@labarum312 you never did explain how for thousands of years churches have been complete spitting on gods laws in the bible. nearly all or way too many christian religions have pedophile problems, they don't seem to worried about covering them up, they don't seem to worry about god judging them, they continue their
@labarum312 so you canr aanswer aa simple q like why dozens of christian religions have pedo problems and etc, so you insult , wow what an intellectual champ. Too hard to point out a real rebuttal? What other excuse is tthere to explain all the pedo in the church and their complete lack of concern for man or godsjudgement?
@mPky1 How many times do I need to correct you? I have already done so on the history of the zodiac, the Pope Leo pseudoquote, the origin of Peter Joseph's ideas, and most recently the Gospel of Mark. I might andwer a comment in that video just to show everyone just how stupid you are. For now, you are a waste of my time and you are just out of here.
@labarum312 all these vids and you never even got your facts straight about who wrote the text for Z. amazing and you talk and criticize others call them names and it turns out the master himself is ironically a hypocrit - just the church. yes they tell you not to kill, but its okay for them to sponsor genocide. wonder why they don't care about gods judgement?
@mPky1 The script for Zeitgeist was written by Peter Joseph. It was based upon the videos of a crackpot conspiracy theorist named Jordan Maxwell. Peter Joseph said so himself. He stated the whole film, partiucularly Parts 1 and 3, were a "walk through Maxwell's work" and that he "owed Maxwell a debt of gratitude." I even gave you the audio where Joseph said it! After the film was exposed as bogus, he later brought in Acharya S as an advisor for the final cut version.
@labarum312 looks like you confused the new world order z stuff which I'll concede sound like Maxwell with the rreligious portion which is from murdoch.she has written many books on the topic, while Maxwell has none but appears tto have his own vid on astrotheology. Your answer is rather broad and wwithout seeing the vid of hismconfession I can't comment on exactly what he meant by a "A walk thru maxwells work". The vid I saw axtuslly says who wrote the religious portion.
@mPky1 Maxwell also did the same stuff you see in Zeitgeist on religion and Peter Joseph explicitly stated part 1 (Religion) and part 3 (Fed) were based on his work. Search for Maxwell's "Astrotheology" and his other stuff on religion and you will find everything you see in Part 1 of Zeitgeist.
@labarum312 funny so sometimes the bible is metaphore but when the literal is inconvenient it becomes a metaphor... a bit like christians who say god hates homosexuals but they ignore the sabbath. its great when you pick and change the text and create another christian religion.. how, any thousands of christian variations are we up too now?
@mPky1 It's pretty obvious when something is a metaphor. The Bible is full of metaphors. So is most other pieces of anciet literature. When someone compares the grandeur or power of something, it is common to use something in nature as a reference point. It's not that hard to figure out. As for the Sabbath, if you had any familiarity with the NT, you would already realize your folly.
@labarum312 sorry countless bible books use the same lang, about light=good dark=bad, jsus in the clouds etc. If one reads it as the suh in the clouds etc, there is no miracle but rather the author admiring nature and the power of the sun to warm up gibe light so plants and crwautres alike can grow and live. Take the ark of the covenant, supposedly if you touched it you died, and yet the bible itself says thenphillistinsntook it and now its lost, and they didnt die,
@labarum312 so if I make the bible simple by understanding sun=light and good and feeds me by way nnature doesn't that make sense rather inventing all thisnotgher nonsense? Nowhere in mark does it say jesus died for our sins, nor does it say he was resurrected.that stuff was made up at a later stage of chrisitianity, just like santa, the easter bunny. No where does the bible say slavery is bad, christianity never banned it but rather gave authority and did it itself.
@mPky1 Are you just a troll or are really this clueless?? In Mark, Jesus states he will rise from the dead and ends with the empty tomb. Ummm ... guess the inference. And then Paul's letters, written long before Mark, spoke of Jesus' resurrection countless times. Your childish outbursts only illustrate your immaturity. Get an education and then come back when you grow up.
