Archaeologica.org

FM - it's a shame that you won't have time today, or that you haven't found the time thus far, since this thread has been running, to express your other objections to the main points of this theory.

Unless I've missed something, you only objected to the Southern Cross, which I have taken account of.

When do you think you'll have the time to let us know about your other objections?

I'm surprised that you still think that, Cogs, after hearing about all the similar stories about just such a person, even down to the Virgin birth, the 12 disciples, the miracles, the three days on the Cross and the resurrection. And that these similar stories stretch back to 3,000 BC.

It's really not surprising, Ish, since most myths are based upon real people who along the way became bigger than life as stories were retold and embellished. We could take all day citing countless examples of otherwise normal people who became legends and were imbued with super-human powers after the fact. Embellishment is as old as storytelling itself.

You cannot have the Son of God's mother be anything but a virgin if you are going to hold her up as the Cheerleader for the Order of the Domenican Nuns. Ipso facto, the virgin birth story is overlaid on a real person. What fascinates me about the Christ Mythology is the fact that these guys were losers, but still wound up with the West's major religion. Jesus didn't go out in a blaze of glory like Michael Jordan, but was nailed to the cross and his band disbursed. That doesn't make for a very powerful god. Nice political spin, though, that he did so to die for our sins. Typical Roman Catholic guilt trip. The Medieval church was more honest about this approach, "You're a sinner -- you're guilty -- pay us money and we'll get you into heaven. Tithing 10% of your income will do nicely, thank you and God bless."

Cognito wrote:

I'm surprised that you still think that, Cogs, after hearing about all the similar stories about just such a person, even down to the Virgin birth, the 12 disciples, the miracles, the three days on the Cross and the resurrection. And that these similar stories stretch back to 3,000 BC.

It's really not surprising, Ish, since most myths are based upon real people who along the way became bigger than life as stories were retold and embellished. We could take all day citing countless examples of otherwise normal people who became legends and were imbued with super-human powers after the fact. Embellishment is as old as storytelling itself.

Yes, but the exact same story was told 3,000 years before Jesus, and at many other times before that. It's not the same as embellishing a story about a real person.

You posted this bit after my last answer:

Cognito wrote:
You cannot have the Son of God's mother be anything but a virgin if you are going to hold her up as the Cheerleader for the Order of the Domenican Nuns. Ipso facto, the virgin birth story is overlaid on a real person. What fascinates me about the Christ Mythology is the fact that these guys were losers, but still wound up with the West's major religion. Jesus didn't go out in a blaze of glory like Michael Jordan, but was nailed to the cross and his band disbursed. That doesn't make for a very powerful god. Nice political spin, though, that he did so to die for our sins. Typical Roman Catholic guilt trip. The Medieval church was more honest about this approach, "You're a sinner -- you're guilty -- pay us money and we'll get you into heaven. Tithing 10% of your income will do nicely, thank you and God bless."

Cogs, there is no evidence for these people ever existing.

But I'm looking at it from another perspective.

It's obvious that the Virgin story wasn't concocted to provide a cheerleader to an order of nuns that had yet to be invented. This is because the Virgin story is thousands of years older than the story of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ. So those who created the Jesus myth just borrowed that aspect, as well as the many other aspects including the crucifixion and the resurrection.

These events are the main bones of the skeleton of the Jesus story. So they are in effect, what makes Jesus the Christ, what makes him the Messiah.

If you take out the nativity story, the miracles, the 12 disciples, the teachings, the betrayal, the crucifixion and the resurrection (all from other stories) what do you have? Just some bloke who may, or may not, have lived in Palestine.

So these aspects are what make the story, and they are just repeated from old myths from Persia, Greece, Egypt and so on, some from 3,000 years before. So in the absence of these story aspects, just what would you be embellishing? There would be nothing there to embellish.

Oh, I can't resist any longer....I've got to drop this reference in here.

