Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The (astrological) story of Christ?

Chris1981

Member
The ancient religions of the wold studied the night sky, the Sun and the seasons. It is simple to understand why, as every morning the sun would rise, bringing light, warmth, and security, saving man from the cold, blind, predator-filled darkness of night. Without it, the cultures understood, the crops would not grow, and life on the planet would not survive. These realities made the sun the most adored object of all time.


The tracking of the stars allowed them to recognize and anticipate events which occurred over long periods of time, such as eclipses and full moons. They in turn cataloged celestial groups into what we know today as constellations and charted them.


This chart 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 12 major constellations over the course of a year. It also reflects the 12 months of the year, the four seasons, and the solstices and equinoxes. The term Zodiac relates to the fact that constellations were anthropomorphized, or personified, as figures, or animals.


In other words, the early civilizations did not just follow the sun and stars, they personified them with elaborate myths involving their movements and relationships. The sun, with its life-giving and saving qualities was personified as a representative of the unseen creator or god—“God’s Sun†the light of the world, the savior of human kind. Likewise, the 12 constellations represented places of travel for God’s Sun and were identified by names, usually representing elements of nature that happened during that period of time. For example, Aquarius, the water bearer, who brings the Spring rains.


Ok, so given that the above is true, and believe me it is, please bear with me while I delve into a few coincidental points.


Horus is the ancient Egyptian sun god and we know beyond doubt that he is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun’s movement in the sky.


From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set, and Set was the personification of the darkness or night. And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set—while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. It is important to note that “dark vs. light†or “good vs. evil†is
one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.


Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows. Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, and upon his birth he was adored by three kings.


At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water.


Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God’s Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being “betrayed†by Typhon, Horus was “crucified,†buried for three days, and thus, resurrected.


These attributes of Horus, whether original or not, seem to permeate many cultures of the world, for many other gods are found to have the same general mythological structure. Attis of Phrygia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, “crucified,†placed in a tomb and after three days, was resurrected.


Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a “star in the east†signaling his coming. He performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected.


Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, he was referred to as the “King of Kings,†“God’s Only Begotten Son,†“The Alpha and Omega,†and many others, and upon his death, he was resurrected.


Mithra of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for three days and thus resurrected, he was also referred to as “The Truth,†“The Light,†and many others. Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday.


The fact of the matter is there are numerous saviors, from different periods, from all over the world, which subscribe to these general characteristics. The question remains: why these attributes, why the virgin birth on December 25th, why dead for three days and the inevitable resurrection, why 12 disciples or followers?


To find out, let’s examine the most recent of the solar messiahs. Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary on December 25th in Bethlehem. His birth was announced by a star in the east, which three kings or magi followed to locate and adore the new savior.


He was a child teacher at 12, at the age of 30 he was baptized by John the Baptist, and thus began his ministry. Jesus had 12 disciples which he traveled about with performing miracles such as healing the sick, walking on water, raising the dead, he was also known as the “King of Kings,†the “Son of God,†the “Light of the World,†the “Alpha and Omega,†the “Lamb of God,†and many, many others. After being betrayed by his disciple Judas and sold for 30 pieces of silver, he was crucified, placed in a tomb and after three days was resurrected and ascended into Heaven.


First of all, the birth sequence is completely astrological. 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. The Three Kings and the brightest star, Sirius, all point to the place of the sunrise on December 25th. This is why the Three Kings “follow†the star in the east, in order to locate the sunrise—the birth of the sun.


The Three Kings and the brightest star, Sirius, all point to the place of the sunrise on December 25th. This is why the Three Kings “follow†the star in the east, in order to locate the sunrise—the birth of the sun.


The Virgin Mary is the constellation Virgo, also known as Virgo the Virgin. Virgo is also referred to as the “House of Bread,†and the representation of Virgo is a virgin holding a sheaf of wheat. This House of Bread and its symbol of wheat represent 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.


There is another very interesting phenomenon that occurs around December 25th, or the winter solstice. From the summer solstice to the winter solstice, the days become shorter and colder. And from the perspective of the northern hemisphere, the sun appears to move south and get smaller and more scarce. The shortening of the days and the expiration of the crops when approaching the winter solstice symbolized the process of death to the ancients. It was the death of the sun. And by December 22nd, the sun’s demise was fully realized, for the sun, having moved south continually for six months, makes it to its lowest point in the sky. Here a curious thing occurs: the sun stops moving south, at least perceivably, for three days. And during this three-day pause, the sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux [Australis], constellation.


