Chili

What I find most interesting is that 500 years after they went on their own to preach "the good news" around the world they still see the same "end of the world" that is near, they can tell, so they say, and are determined to get this job done.

So they gathered and scattered to cover all fronts now said to be with 20.000 denominations strong and printed bibles in every language to get this all done, because to them, obviously, 'all must mean all' because not much good news is coming their way.

It's all so funny, I think, and they will go to war to defend the idol they see and spend all their richess 10 fold, or even more, instead of receiving 10 fold, or even more, and still insist that they are right and off to war they will go, again, and again, and more often than not find that they bombed the wrong country already before they get home . . . and still never realize that the world they see is 'their world' and 'their world only' that must come to an end and only then off to Eden they will go.

Here is what Arjuna said to this end:

Just a little tale taken from here:http://www.writespirit.net/stories-t...rjunas-choice/

Robert Tulip

Will, thank you for this question. The relation between the twelve disciples and the twelve signs of the zodiac is an idea clearly present in early Gnostic thought, which astrotheology holds to be the real origin of the literal fictions of Christianity. The use of the zodiac also emerges from the allegory of Jesus as the sun, from the idea that the sun passes through twelve months each year, to illustrate that events on earth (so below) reflect the heavenly pattern of time (as above). There is also the observation in geometry that a sphere can be touched by exactly twelve spheres of the same size as it.

Clement of Alexandria, in his Excerpts from Theodotus, says the early second century Gnostic leader Valentinus held that the Apostles were substituted for the twelve signs of the Zodiac. Valentinus was reputed to have been a candidate for pope, illustrating how prominent such ideas were in the early days. This early metaphor of the zodiac, considered together with the complete absence of any evidence for Jesus or the disciples in independent sources, illustrates that these Gospel motifs started as cosmic, and only later had their historic biographies attached. The complete absence of biography in Paul helps to show how the myth of the twelve started as esoteric symbolism based on observation of the sky.

Irenaeus of Lyon, the great heresiologist, had a mosaic on his church floor of the twelve signs of the zodiac. But that should not imply that Irenaeus was a heretic, although he was later seen as suspect. The zodiac is simply a measure of the course of the year, and need have no astrological meaning. But of course historically the attempts at magical interpretation led this motif to be rejected as fatalist, magical, pagan and heretical. Later the esoteric theme of the zodiac became prominent, for example with the stained glass windows of French cathedrals such as St Denis showing Christ or God at the centre surrounded by the twelve apostles and twelve signs.

Revelation 21, the description of the holy city, provides a definite link between the twelve apostles and the signs of the zodiac. Both Josephus and Philo say the breastplate of the high priest of Israel had twelve stones symbolising the zodiac, illustrating this theme was literally at the heart of Jewish concepts of the sacred. Revelation links twelve stones or jewels to the twelve foundations of the holy city (21:19-20), and to the ‘names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb’ (21:14). If these jewels are zodiacal, we have a Biblical link between the apostles and the zodiac.

In an intriguing follow up, Athanasius Kircher in the seventeenth century claimed to have an old Arabic manuscript that showed these twelve stones represent the zodiac in reverse from Pisces to Aries, but his source is not extant. His suggestion is routinely cited in conservative Biblical commentaries as evidence of John’s disavowal of astrology, because the signs are reversed. However, if correct, it would appear to confirm a Biblical encoding of the precession of the equinox, the movement of the sun at Easter from Pisces in the day of Jesus back by one sign each 2000 years. Precession is plausibly embedded in the alpha and omega as the cosmic moment of the turn of ages at the time of Christ.

Perhaps the most extraordinary use of the twelve signs to describe the twelve disciples is by Leonardo Da Vinci in The Last Supper. The real Da Vinci code uses the shape of the zodiac constellations as the templates for the twelve disciples in order from right to left, and Pisces as the template for Jesus. This is so unacceptable to dogmatic faith that it is completely ignored, even though it is obvious if you look at the fresco against the constellation maps.

