Is the Jesus story an astrological allegory?

[Forum Monk]

In sorting out the possibility of a familar zodiac and the concept of sun ages (i.e. age of aries, age of pisces, age of aquarius) in the neo-assyrian world, I have come across these two articles. Both articles seems to indicate that the common zodiac we now have, was not established until circa 5th century B.C. in Babylon. In my opinion it is not clear if the current zodiac actually originated in Greece and migrated to Babylon or vice-versa. But both places seemed to have a more-or-less simultaneous settling of the 12 signs.

The precursor of the zodiac stems from the Mul-Apin tablets which can be dated to around 1000bce (based on the content - since the fragments themselves are no older than around 600bce), they comprise a series of astronomical observations which names stars and constellations, believed to lie along the path of the moon and in tablet 2, the sun to some extent.


http://members.optusnet.com.au/gtosiris/page9a.html

http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/pub/tra ... lonian.htm

It seems, early Babylonian astronomy/astrology was not as tropical in nature as we speculated but like the Vedic astronomers, tended to be more sidereal. This makes sense considering the difficulty of tracking the path of the sun across the celestial equator when it is not clear if the concepts of the invisble celestial equator, or ecliptic were even known prior to about the 3rd century BC. It is much easier and practical to denote the positions of the sun, moon and planets against the backdrop of the 'fixed' stars, so by default a sidereal astronomy was the practice.

[Minimalist]

The precursor of the zodiac stems from the Mul-Apin tablets which can be dated to around 1000bce (based on the content - since the fragments themselves are no older than around 600bce),

That's a legitimate point which is refuted only by the fact that numerous Bronze Age cultures had this whole bull worshipping thing going on. As in Egypt, we have no way of telling if that's an original document or a copy of a much older document. Short of finding the original...which seems to be a long shot...I don't know how one can ever tell.

[Ishtar]

Thanks for this FM. I'm reading through it all, but there is something that doesn't make sense to me.

It is doubtful that the Babylonians of the 2nd millennium actually identified the celestial equator.

We have established that both the Babylonians and the Vedics practiced (and in the case of the Vedics, still do practice) sidereal astrology.

There is no evidence that the sidereal astrology practised today has changed in 5,000 years.

Sidereal astrology (as opposed to tropical or Western astrology) is the only one that takes into account the precession of the equinoxes and thus, the change in the ages. Tropical astrology, on the other hand, does not recognise precession and, thus, the change in the ages and thus makes it calculations based on its assumption that we are still in the Age of Taurus.

So we don't actually need any kind of documentary proof because:

Sidereal astrology recognises precession.

The Sumerians (and thus the Babylonians) practised sidereal astrology.

Therefore, the Sumerians and the Babylonians/Chaldeans knew about precession.

To me, it's that simple. Or am I missing something?

[Ishtar]

That's a legitimate point which is refuted only by the fact that numerous Bronze Age cultures had this whole bull worshipping thing going on. As in Egypt, we have no way of telling if that's an original document or a copy of a much older document. Short of finding the original...which seems to be a long shot...I don't know how one can ever tell.

I think it’s a bit like this. Say the sports pages of the New York Times were found by some archaeologists in 5008, thousands of years after we’d destroyed our civilisation with pollution, war and global warming.

In 5008, nobody knows much about us, or why we disappeared. All they can know is based on what the archeos uncover. So they dig up this old, crumbling newspaper and, on the back pages, there’s a report of football match in which only seven footballers really shone or featured in any way, and so they made it into the story. The other four didn’t and thus their names are not mentioned

So these archeos from the year 5008 will report their conclusions, in a very important and peer reviewed academic paper, that those who lived in 2008 had football teams of seven players.

Not only that, but because the horoscopes on the comic pages seemed to be based on Tropical Astrology, they also concluded that the people who lived in 2008 could have had no knowledge of precession.

Here’s the reason I’m telling this story:

One of the links that FM provided shows a chronology of when the various astrological signs were discovered in various settings like cylinder seals. This shows that on a Sumerian seal dated to 3200 BC, there were seven of the 12 astrological signs.

Also according to this chronology, by 1300 BC, all 12 astrological signs had been found, just not altogether on the same seal.

So are we going to say that this football team...sorry, zodiac, did not exist until 1000 BC, just because this is the first time that all 12 signs of the zodiac appear all together in the same place?