And after this time on December 25th, the sun moves one degree, this time north, foreshadowing longer days, warmth, and Spring. And thus it was said: the sun died on the cross, was dead for three days, only to be resurrected or born again. This is why Jesus and numerous other sun gods share the crucifixion, three-day death, and resurrection concept. It is the sun’s transition period before it shifts its direction back into the Northern Hemisphere, bringing Spring, and thus salvation.


However, they did not celebrate the resurrection of the sun until the spring equinox, or Easter. This is because at the spring equinox, the Sun officially overpowers the evil darkness, as daytime thereafter becomes longer in duration than the night, and the revitalizing conditions of spring emerge.


Interesting? There is plenty more where that came from. It is a transcript of the Video Zeitgeist. I hope they don't mind me posting it but I thought it worthy of discussion.
 
Chris Forbes provides a good rebuttal to the claims in the movie

[video=youtube;XbFbJrr1-bY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbFbJrr1-bY&[/video]
 
This one is more specific to the resurrection but similar points are covered:

[video=youtube;rq64qX7bNNU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq64qX7bNNU[/video]
 
Interesting to watch that video, I always like to hear other's points of view. I agree that in the original video some of the facts were stretched. But many have their basis, at least in fact. The stars of Orion's Belt etc being one of them. They do indeed line up with Sirius and point to the sunrise on Dec 25th.

As for Chris Forbes' video regarding Horus, for each and every academic with one point of view there is another arguing against it:

In the Cretan version of the Dionysus story, which the pre-Christian Greek historian Diodorus Siculus follows, Dionysus was the son of Zeus and Persephone, the daughter of Demeter also called Kore, who is styled a "virgin goddess." In the common myth about the birth of Dionysus/Bacchus, Semele is mysteriously impregnated by one of Zeus's bolts of lightning an obvi­ous miraculous/virgin conception.

Diodorus Siculus was writing works of history between 30 and 60 BC, so unless if follows that Dionysus, or at least his myth predates Christianity.


And this regarding Horus:

"Osiris, the Egyptian Saviour, was crucified in the heavens. To the Egyptian the cross was the symbol of immortality, an emblem of the Sun, and the god himself was crucified to the tree, which denoted his fructifying power. "Horus was also crucified in the heavens. He was represented, like...Christ Jesus, with outstretched arms in the vault of heaven."
Thomas W. Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions





 
Last edited by a moderator:
That book was written in 1882 though

Yep, the book is getting on a bit. But, and please forgive me, if the age of a text is reason to rubbish it, surely a 2000 year old book is even less reliable, let alone one that was translated several times?

Anyway, from what I understand, Horus was not physically crucified, he was, after all, a myth. He was crucified on the cross of the vernal equinox. The cross or cruciform was depicted and associated with eternal life a long time before Jesus
 
Yep, the book is getting on a bit. But, and please forgive me, if the age of a text is reason to rubbish it, surely a 2000 year old book is even less reliable, let alone one that was translated several times?

Anyway, from what I understand, Horus was not physically crucified, he was, after all, a myth. He was crucified on the cross of the vernal equinox. The cross or cruciform was depicted and associated with eternal life a long time before Jesus

The bible is a different style of book though. The Bible is, among other things, historical biography - the gospels in particular. They are based on eye witness accounts depicting events at the time (or within 20 years of them which is nothing and is unprecedented in historical documents) The other book is trying to pull together similarities between 2 different religions based on the scholarly data at the time, 2000 years after these religions were around. Scholarship has moved on and if Habermas is correct, the evidence for these dying and rising Gods is later than the Christian evidence. Plus it doesn't address the evidence for Christs crucifixion.
 
A fair point, thank you.

However something caught my eye that interests me:

Plus it doesn't address the evidence for Christs crucifixion.

Apart from the bible of course, of which evidence do you speak? I ask as always for genuine reasons, not to be awkward. I just want to see for myself.
 
A fair point, thank you.

However something caught my eye that interests me:



Apart from the bible of course, of which evidence do you speak? I ask as always for genuine reasons, not to be awkward. I just want to see for myself.

Below is something I put together for another site. I hope it helps :)


Ok resurrection. Below is what I've put together and its probably very amateurly done so I apologise in advance.