@labarum312 look how poorly the bible is written, hundreds of different religions telling you incompatible tyhings about the bible. Why couldn't god keep it simple for u fools?so it was incorruptable? How is it possible that jjesus is not ,entioned by name or even directly in the OT? Plz don't tell me us=god +jesus, that's hardly proof. Somehow its easier to believe thejews that jesus was not the messiah or gods son.
@labarum312 thanks for the childish insults, seems you can take the time to insult people and yet you almost never quote anything and take yourself to be some authority. I tried to verify your comments but as always they nearly are impossible to find, unlike my pouints of iew.
@mPky1 I have already pointed out all the citations you need to find out the history of the zodiacand that it was developed around 500 BC. Here it is again:
Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology (1994) 13-14; Koch-Westenholz, Mesopotamian Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial Divination (1995), 51-53; Jim Tester, History of Western Astrology (1987), 13-14; Herman Hunger & D. E. Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia (1999), 17.
@mPky1 An scholarly history on the topic will contain the same information. Thus it is apparently fine for you who hasn't given one scholarly citation on the topic to call me a liar but not ok for me to respond with sarcasm at your own intellectual laziness. Do some real research first. You obviously haven't done so yet.
@labarum312 eitehr way its quote evident from the greed, murder, pedophilia and general total disrespect for "gods" laws that the catholic and protestant church leaders and ministers that they have absolute no worries about gods punishment for their sins. I find it extraordinary that for centuries the churches continue with their evil and not once do they ever do "good". They will never be able to counter the past evil and blood on their hands - that is a fact and unarguable.
@labarum312 so how did they introduce xmas on dec 25 if this was a totally new bad holiday. the same goes for easter. should not past and present christians reject these pagan days. btw the vatican is over a mithra site. you really should stop lying. its on wikipdia
@mPky1 If you want to know why Christmas is on 12/25 and Easter is in Spring, try something called research. And wikipedia is not research. Begin with Thomas Talley's "The Origins of the Liturgical Year." By the way, the first pagan celebration of 12/25 as the birthday of a sun god does not occur until 274 AD.
@labarum312 You completely missed the point of my comment. What i was trying to say if xmas was completely pagan and obviously sun worship, how or why exactly did christians accept it back then, if they were squeeky clean. Again i never asked about the origins.
@labarum312 the first saturnallia is irrelevant, its obvious the choice of 25/12 is to match he winter solstice. So many if not all jewish festivals are agricultural/environmental in origin, easter=spring equinox and so on. Help Passover is named as ssuch bcause its when the sun passes over the eequator as it travels between its path. Early christians selected 25/12 because they knew christ is the sun. Look at the language etc light of the world etc it couldn't be simpler or plainer
@mPky1 First of all, Saturnalia was not 12/25. It ended a few days earlier. Second of all, the holiday we call "Easter" was not called such by Christians except in England. Everywhere else it was "Pascha."
@mPky1 Easter or Pascha was not celebrated on the Spring Equinox. It was based on the early Spring Jewish holiday of Pascha (what we call Passover). This occurred on 14 Nissan in the Jewish calendar (which was lunar) where Nissan was the first spring month and months began on new moons.
@mPky1 Since the month began on New Moons, the 14 of Nissan and Passover was a full moon. Since Nissan was the first month of Spring, it began on or after the Spring Equinox. Since the resurrection occurred the Sunday following 14 Nissan, the formula is the first sunday following the first full moon on or after the spring equinox. it is based on Passover - not a pagan holiday.
@mPky1 As for the light of the world, it is something called a metaphor. Christ and/or God are also called rocks and fortresses in the Bible but one would hardly think they had architecture or geology in mind.
@mPky1 When Christians began using that date in Carthage, it was not that big a deal with Roman pagans - that came later. When Roman pagans began using it, it became a sign of loyalty to Rome - their version of July 4. With Constantine's favor, it was quite clearly embraced for political reasons. There were half a dozen dates for Christ's birthday but that one gave a poltical advantage for Christians in establishing their postion.
@labarum312 I fail to see the relevance of quoting 274AD as the origin of Saturnalia and how that is proof of anything. Nor do i understand what Tallys book contributes to your argument, what of interest did he say ? You really should write complete thoughts and if references. Not very scholarly or logical. Btw the moon landing was in 1969.