It’s not a conclusion I’ll be jumping to.

[Forum Monk]

Ishtar,
I need to figure out how to respond to your post. The problem is, I see it a little differently. Since the correction for precession is inherent in sidereal astrology, there is really no need to "recognize" it because it has no effect on whatever purpose you are trying attain. On the otherhand, the western version, must recognize precession because one will realize at some point the equinox is moving. What I think the writers mean when they say, western astrologers do not recognize precession, is they do not adjust their calendars in reaction to it and so the lack of recognition about how the so-called "true" positions of the sun and planets appears to move with respect to the vernal equinox even though it is observed over hundreds of years.

Now none of this is required in a system that is not based on the point of the equinox or the zero length shadow from a gnomon or however a solar year was measured.

I need to figure a way to explain or illustrate the concept in a way we all can understand. Maybe I need to make some pics. I had been meaning to do so for some time just for discussions such as this.

[Ishtar]

That would be great FM. Pictures always help!

[Ishtar]

This is short article that I may have shown you before FM, but I'll put it here now to help everyone undersstand, in simple terms, what is meant by "Western astrology doesn't recognise precession".

Vedic astrology
by Jeffrey Armstrong:

Returning to our discussion about the Precession of the Equinoxes, right now we are in the Age of Pisces. The previous age was the Age of Aries (2160 years) and before that the Age of Taurus (2160 years). In the Age of Taurus, whoever was born on March 21st had Sun in Taurus. In the Age of Aries anyone born on March 21st had the Sun in Aries. And right now in the Age of Pisces, anyone born on March 21st has Sun in Pisces.

So, why is it that the newspaper/Western Astrology says that someone born on March 21st is an Aries, when that has not been true for 1750 years? (Western Astrologers are also called “Tropical” Astrologers, which is how I will refer to them from now on. Those who follow the Precession of Equinoxes and use the Stars are referred to as “Sidereal” Astrologers.)

Imagine you have a wine bottle which had a wine in it called “Aries” 1750 years ago, but now it has a wine called “Pisces.” Would you call the new wine Aries since the bottle used to hold that wine? Similarly, the first day of Spring used to be in Taurus, then in Aries, but neither of those wines are in the bottle now. The bottle is March 21st and this year the wine in the bottle is Pisces, which means on March 21st 1998 the person born has a Sun in Pisces. They are not an Aries and will not be for another 25,000 years. When the Aquarius Age begins, on March 21st the person born will be … not a Taurus, not an Aries, not a Pisces, but a Sun in Aquarius. To put it very simply, Tropical Astrologers are currently thinking that the Aries wine is still in the bottle and it is not and has not been for 1750 years.

[Ishtar]

We can also see from FM’s first link that the first Sumerian seal (dated 3200 BC) contains Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius. In fact, they all do. This is because these four signs are known as the Fixed Signs – i.e. they are the signs that hold the other signs in place in the circle. You can see them here, all opposite one another, and so holding the circle:



We know the Zodiac was originally a circle as the word ‘zodiac’ means “circle of animals” in Greek. So this proves that Sumerians in 3200 BC had – at the very least! - the Fixed Signs of the Zodiac that hold all the others in place in the circle.

But you may be wondering why we're considering it so important to establish the date for the first Zodiac. And so it's this:

If you look again at the first Zodiac, you’ll see a cross that shows where the two equinoxes (spring and autumn) and the two solstices (winter and summer) fall.




This is the known as “the cross of the Zodiac”, and was often depicted, in ancient times, with the sun god at its centre. This is a metaphor for the sun travelling around the signs/constellations during the year, and at certain times, residing in each one.

There are tons of these sun gods in the middle of Zodiacs, but here is one from the ancient synagogue of Beit Alpha in the Beit She'an Valley, showing Helios in his chariot:

http://www.bear-star.com/galgalmazalot_text.htm

These astrological signs, though condemned by the prophets, were widely used as decorative elements in both churches and synagogues of the Byzantine period. The twelve signs are arranged in a circle and accompanied by their Hebrew names. In the center of the zodiac, the sun god Helios is represented seated in a chariot drawn by four horses. The four seasons appear in the corners of the panel in the form of busts of winged women wearing jewels; they are inscribed with the Hebrew months initiating each season: Nisan (spring), Tamuz (summer), Tishri (autumn) and Tevet (winter).