The below are 5 facts (though there are more) with the exception of 1 are accepted by virtually all historians and scholars but this 1 exception is accepted by close to 75% of them. I’m putting this because I am citing biblical texts and I can already here the objection; “we aren’t Christian, we don’t believe the Bible or accept it as evidence†But with the greatest of respect, this is not about what you will accept, this is about making a case so it’s about what historians studying the period will accept. To say you don’t accept the bible as evidence because you’re not Christian is akin to saying “we don’t believe man landed on the moon so we won’t accept any evidence from NASA†But also, there is some debate over whether some of the letters attributed to Paul are actually written by him. They accept Pauls letter to the Corinthians which is important, it was written around 55AD and the statement of faith (or creed) was passed to him and can be traced back to the original disciples. Craig Blomberg, who is one for 15 scholars responsible for translating the NIV, outlines several reasons why the Bible is reliable - see https://publicchristianity.org/library/can-we-trust-the-bible#.UCvrA1bN-1k

So, here we go:

- Jesus died by crucifixion (non Christian sources include Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serpoian and Talmud)

Why is this important: He didn’t faint, pass out or fake it. The roman soldiers were highly skilled at killing, they knew if someone was dead and it was in their best interests to ensure no one survived since they themselves would be killed if someone escaped. See Swoon Theory vs Strauss’s critique.

- Disciples sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them (this has a couple of parts to it)

They claimed it (sources include Paul, Oral Tradtion [Creeds and Sermon Summaries] Written Tradition [Gospels/Acts] Apostolic fathers [Clement, Polycarp]

They believed it and were willing to suffer for it (Acts, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Origen)

Why is this important: The disciples did not deliberately lie or make it up. You don’t die for something you know is a lie or you made up. They didn’t die because they believed something they read, they died because they believed they encountered the risen Christ.

- Conversion of Church Persecutor Paul

Conversion (Paul, Acts, Known by early Christians in Judea [Galatians]

Suffered and Martyred (Paul, Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, Origen)

Why is this important: Paul was a known persecutor of the early Christians and he didn’t just stop, he joined them and ended up being killed for it. Again, he didn’t make it up or lie, he really believed that he had an appearance of the risen Christ and was killed for it.

- Conversion of skeptic James

Conversion (Before - Gospels report Jesus's brothers were unbelievers prior to the resurrection, early creed reports of appearance of risen Christ to James. After - Paul & Acts identify James as a leader in the church)

Martydom (Josephus, Hegeisppus, Clement Of Alexandria)

Why is this important: Former sceptic who was a family member. Again, he didn’t make it up or lie, he really believed that he had an appearance of the risen Christ and was killed for proclaiming it.

- Empty Tomb (the 75% one)

Jesus had enemies in Jerusalem, he was executed in Jerusalem, disciples proclaimed it in Jerusalem - people knew who he was; anything but an empty tomb would have killed the resurrection story there and then.

Enemy Attestation, the Jewish authorities accused the disciples of stealing the body thus indirectly admitting the tomb was empty

Testimony of Women; women were not regarded as reliable witnesses, according to Talmud a woman had the same standing in court as a robber, if you make it up you don't claim women were witnesses especially at the time

Buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb who was member of the Sanhedrin who voted to crucify Jesus. Essentially an enemy of Jesus plus well known so story could be verified

Why is this important; if the tomb is empty, the body wasn’t stolen and they didn’t get the tomb wrong…….

In a debate between Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew, Flew said he does not dispute the facts above. But when Habermas presented the case for the empty tomb (which was more comprehensive than above) their exchange was as follows (about 54 minutes in):

Flew: I don’t think we should be apologetic about this at all, these facts are facts. I would rather wish in these topics, more people were prepared to face facts rather than run away and say “ooh mustn’t say that. This is a very impressive piece of argument I think.

Habermas: So you accept the empty tomb?

Flew: This is an impressive testimony because it’s very difficult to get round thise ……I’m not going to offer a theory because I simply don’t think anyone can reconstruct story about what happened in a city all that long ago when we haven’t got the sort of evidence we might get today with cameras…I offer hallucinations to explain the appearances but offer nothing for the empty tomb evidence

Flews comments doesn’t prove the tomb was empty, I just found them interesting. You can see the debate at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACljoLzPQ14

So if these are accepted as fact, what is the best explanation for them? I agree with C.F.D Moule:

'If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with? … the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church… remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself'
 
Couple of things just really quick.