From Flavius Josephus, War of the Jews Book VI, Chapter 5, Part 3:

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

Consider the nature of the questions put by Lucceius Albinus and the fact that there was recounted a terrible whipping. Where have I heard this stuff before?

Too bad he wasn't crucified....just flattened by a shot from a Roman ballista!

I'm still laughing at the pay-off line! It was like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But this character also sounds like someone out of The Life of Brian. You could just see him in that scene where all the prophets are lined up, on the rooftops, practising their oratory!

Thanks for that, Min. Best laugh in ages!

It's easy to laugh as long as you are on the right side of the ballista.

Seems too like Josephus had quite a dry humour!

That could well be the first time in history that anyone has ever accused Josephus of being funny at all.

Ishtar -
I know you will be sleeping when I post this, so I don't want to go too deeply until perhaps sometime tomorrow when we can have a more dynamic discussion. I went back to the OP looking for references or links to study this idea a little more deeply but found none. So I have looked on the internet and found some sites which seem to be saying what I think you are saying but not exactly. Either you have have a different idea or perhaps you didn't quite understand a few points about who was "following" what, because having Orion following Sirius was a fatal flaw in the OP. So I am going to assume, you just mispoke and in fact, Orion follows the Sun as others are saying. I think had you checked my links on the "Gospel in the Stars" these same ideas are fully expressed there as well.

One thing to think about since you will see this post when I am sleeping, is the synchronization of the calendar to astrology. Citing for example, the sun moves from one astrological house to another on certain dates (we are all familiar, I suspect, with certain date ranges connected to certain zodiac signs - mine Gemini is about May 21 to June 21) we need to understand what calendar is in force. Remeber, since the founding of Rome in 753BC, there as been the Roman, the Julian and now the Gregorian calender in place. If the current twelve sign astrology is old as you suggest (or did you really suggest its thousands of years old?) which calendar was it originally based on? Many early calendars where actually lunar. So considering the various calendars and their inherent errors brought about by incorrect alignment with the tropical (true solar) year and the effects of precession which was not described until the second century B.C. one must reconcile, in my opinion, the calendric basis for the construction of this allegory. I guess it was allegedly constructed 2000 years ago and not 5000 years ago?

Also, if possible, can you date the first written accounts of the legend of Osiris or these other supposed God-men being born of virgins, dying and resurrecting? I know for example Osiris (who btw is more commonly paralleled with Uranus whom Kronos castrated) was known and worshiped before the first century but perhaps the legends you reference did not emerge until after the first century because I feel the same burden of proof which is applied to hebrew scriptures also applies to the other historical texts as well. For example, if the earliest found manuscripts of Matthew are such and such date, the claim is made, it was written x-hundreds after the fact and so can not be historically accurate. So, what about these the legends of the other God-men? The same standard of accuracy applies. And please understand, we are not trying to establish the histrocity of the events which are deemed legends, merely the dates for the historic emergence of the legend based on attested evidence (not word of mouth or oral tradition).

So...until sometime tomorrow.

Ishtar and all,
here is one of several references I have used to undertand the astrological basis of the allegory : http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/so ... /mat2.html

All are quite similar so I hope it accurately reflects for the most part, what Ishtar has been talking about.

The following quotes from Zeitgeist - the Movie (ref: http://conspiracyrealitytv.com/zeitgeist-the-movie/ ) sound alot like the origin of the OP and I think we can easily refute them as pure bollox -

The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which on December 24th aligns with the three brightest stars in Orion’s belt. These three bright stars in Orion’s belt are called today what they were called in ancient times “the three kings. And the three kings and the brightest star Sirius all point the the place of the sunrise on December 25th. This is why the 3 kings follow the star in the east in order to locate the sunrise - the birth of the sun.

False. The belt stars preceed Sirius since they are more westerly they rise before Sirius. As for this alignment on the 24th. Since these stars (for all practical purposes) are fixed locations that same alignment is valid on the 26th the 31st, the 10th of June, all 365 days of the year.