@mPky1 I mentioned Talley because he is an actual scholar who has written the definative work on the subject. But since you seem more interested in recycling the claims of conspiracy theorist crackpots rather than doing any real research by people who do understand the topic, I guess the suggestion was pointless.
@labarum312 again you miss the point - what of interestdid talley say that backs/supports your immediate accompanying argument. Im not saying your cimpleetely wrong in all your points, but one mistake does not negate everything else. Why do you spend so much time with childish insults, waste those characters on elaborating your quote and what is wrong with me oor other.
@mPky1 Everything Talley said is in my video on Easter: /watch?v=jRji0aklUYc. If I have written something and it includes sources, I am under no obligation to rewrite it in Youtube comments. Particularly when none of the stuff is terribly surprising to anyone who has bothered to do a mininum of factchecking.
@mPky1 It wasn't the first Saturnalia. That is not on 12/25. But it hardly gives a basis for Christianity to be "copying other gods" on this point when no other gods had that date as their birthday.
@mPky1 Given the Vatican is built a former cemetary and necropolis as well as other Roman buildings, it is not surprising that among the things excavated was a Mithraeum. They were all over the place in Rome. But it is not as though that is why they put the Vatican there. St. Peter's was built over the alleged burial spot of St. Peter and the surrounding area was seized to construct a large complex. If wikipedia citations are what you call research, then you are out of your league.
@derekhowardm even the pope Leo x admitted jesus was a myth. many catholic positions are astrological terms, cardinal, de an,minister etc. @labarum312
@mPky1 You are truly an idiot. This supposed quote was part of a WORK OF FICTION. It was written by a Protestant satirist to attack the pope. It is not a real quote. Any other nonsense you need me to correct??
@labarum312 Give me proof it was a work of fiction, here again you go with making quotes and statements that nobody knows and without references. I notice you completely ignore the sun iconography, astrological dates etc connected with the catholic church.
@mPky1 The quote comes from John Bale's satire "The Pageant of the Popes" which was an anti-Catholic tirade by a Protestant polemicist. Thus I have just had to explain where YOUR quote came from since you obviously did not know it yourself.
"Zeitgeist" (which is crap) and the silly people you rightly deride are not the only people associating Jesus with the precession of the equinoxes, as you should well know as you are familiar with Ulansey. Ulansey has been published in serious journals such as "Scientific American" and the "Journal of Biblical Literature".
@markdzima But Ulansey does not associate Jesus with precession but Mithras. Moreover, as I pointed out in the video, Ulansey was aware of the Bablylonian discoveies, credits Hiparchus with the discovery of precession, and notes that under the system then used (Babylonian System B), the "Age of Pisces" would not begin until about 900 A.D. - thus making Jesus about a milliennia too early for any "Age of Pisces."
Ulansey brings Christian imagery into the discussion in his articles in both of the journals I mentioned above (although not explicitly making the precession of the equinoxes argument). I expect that the agument will be made more explicit in his upcoming book, "The Other Christ: The Mysteries of Mithras and the Origins of Christianity".
@labarum312 Thanks for letting me know about that, I looked for it under Ulansey's name on Amazon and it didn't come up, but just now tried again under the title and see that it is out of print and hard to find. But now that I know it is published (thank you) I can try to track it down.
@markdzima I should have pointed out that Ulansey refers to ROMAN Mithraism only. The Roman version was a Hellenistic mystery religion bearing no resemblance to the Persian form of the god.
@markdzima I'm glad you are but understand that I cannot assume that to be the case. In any case, the factors of astrology in late antiquty means the sun was still rising under Aries in their system - thus undemining the common representation of Jesus as the deity for an "Age of Pisces." See Ulansey here:
I don't believe in astrology. As a justification for the founding of a religion the timing would be expected to be opportunistic, I think. The common man would have no notion of the exact timing, and as Ulansky points out that there are different ways by which the timing could be calculated anyway. It isn't set in stone. We've "New Age" movements and talk of the dawning of the Age of Aquarius today independent of exact time considerations.