1. Jesus wasn't born in December. We can start with the birth of John the Baptist and through Zacharis duty at the temple, we can determin the birth of John. By this way, we can narrow down when the birth of Jesus occured, and it was not in December.

2. The star you speak of on Dec 24 is not the same star the Egyptians alluded to. My memory is weak, but I believe a solar cycle was upward of 1,300 odd years and this was called an age. In other words, it takes a smidge above 1,300 years for the solar cycle to make on complete revolution. There is an ancient sacred site in Egypt that has a window for each year until the universe comes full circle.

Based on this 1,300 year cycle a bright star is produced (alignment of stars and planets) and it is said that great Kings are born at this time etc. If you follow Egyptian archaeology, major construction is done around the 650 year point in anticipation of the age and then again at the 1,300 year point and we could talk about this further, but I don't see a need at the moment.
 
Couple of things just really quick.

1. Jesus wasn't born in December. We can start with the birth of John the Baptist and through Zacharis duty at the temple, we can determin the birth of John. By this way, we can narrow down when the birth of Jesus occured, and it was not in December.

I Agree that Jesus was not born in December, although for slightly different reasons.

Based on this 1,300 year cycle a bright star is produced (alignment of stars and planets) and it is said that great Kings are born at this time etc. If you follow Egyptian archaeology, major construction is done around the 650 year point in anticipation of the age and then again at the 1,300 year point and we could talk about this further, but I don't see a need at the moment.

Unless you are alluding to some sort of supernatural event, this is not correct. A check of various astronomical softwear corroborates that the allignment of Orion's Belt and Sirius would have occurred that evening, as it has every December since. Sirius would have still been the brightest star in the sky. This is irrefutable fact.

The same software shows no 'planetary alignment.

It must be said though that it is not an exact alignment, but to the naked eye it may as well be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I Agree that Jesus was not born in December, although for slightly different reasons.
Using the Biblical account of the events leading up to Jesus, we can be clear that it wasn't December without a shadow of a doubt. As Christians, we take the Bible as our authority. We celebrate the birth of Jesus at Christmas, but lets not confuse this with being born on Christmas.

The point I am making, is that from a Biblical perspective, you cannot link Jesus to December anything. Your point in you opening statement is a mute point as it assumes the birth of Jesus is in December.



Unless you are alluding to some sort of supernatural event, this is not correct. A check of various astronomical softwear corroborates that the allignment of Orion's Belt and Sirius would have occurred that evening, as it has every December since. Sirius would have still been the brightest star in the sky. This is irrefutable fact.

The same software shows no 'planetary alignment.

It must be said though that it is not an exact alignment, but to the naked eye it may as well be.

I am speaking of the Sothic Cycle. My bad, it was 1,461 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sothic_cycle

Like I said, at the end of the age, the star you are talking about comes to life and it is said that great kings are born. This was the Star written about in the Biblical account of Jesus, not the one which you are alluding to.
 
Thanks for the clarification, I will check it out now.

Out of interest, does anyone have an educated Idea about the supposed date of Jesus' birth? I would like to know as I have heard many differing opinions.

Many thanks, once again.
 
People much smarter than I have worked it out on this forum. Timfrompa knows this topic cold. Ill search the forum tomorrow from aa computer and see if I can find it. One is in bible study and the other I thinkwas in the general forum. A very good study with solid grounding.
 
Thank you, please don't go out of your way though. I will have a look too and see what people have come up with and their reasoning.

Thanks again
 
this movie the ZEITGEISt is stupid.
it was made by people who hate Christian faith ! this Archaya S and other people they are occult lovers.
i think they want to make Jesus christ not important by saying that he is not special and talking of many other gods.
 
There is nothing so strange about this connection with Astronomy and the fact that all societies (until Moses) based their religious beliefs on myths that had been constructed round the assumption that the seven planets moving against the black background of the star studied sky were Gods.

What happened that gave a foundation to a new monotheism (wherein one previously unseen God had been in the enviable position of having observed the other seven planets and their religious tenets) was that Moses spotted Uranus.

He realized that this scientific proof to which he could point empowered him to organize his own "church" of believers and assert a superior wisdom.
Moses was in a position to prove his God was more valid than those Uranus had long been observing without detection, hence Uranus was the High God.
Moses was in the position to use this newly discovered God to criticize those religions already long seeped their own doctrines.

He further reasoned that he needed Aaron to show the Planet to others, so that he could not be silenced.



staffofMoses.jpg
 
Back
Top