My bolding: For 'seasons' read 'equinoxes and solstices'.


The astrotheists' case is that Jesus is just another sun god at the centre of the cross of the Zodiac, which is why we get pictures of him with a circle in the background showing the zodiacal cross of the equinoxes and solstices.



Here is a 2nd century AD, Nabataean example showing Allat, their goddess of fertility (aka sun goddess) at the centre of the circle of animals, or Zodiac.



http://nabataea.net/zodiac.html


And following on from that, the astrotheists go on to say that the original cross of the Romans and the Celts was actually a symbol of the Zodiac ....



... as is shown here:



And this pagan symbol in a stained glass ceiling showing the Sun of God in the centre of the Zodiac is from - you'll never guess where! - the Rotunda of the Missouri state capital building!



Do you think the Fundies of Missouri realise it's there?

[Minimalist]

Hell no....they never look up.

BTW, still puzzling over Jews in a Byzantine-era synagogue having any sort of homage to any "sun god" in their mosaics. You can bet your ass that the fundies will never catch on to the significance of that, either.

[Ishtar]

BTW, still puzzling over Jews in a Byzantine-era synagogue having any sort of homage to any "sun god" in their mosaics. You can bet your ass that the fundies will never catch on to the significance of that, either.

You think that's bad? I've got a sun god that was found under the altar of St Peter's Basilica, the Vatican. Dated c. 240 AD, the painting is called 'Cristo Sole'.



Those Italians! You never can keep them in line!

But anyway, the good news is that I've now found the earliest attested Zodiac in the OT. The bad news is that it's in the virtually undateable, although considered to be very very old, book of Job.

The book of Job, which is thought by many to be the oldest book of the Bible, goes back to approximately 2150 B.C., which is 650 years before Moses came upon the scene to write the Pentateuch; over 1,100 years before Homer wrote the Odyssey and the Illiad; and 1,500 years before Thales, the first of the philosophers, was born.

In chapter 38, God finally breaks in and speaks to Job and to his false comforters. As He is questioning Job, showing him and his companions their ignorance, God says to them: "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?" (Job 38:31,32).

We see here reference to the constellations of Orion and Pleiades, and the star Arcturus. Also in the book of Job there is reference to Cetus, the Sea Monster, and to Draco, the Great Dragon.

I would call your attention to Job 38:32a: "Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season?" Mazzaroth is a Hebrew word which means "The Constellations of the Zodiac." In what may be the oldest book in all of human history, we find that the constellations of the zodiac were already clearly known and understood....Having made it clear that the Bible expressly, explicitly, and repeatedly condemns what is now known as astrology, the fact remains that there was a God-given Gospel [universally acknowledged original revelation] in the stars .....

http://www.worthynews.com/news-features ... srael.html

This quote is from Rev James Kennedy’s The Real Meaning of the Zodiac. Rev Kennedy is a Christian (and thinks The Real Meaning of the Zodiac is evil), so I think he’s being a bit over-optimistic on dating Job so early - and I would welcome comments on this, or anything else for that matter!

Those who think Job was a real person date him to the same Pharoah that ordered the infanticide that nearly bumped off baby Moses. (In other words, a mythical event, and so not to be relied upon).

Others say he never existed:

This is from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_(Biblical_figure)

A clear majority of Rabbinical Torah scholars saw Job as having existed in real life. He was seen as a real and powerful figure. Some scholars of Orthodox Judaism maintain that Job was in fact one of three advisors that Pharaoh consulted, prior to taking action against the increasingly multiplying "Children of Israel" mentioned in the Book of Exodus during the time of Moses' birth. The episode is mentioned in the Talmud (Tractate Sotah):

Balaam gives evil advice urging Pharaoh to kill the Hebrew male new-born babies; Jethro opposes Pharaoh and tells him not to harm the Hebrews at all, and Job keeps silent and does not reveal his mind even though he was personally opposed to Pharaoh's destructive plans. It is for his silence that God subsequently punishes him with his bitter afflictions.

There is a minority view among Rabbinical scholars, for instance that of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, that says Job never existed (Midrash Genesis Rabbah LXVII). In this view, Job was a literary creation by a prophet who used this form of writing to convey a divine message. On the other hand, the Talmud (in Tractate Baba Batra 15a-16b) goes to great lengths trying to ascertain when Job actually lived, citing many opinions and interpretations by the leading sages.