@markdzima As far as I know the first mention of the Age of Aquarius was in the nineteenth century. While the Roman Mithraists likely observed the change from Taurus to the Aries (under BSB) and would have realized there would be future changes, there is no indication they ever developed a full blown theory of the ages. It may be the concern of some modern commentators, but it just does not appear to be their concern.
Considering that Mithraism was a "mystery" (i.e. its doctrines were to be kept secret) and we have no surviving written accounts of their beliefs, just iconography, there is not much value in your statement that "there is no indication they ever developed a full blown theory of the ages." But considering that they valued antiquity enough to pretend to date back to ancient Persian religion, it would be amazing for them not to cast their beliefs in an ancient context.
Here's something that I'd think they'd say if they viewed this video. "It's a pile of dust, huh? Well you haven't even dealt with our arguments and evidence!" I could totally see that as a response. You have to admit, they have quite an imagination. It engulfs their lives so much that they have to make films and books about it and try to pass it off as truth. It sounds to me like they should be in an insane asylum if they believe in an alternate reality.
@labarum312 lmao, that seemed random as hell, I mean geez, would they use Jonathan shooting the arrows for David as a symbol of Sagittarius? Cuz that's how much of a fudge this seems to me.
@GodoftheMagic8Ball Well, Acharya S once wrote about supposed traditions of Jesus being born in a stall between a horse and a goat and claimed this was Sagittariius (I guess the horse part of the centaur) and Capricorn. Of course, the traditions were medieval and were actually an ox and a sheep. I'm not making this up ... really ... honest.
"Former" mathematics major? Did you pursue another major? In fact, I'm not sure if you've already answered this here on your channel, but what is your educational & occupational background, if you don't mind sharing?
@GodoftheMagic8Ball I was a mathematics major who, like many in that area, dropped out to make money during the IT boom and never went back (the IT field was largely populated by college dropouts until recently).
@deemzje I am not sure why the creation week (seven days) would be connected to astrology. At least the twelve tribes use twelve but so do a dozen donuts or eggs and again it precedes the use of the zodiac. If you wanted to make an argument for some astronomical connection, the twelve months (which precede the zodiac by millennia) might make more sense but it is more likely to be a mere coincidence. Any number would be significant to some ancient society in some way.
@labarum312 The first part seems easy, as there are 4 weeks in a lunar month,and I think they had them back then.
For the second part, twelve lunar months might be spot-on. It might not be zodiacal, and it might not comprise an entire solar year, but why couldn't it be their time-reckoning? I'm pretty sure they didn't know donuts back then.
For the last part, I'm pretty sure none would divide a year into just one part.
It helps to have an understanding of ancient astronomy in order to understand numbers that are significant for it. The number 7 relates to the 7 "planets" (they counted sun and moon as such) visible with the naked eye. If I recall correctly, Josephus confirms this as a significance of the number 7 in the symbolism of the temple. In our names of the days of the week there is still evidence of "planets" seen in the names Sunday, Monday (Moon-day), and Saturday (Saturn-day)
You are mistaken about the age of the zodiac not being in dispute. I have an astronomy magazine with an article arguing a case for a much more ancient zodiac.
@markdzima There are always various attempts to paint the zodiac using such things as the caves in France, etc. but all of these fail. The problem with relying on an astronomy magazine is the same as relying on a history magazine's opinion on astronomy: it is out of their field of expertise. It is a simple fact of history that the zodiac developed in the first millennium BC in Babyion. (cont'd)
@labarum312 Those who dispute this are simply unfamiliar with the evidence complied by Assyriologists over the last century and are largely basing their views on conejcture. Yet, as I pointed out in the video, even if there were some neolithic zodiac (which is certainly possible although unlikely), it does not help Murdock and the Zeitgeist claims since there was clearly no use of it in the Ancient Near East prior to the development by the Babylonians about 500 B.C.
@labarum312 It was a "simple fact of history" for 70 years of scholarship that Mithraism in Rome derived from Persia, but now that is no longer "a simple fact of history". It turned out Mithraism was essentially Roman. The guy who made that erroneous claim that was deemed so certain for so long was Franz Cumont. Can you guess the name of the authority for the time frame you like for the origin of astrology? Did you guess the same Franz Cumont?