At issue here is the existence of a secret esoteric tradition within Christianity which understood the symbols of faith as metaphors for natural observation, focused on Jesus as allegory for the sun. This teaching was suppressed as heresy, and early texts explicitly supporting it were hunted down and burnt, leaving only the hints encoded in the surviving texts and artefacts. The problem is to assess if these hints can be explained in any way other than by natural allegory. I maintain they cannot, because of the coherence of the underlying astrotheological message. But it seems this message is so destructive for conventional Christianity that it is rejected out of hand as emotionally impossible.

Robert Tulip

andrewcriddle

It is most unlikely that the zodiac mosaic in the cathedral at Lyon goes back to the early Church. It is probably medieval.

Andrew Criddle

Robert Tulip

Thanks Andrew - I see wikipedia asserts the Lyon Cathedral zodiac mosaic is from the eleventh century but I could not find a photo or any further discussion of it on the internet. What is your source?

stephan huller

Why are you asking Andrew for proof that the zodiac IS NOT from antiquity? This is the kind of logic which pervades this silly meta-theory. The onus is upon you and your ilk to establish the age of the fucking zodiac not the other way around. 'It could be,' 'it could be,' 'it could be' - you string enough of these 'it could bes' together it is almost certainly not. Like jumping out of forty story building. 'It could be' that a hurricane force wind will come out of the blue, and 'it could be' that this strong wind will defy the force of gravity and 'it could be' that this massive wind will safely take you to a soft landing spot. But it's all very unlikely. Better not jump (to conclusions) in the first place.

Toto

In a local museum, I have seen zodiac symbols from a Jewish synagogue which I believe was dated to the Hellenistic era. But this is seen as syncretism, an adoption of cultural elements from the Roman culture, not as evidence of the astrological origins of Judaism.

Link

Toto

The problem I see with astrotheologic theories - there clearly are astrological elements and parallels in the NT, but does this show the astrotheological origins of everything, or just cultural influences? How would you tell?

tanya

Thanks for your comment, Robert.

I am doubtful about this chap Irenaeus. I don't know of any evidence for his writing, earlier than 4th century.

With regard to the church in Lyon, I would sound a note of caution there. The existing cathedral, was built, in about the 11th century, atop or adjacent to, an older structure, begun in the Sixth century.

But, Irenaeus was supposed to have lived in the third century, or maybe even the second century. Accordingly I don't understand how one can know anything at all about his church.

One feature of his life, that seems most astonishing, is that the Romans were supposed to have ordered the arrest of his predecessor, and supposedly, according to legend, at least, they caught him, and executed him, but somehow, missed Irenaeus. This always struck me as odd.

Can you point me in the direction of a primary source of his writing?

thanks,

Robert Tulip

Stephan - before we get too distracted by this red herring about Irenaeus, I must note that your response reminds me of fallacious argument methods I have previously encountered, vis:

1. Ignore substantive argument
2. Cherrypick for any issue (regardless of relevance) that can be used to divert attention from main thesis
3. Baselessly imply that questions about an irrelevant issue cast doubt on other claims.

Such methods tend to be used by apologists who are not interested in logic or evidence, and who have concealed agendas. I hope that is not the case for you. It is the method behind the whole premise of this thread. Sierios makes blatant mistakes about the writing of Acharya S (on Sicily, Polynesia, dating of Christmas), builds a strawman argument on these mistakes, and then refuses to admit his errors but has the effrontery to repeat them.

I do not care whether the mosaic in Lyon Cathedral is ancient, as that is not critical to whether the twelve apostles symbolise the zodiac, which was the question I was responding to. It is just one example among many of Christian zodiac art (and apparently its antiquity may be legendary, hence the discussion). Apologies that I did not make this clear enough in my mention of it, and thank you for the opportunity to clarify. A real critique on the astrotheology of the Gospels would start at the strongest points, eg Josephus, Philo, Revelation, and why apostle-zodiac imagery is so prominent in Christian art up to Leonardo Da Vinci.

Discussion of Irenaeus is just a sidebar. While interesting in itself, and surprising that I could find no clear evidence on the internet about the Lyon zodiac mosaic, it is not actually relevant to the thread.

Toto

Let's get back to this. Earlier you said

Can you flesh out the connection between the prominence of the Zodiac as an image or metaphor, the complete absence of any evidence for Jesus in non-gospel sources, and the conclusion that the gospels originated as cosmic dramas? I can see this as a possibility, but there are many alternative explanations that seem as least as probable.