This is the cross of the zodiac. One of the oldest conceptual images in human history. It reflects the sun as it figuratively passes through the twelve major constellations over the course of a year. It also reflects the twelve months of the year, the four seasons, and the solstices, and equinoxes.

According to the modern Gregorian calendar I guess.

This house of bread and its symbol of wheat represents August and September, the time of harvest. In turn Bethlehem in fact literally translates to house of bread. Bethlehem is thus a reference to the constellation Virgo a place in the sky not on Earth.

This is a tremendous leap in faith the kind that often results is a splat. How is Virgo's association with wheat harvest an automatic association to Bethlehem (which means "house of Bread" as in "bread of life which is a Hebrew is reference to the Word of God). There is no supporting evidence.

The sun stops moving south…at least perceivably for 3 days… and during this 3 day pause, the sun resides int the vicinity of the southern cross, or crux, constellation

Already dismissed by everyone's mutual agreement.

Minimalist wrote:That could well be the first time in history that anyone has ever accused Josephus of being funny at all.

Don't you find him humourous too?

It's quite a dry, sparse...you could even say minimalistic humour.

In fact, his tone and style reminds me a bit of you.

Just think, Min, you could be the reincarnation of Josephus!

Hello FM

Thanks for taking the time to respond to this.

Forum Monk wrote: Either you have have a different idea or perhaps you didn't quite understand a few points about who was "following" what, because having Orion following Sirius was a fatal flaw in the OP. So I am going to assume, you just mispoke and in fact, Orion follows the Sun as others are saying. I think had you checked my links on the "Gospel in the Stars" these same ideas are fully expressed there as well.

I didn’t say (or rather, the script of ‘Zeitgeist’ doesn’t say) that Orion follows Sirius. What is said is that the Three Kings (part of Orion’s belt) are, at that time of year, in alignment and thus form a trajectory with Sirius, which they claim is the ‘bright star of the East’ in the Bible story. Thus the Three Kings 'follow' Sirius. It's a play on words, to show why the scripture said the Three Kings followed the bright Star in the East. But East in this sense is just part of the allegorical story – it doesn’t mean that East figures in this set up in any real way, or that any stars follow others.

Forum Monk wrote: One thing to think about since you will see this post when I am sleeping, is the synchronization of the calendar to astrology. Citing for example, the sun moves from one astrological house to another on certain dates (we are all familiar, I suspect, with certain date ranges connected to certain zodiac signs - mine Gemini is about May 21 to June 21) we need to understand what calendar is in force.

Remember, since the founding of Rome in 753BC, there as been the Roman, the Julian and now the Gregorian calender in place. If the current twelve sign astrology is old as you suggest (or did you really suggest its thousands of years old?) which calendar was it originally based on? Many early calendars where actually lunar. So considering the various calendars and their inherent errors brought about by incorrect alignment with the tropical (true solar) year and the effects of precession which was not described until the second century B.C. one must reconcile, in my opinion, the calendric basis for the construction of this allegory. I guess it was allegedly constructed 2000 years ago and not 5000 years ago?

The death and resurrection of the sun god was celebrated right back to Vedic times (3,000 BC) and the Vedics knew about the precession of the equinoxes in the Rig-veda which, even conservatively dated, is 1500 BC. So your date of second century BC for knowledge of the poe is incorrect.

However, I don't know what calendar was in operation then - but I will ask around.

Forum Monk wrote: Also, if possible, can you date the first written accounts of the legend of Osiris or these other supposed God-men being born of virgins, dying and resurrecting? I know for example Osiris (who btw is more commonly paralleled with Uranus whom Kronos castrated) was known and worshiped before the first century but perhaps the legends you reference did not emerge until after the first century because I feel the same burden of proof which is applied to hebrew scriptures also applies to the other historical texts as well ......

What do mean by 'emerge'. They were were well known all over Egypt and Mesopotamia well before Christ.