@markdzima Actually the current timeframe for the zodiac and astrology was established not by Cumont but by Franz Xaver Kugler and his study of the cuneiform tablets. Whether Cumont might have agreed or even guessed as much is irrelevant since that is not what lies at the basis of current scholarly opinion. It is the writings of the Babylonian astrologers themselves.
For the matter of the influence in people's minds regarding the precession of the equinoxes, the date of Hipparchus (128 B.C.E.) bringing this idea out, and the timing of the first mention of Mithraism (67 B.C.E.) is timely for an influence upon nascent Christianity. The rending of the heavens is part of the precessional myth, which connects to Jesus's crucifixion: See Ulansey's "The Heavenly Veil Torn: Cosmic Symbolism in the Gospel of Mark" (cont'd)
@markdzima (cont'd) What Ulansey failed to add (but I expect that he probably will in his next book on Christian origins) is that Jesus's crucifixion is, in the stories told in the Gospels, linked to the vernal equinox. The crucifixion is linked to Passover, and Passover was observed on the full moon of the vernal equinox. Thus the precession imagery in the Gospel of Mark, discussed by Ulansey, is also directly tied to the full moon of the vernal equinox.
@markdzima Actually, Passover was observed on the first full moon after the barley was observed as aviv (ripe). (See Leviticus) If after twelve months, the barley was not ripe again, they added an extra month. Since this usually occurred in early spring, it often followed the vernal equinox but not always and that was not what it was based upon until after the destruction of Jerusalem. I did a recent vid on "Explaining the Formula for Pascha (Easter)" on this topic.
@markdzima Even into the second century there are records of messages sent out that the barley was not ripe in Jerusalem,etc. After the faiure of the Bar Kochba revolt, it is assumed the diaspora forced a change to calculating in the solar year. The same applied to Christians who substituted 14 Artemisios (April 6) for 14 Nissan in the East and came up with the formula now used (Sunday after first full moon on or after V. Equinox) in the West.
@labarum312 Thanks for this source, I'll take a look at it. Does it say that this method of determining Passover was used by Jews far removed from Palestine (such as those who lived in Rome)?
@markdzima It mentions those in Jerusalem were in contact with those elsewhere (we know they had strong contact with the Jewish scholars in Babylon) but notes the impracticality of this setup as the Jews were dispersed and that different practices may have evolved in different locales before more unity was developed among the rabbis.
@markdzima I have read Ulansey's article and he does not even mention precession. He is speaking strictly of the concept of the veil being rent related to the sky being rent and refers to another article wherein the context is quite clearly within Second Temple Judaism. The "precessional myth" is a creation of some modern New Agers but was hardly existent in that detail among those of late antiquity.
@markdzima Ulansey never once mentions precession in the article at all and never infers it has any connection to the topic. I would also point out again the book on Christian origins was released in 2005 and it also makes no connection between Christianity and precession.
@labarum312 You wrote: "The problem with relying on an astronomy magazine is the same as relying on a history magazine's opinion on astronomy: it is out of their field of expertise." This opinion of yours, a rather dubious argument from authority by the way, does not make it legitimate for you to claim that there are no disputes.
@markdzima What I stated in the video is there are no disputes among experts in this field - and there aren't. There may be those outside the field who are just not aware of the evidence and this is forgivable but does not mean their opinion holds the same weight. More importantly, as I pointed out in the video, even if their were some neolithic zodiac somewhere, it obviously had no legs since the Babylonians had to develop it anew.
@markdzima The above (Bablylonian development) is the key point for discussing whether earlier gods (Horus, Persian Mithra, etc) were based on the zodiac. There is no evidence any other culture in the region used the zodiac prior to the Babylonians who developed it over many centuries (~10000-500 BC). Without any such evdience the assertion of a "precessional myth," no matter what the source, is itself a myth.
@labarum312 You wrote: "The above (Babylonian development) is the key point for discussing whether earlier gods (Horus, Persian Mithra, etc) were based on the zodiac." I never made any statements whatsoever about earlier Gods being based on the zodiac, nor Horus, nor Persian Mithra (except that Roman Mithraism isn't truly based on Persian Mithra, according to Ulansey). And your statement that a precessional myth requires an earlier zodiac is just silly: example of Mithraism, remember?