However, at least we can be sure that the Hebrews had the Zodiac well before the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived.

[Minimalist]

I've got a sun god that was found under the altar of St Peter's Basilica, the Vatican. Dated c. 240 AD

The Vatican was still a Mithraeum in 240 AD. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Ishtar]

So I think, with the book of Job discovery, it's now clear that the Hebrews had the Zodiac at the same time as they were writing the OT, if not long before. Whether or not they had precession, God only knows – or would if he existed.

So on to the meat of the astrotheists’ argument and it’s this: While it’s long been thought by many that there never was an historical Jesus and that the story of his life is an allegory based on so many others, the astrotheists think that the story of Jesus is actually an astrological allegory.

Acharya S, in her book, Suns of God, explains how each major event in the life of Jesus reflects a different sign or constellation of the Zodiac and here is a brief precis of it:

The miraculously announced infant is born of a virgin (Virgo) in a cave or a stable at the winter solstice. He is birth is attended by three wise men [sic] (Three Kings in Orion’s Belt) following a star in the East (Sirius) and bearing gifts.

His life is then threatened by a tyrant king (Leo) who pursues him and slaughters many male newborns. The babe escapes and grows up doing miracles, achieving manhood at the summer solstice, after which he heals the sick and raises the dead. He is baptised at the River Jordan (Eridanus constellation) by Oannes the Dipper* (Aquarius) and overcomes the ‘Prince of Darkness’ (the night sky and winter).

The sun god then gathers around him 12 disciples (signs of the Zodiac) who preach the ‘good news’. Then he is betrayed (Scorpio), killed and crucified (cross-ified at the autumn equinox), side-wounded (Sagittarius*) and buried in a cave (winter solstice). Three days later, Jesus (the sun god) rises again, leaves an empty tomb and eventually ascends to heaven.

*Acharya claims that John the Baptist was really the Babylonian water god Oaness, the sun in Aquarius, the water carrier, Dipper or Baptiser and worshipped by the pre-Christian Mandeans as their Christ. Three centuries prior to the Christian era, Berossus had popularised the ancient and established worship of Oannes in his works in Greek.

*Also – you might find the Sagittarius reference a bit puzzling. I know I did. Here’s her explanation. In The Survival of Pagan Gods, Seznec describes a Christian map from the 14th century. “On the site of Jerusalem a crucifix is reared; from the wound in Christ’s side issues a straight line, rivus sanguinis, which crosses the picture diagonally. Another line, intersecting this one, emerges from the lance of Sagittarius."

[Forum Monk]

Dr. Kennedy, a noted apologist and evangelist, was widely criticised in evangelical circles for his book "The Real Meaning of the Zodiac". Many felt he blundered. Really, he never claimed the zodiac was evil, rather he condemned the practice of astrology, which at least seems consistent with hebrew teaching. As for the Mazzaroth, he uses the quotation to demonstrate the long standing belief that the zodiac declared the plan of God from the beginning of creation. It is a reasonable point of view. Of course the christians who agree would say, the astrologers corrupted the purpose of the zodiac.

[Ishtar]

As for the Mazzaroth, he uses the quotation to demonstrate the long standing belief that the zodiac declared the plan of God from the beginning of creation. It is a reasonable point of view. Of course the christians who agree would say, the astrologers corrupted the purpose of the zodiac.

Yes, that's exactly what they do say. That God wrote the story of Jesus in the stars at the beginning of creation and that astrologers have taken this and done evil with it.

[Forum Monk]

So I think, with the book of Job discovery, it's now clear that the Hebrews had the Zodiac at the same time as they were writing the OT, if not long before. Whether or not they had precession, God only knows – or would if he existed.

Nice. For the time being, I agree with your conclusion here (until new evidence comes along). The Great Bear (iirc) is also mentioned in the Bible and I think in Job.

The question of precession remains unanswered.

As to the antiquity of Job, it is a common tradition that Job is the oldest book and predates Moses. In fact, I have seen something somewhere which showed Job was a chieftain of great importance either contemporary or possibly predating Abraham. iirc he ruled in the land of Uz a mesopotamian region. He was not an egyptian or otherwise advisor to pharoah. (all of this strictly from memory so subject to revision/correction)