But I also think there is tendency for today’s researchers to push dates back earlier than they can really prove. However, imho, this is just a reaction to all the dating thus far being influenced by Christian thinking and the Christian date for Noah’s Ark! So there’s this continual tension going on.

So for example:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories ... ediate.htm

The history of Egypt provided to us today by scholars is really a mixture of historic tradition and modern discoveries, sometimes almost forced into the framework of historic tradition. In other words, we divide up this ancient history of Egypt into segments which were devised long ago, such as specific dynasties which are then divided into larger segments which consist of the Predynastic Period, the Early or Archaic Period, The Old Kingdom, The First Intermediate Period, The Middle Kingdom, The Second Intermediate Period, The New Kingdom, The Third Intermediate Period and the Late Period (followed by the Ptolomic or Greek Period).

The formula which was used to divide up the various dynasties is sometimes difficult to understand. Sometimes, it would seem to be based on families, while at other times it is more based on the location from which Egypt was ruled. What is ultimately clear is that modern research has frequently made a mockery of this system. If the traditional dynastic divisions were absent, modern scholars would probably divide up Egypt's history very differently, at least in detail, and probably in substance. Very frequently, research has proven that rulers in the midst of a dynasty bore no relationship to their predecessors, while at other times, the last ruler of a dynasty almost certainly was related to the founder of the next. At other times, we find weakness within major periods which might result in other "intermediate periods".

All of this is because the original framework of Egyptian history was devised by a Late Period Egyptian priest named Manetho. While his work has been very useful to scholars, his history covers thousands of years, and while he had perhaps some documentation to assist him that is not available to us today, he lacked the capability of scientific archaeological examination and the accumulated data we have today. Nevertheless, his system is so entrenched that we today continue to try to "fit" our modern understanding of Egyptian history into his framework.

However, I don’t think anyone can seriously contend that these stories were not around and well-known, (at least to the Greeks who we know had an influence, at the very least, on these NT stories) before the supposed time of Jesus.

Even Justin Martyr agreed that these stories reflected the Jesus one. It’s just he that thought the Devil planted them earlier to confuse everyone!

"When we say that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into Heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those who you esteem Sons of Jupiter."

"He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of Perseus." [Mithras]

So the film script dates Horus to 3,000 BC, but I’m not sure if that date can be officially attested. However, it does go on to say:

For example, inscribed about 3,500 years ago, on the walls of the Temple of Luxor in Egypt, are images of the enunciation, the immaculate conception, the birth, and the adoration of Horus. The images begin with Thoth announcing to the virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus, then Nef the holy ghost impregnating the virgin, and then the virgin birth and the adoration.

FM, I don’t think anyone seriously doubts that Osiris, Dionysus and Horus were around as mythological icons before Christ. But if you follow these links you’ll see some statuettes of Isis and Horus in the Virgin and Child pose, that are dated to well before Christ.

http://www.carlos.emory.edu/COLLECTION/ ... ypt11.html

http://www.artgallery.sa.gov.au/MediaCe ... Egypt.html

Also, this is from Wiki:

The Egyptian god Osiris and the Greek god Dionysus had been equated as long ago as the 5th century BC by the historian Herodotus (see interpretatio graeca). By Late Antiquity, some Gnostic and Neoplatonist thinkers had expanded this syncretic equation to include Aion, Adonis, Attis, Mithras and other gods of the mystery religions. The composite term Osiris-Dionysus is found around the start of the first century BC, for example in Aegyptiaca by Hecateus of Abdera, and in works by Leon of Pella.

I hope this answers a few questions for now. I’ll get to your second post anon...as soon as I’ve done some food shopping for the weekend!

Well, I’m glad I went for that walk to the shops because the cold wind cleared my head and thus my thinking.

FM, I think we don’t need to get bogged down in calendars. If according to an earlier calendar, the winter solstice for the northern hemisphere (which is where all these stories spring from) was on a different date, so what? The celebrations for the sun god would have been on the same day, but it just would have been called something else. Then as the Julian and Gregorian calendars came in, the date would have moved to fit in with whatever date the solstice fell on until we end up with what we now have, December 25.

