 32 I cause the various stars to appear in the correct seasons. I arrange their patterns in the sky. 33 But you do not know my rules about the sky. You do not even know the principles that control the earth.

 

There are Rabbis who open admit that the zodiac is connected to the 12 tribes. I read an article by one a while ago.

 

There's a zodiac in the floor of the ancient Beith Alpha synagogue:

mosaic_alfa1.gif

 

The whole fishermen for Jesus, and fishing men, etc, so close in time to when the Age of Pisces began? Is it just a coincident? I don't think it is.

 

But does "son" come from "sun"? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But we know that the words for son and sun are different in Greek, so that wouldn't make sense.

 

Btw, Robert Turkel (aka JP Holding) doesn't really rank high on many lists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, Robert Turkel (aka JP Holding) doesn't really rank high on many lists.

You mean in the eyes of "internet sceptics?" No wonder; he kicks their ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, Robert Turkel (aka JP Holding) doesn't really rank high on many lists.

You mean in the eyes of "internet sceptics?" No wonder; he kicks their ass.

Nah, rather on lists of Dr Hector Avalos, Dr Robert Price, etc. The non-religious biblical researchers... with degrees. What is Robert Turkel's degree?

 

But, just to be clear, I'm not a big supporter of Acharya S. either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Marty

Nor am I, yet I'm also not interested in reading any refutations of her work either. Just because she may go too far, does not mean xtianity is correct. It doesn't even mean Acharya is wrong either, it just means she can be shoddy with her research/conclusions, etc. I took what I read (past tense, this was years ago) with a few grains of salt, but since reading her I have found confirmation on many points, such as the zodiac within Judaism. Is it proven beyond doubt? Of course not. But I do think the coincidences are too many to explain away as such, and it does allow for quite a few explanations of doctrine/stories if you consider it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, rather on lists of Dr Hector Avalos, Dr Robert Price, etc. The non-religious biblical researchers... with degrees. What is Robert Turkel's degree?

I see, but what have this to do with his criticism against Acharya? Anyway, he is not my hero or anything like that. Just seems to be smart and learned guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, rather on lists of Dr Hector Avalos, Dr Robert Price, etc. The non-religious biblical researchers... with degrees. What is Robert Turkel's degree?

I see, but what have this to do with his criticism against Acharya? Anyway, he is not my hero or anything like that. Just seems to be smart and learned guy.

Sure.

 

But what does criticism against Acharya has to do with the topic then? No one brought up her in their arguments (as I could see). The pagan influence and astrological connection seems to exist for real in Christianity, even if Acharya takes some of the similarities way too far. You know, she wasn't the first to make the connection. There were pagan critique already in the first centuries of Christianity of how Christians had borrowed ideas from pagan belief. And the images above don't lie. And if the Bible itself makes reference to "the signs in the sky," then I don't see a problem with a Bible-Astrology connection. Will there be signs in the sky when Jesus is coming back? I have a vague memory the Bible said something like that, but I'm not sure where it is. Granted that the Bible is making the point that God is in control of the stars, rather than the stars are angels or gods who are in control of humans, but I think it seems rather clear that the Bible makes a link between signs and events. Otherwise, how could the magi know that a king was born by looking at the stars? Did they read the Bible, and while they were just stargazing, or was it that they read the stars and their astrological charts?

 

When it comes to Acharya and Turkel, I think they both have good points, and both got their agenda and exaggerates stuff. So I'm not sure critique against Acharya really means anything in this topic, since that wasn't on the plate (at least not until you brought it up). And if critique against Acharya do have a place here, then critique against the critics also are valid. Basically in the end, you got what you gave.

 

And then, if you say that you brought up Acharya because the idea of the dying/rising sun relationship with the crucifixion comes from her, then how can you be sure the OP of this thread wasn't referring to a webpage like this? http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0310SunGod.php Where the same ideas are presented. And even if the OP was implicit was referring to Acharya, then why is Turkel's critique against Acharya in general nothing but your attempt to an ad hominem attack on Acharya, and a red-herring to distract the topic? And even then, if attack on the topic by attacking Acharya is okay by you, then attacking the critics of Acharya should also be okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what does criticism against Acharya has to do with the topic then? No one brought up her in their arguments (as I could see).

Marty mentioned her. That's it, nothing more.

 

Btw, ad hominem means "attacking the person instead of attacking his argument."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marty mentioned her. That's it, nothing more.

Ah. Now I see it.

 

Btw, ad hominem means "attacking the person instead of attacking his argument."

Yes, you're right. I was a bit hasty there. Sorry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's OK. It wasn't my intention to attack on Acharya at all. Anyway, I would like take more part in discussions on this forum, but it's really hard when English isn't your first language. Bah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's OK. It wasn't my intention to attack on Acharya at all. Anyway, I would like take more part in discussions on this forum, but it's really hard when English isn't your first language. Bah.

English isn't your first language?

 

Well... I'm gonna say something nice to you, for once... you're doing pretty well in English. English isn't my first language either. But we do get a few Christianuts sometimes who scream bloody murder and can't spell for crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.