The point the astrotheists are trying to make is that pagan celebrations for the sun god always occurred three days after the winter solstice.

Forum Monk wrote:The following quotes from Zeitgeist - the Movie (ref: http://conspiracyrealitytv.com/zeitgeist-the-movie/ ) sound alot like the origin of the OP and I think we can easily refute them as pure bollox -

"The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which on December 24th aligns with the three brightest stars in Orion’s belt. These three bright stars in Orion’s belt are called today what they were called in ancient times “the three kings. And the three kings and the brightest star Sirius all point to the place of the sunrise on December 25th. This is why the 3 kings follow the star in the east in order to locate the sunrise - the birth of the sun."

Well, maybe, but you haven't made the case for why you think it’s ‘pure bollox’.

Also, FM, what is OP please?

Forum Monk wrote:
False. The belt stars preceed Sirius since they are more westerly they rise before Sirius.

I think you’ve misunderstood this. In the film, it very clearly shows that the belt stars precede Sirius. They appear first.

This is also made clear by the visuals, so I’m posting a link to the film here. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

It’s nearly two hours long, but all the info we’re talking about here is contained in the first half-an-hour and is based on the research of Acharya S. I’m already talking to Acharya S about another issue I have with her research (which doesn’t impact on this particular bit). So after you’ve watched it, please let me know if you still have any questions on the astrology, or disagreements with it, and I’ll put them to her. But please realise that whatever they show will be a dumbed down version, aimed to be able to communicate with the mass market.

By the way, the first five minutes is pure filler, so I suggest you go and make yourself a cup of tea during that bit. Also parts 2 and 3 are nothing to do with Acharya’s research and the theory of astrotheism.

Forum Monk wrote:
As for this alignment on the 24th. Since these stars (for all practical purposes) are fixed locations that same alignment is valid on the 26th the 31st, the 10th of June, all 365 days of the year.[/b]

Yes, except would they be so low on the horizon, thus close to where the sun will come up? I think that’s the point the film is trying to make, and that will be clear to you when you see it.

Forum Monk wrote: “This is the cross of the zodiac. One of the oldest conceptual images in human history. It reflects the sun as it figuratively passes through the twelve major constellations over the course of a year. It also reflects the twelve months of the year, the four seasons, and the solstices, and equinoxes. “

According to the modern Gregorian calendar I guess.

Well, no. The stars in the sky and their arrangement existed long before the Gregorian calendar, for heavens sake! There have always been 12 constellations and further back into antiquity, I believe that 13 were recognised in astrological charts. I don’t know how long there’s been 12 months in the year, but I think it’s been for a pretty long time.

Forum Monk wrote: “This house of bread and its symbol of wheat represents August and September, the time of harvest. In turn Bethlehem in fact literally translates to house of bread. Bethlehem is thus a reference to the constellation Virgo a place in the sky not on Earth.”

This is a tremendous leap in faith the kind that often results is a splat.

I agree it would be a ‘tremendous leap of faith” if this is all they were basing their theories on. But it’s just one tiny part of a whole mosaic that does hang together fairly well as a bigger picture, and thus has validity as such.

Forum Monk wrote: How is Virgo's association with wheat harvest an automatic association to Bethlehem (which means "house of Bread" as in "bread of life which is a Hebrew is reference to the Word of God). There is no supporting evidence.[

That’s a circular argument. So I shall turn the tables on you to make the point. What supporting evidence do you have that ‘bread of life’ is a reference to the Word of God, other than what the Bible and biblical scholars tell you?

Forum Monk wrote:
“The sun stops moving south…at least perceivably for 3 days… and during this 3 day pause, the sun resides int the vicinity of the southern cross, or crux, constellation.”

Already dismissed by everyone's mutual agreement.

Yes, as you say, already dismissed. But it’s the only bit so far that has been, as far as I can see ...and it's not crucial (no pun intended!) to the case.