@markdzima A "precessional myth" as opposed to the specific use of precession in one mythology (i.e., Mithraism) would requite some knowledge stretching back centuries. And, by the way, the example of Mithraism you cited DID use an earlier zodiac since it developed after the use of the zodiac and the discovery of precession and specifically used zodiacal imagery.
@labarum312 I was criticizing your statement: "There is no evidence any other culture in the region used the zodiac prior to the Babylonians who developed it over many centuries (~10000-500 BC). Without any such evdience the assertion of a "precessional myth," no matter what the source, is itself a myth."
Your response to my refutation does not make this argument of yours any less wrong.
How about a current "authority" regarding the date of zodiacal origins. Not some "authority" one hundred years old either, as there are newer cuneiform findings and translations. I doubt that there is a dated tablet that says "Today we created the zodiac". Are we dealing with just a matter of what is the earliest example found? More relevant would be: Are there earlier astronomical tablets found that would be expected to reference the zodiac but don't? Such analysis makes a difference.
@markdzima If you watched the video you would have your answer. It is not as though the zodiac just appeared out of nowhere and you might wonder if it was earlier. We actually have a timeframe as it gradually develops from an early three paths of the gods with 17 consteallations in the ecliptic to a gradual rearrangement that brings it down to 12. The major impetus is when they begin keeping diaries of the night sky rather than more general observations that begins about 750 BC.
@markdzima As I stated in the video, there is not any serious current scholar in this field who seriously doubts the zodiac developed between 1000-500 BC in Babylon. We see its development in the tablets occur before our eyes by their own record until it reaches its final form at the end of that period. This was then taken up by others: the Greeks began using it shortly thereafter but the Egyptians did not until the Ptolemaic era.
He is an atheist so I obviously don't agree with everything he says but he has a lot of info on the development of the zodiac that covers most of the important info.
@labarum312 Thanks for the reference source page, but this is no answer to my request that you provide a modern authoritative reference that gives evidence and analysis that supports your claims re the age of the zodiac. Did you notice that he includes a lot of astronomy magazines in his bibliography (you've argued that such references aren't qualified). Including astronomy magazines as worthwhile sources, your claim that the age of zodiac is not in dispute is definitely false.
@markdzima I did give such sources above prior to this one but added this page since it gives a basic intro from a layman's point of view. It also does refer to numerous scholarly sources - not just astronomy magazines. Even with the astronomy magazines, it is one thing if the source quoted is someone whose expertise is in this field and something else entirely if it is not.
A hint about a possible astronomical connection with the twelve tribes comes from the connections of the tribes with Joseph and his brothers, and Joseph's dream of the sun and the moon and the eleven stars making obeisance to him. Another possible connection with constellations of the ecliptic might be the layout of the encampment of the 12 tribes in a ring around the tabernacle, like the constellations of the ecliptic around the axis mundi.
@markdzima You forget this was only one in a series of such dreams and the only one with an astronomical connection. In context, this dream was an interpretation of Joseph's future role in Egypt and not of any zodiacal association. Of course, out of context, you can make it anything you want. Similarly the ecampment of the tribes around the tabernacle centuries before the zodiac is developed in the ANE is for obvious reasons but once more can be made to mean anything out of context.
How is the fact that this dream is only one in a series of dreams and the only one with an astronomical connection important? It sounds like you are looking for any feeble excuse to avoid considering the point.
@markdzima The dream, like the one before it with the stalks of wheat, is written as prophetic of the fact that his family would one day bow before him - which occurs later in the story. Whether or not any of this ever really happened, the intent of the passage in context is obvious: Joseph would one day hold authority over his brethren. It has nothing to do with astrology any more than the previous dream had to do with horticulture.
Your argument seems to be that imagery is meaningless. The fact that you want it to be meaningless does not necessarily make it so. This is but a single point in a constellation of evidence (so to speak), a larger context which is hardly going to be able to get full presentation in the mode of YouTube comment boxes.
@markdzima I agree with the frustration of comment boxes but that is why video responses were invented. The problem with your claim is that it suffers from confirmation bias. You focus on the astronomical refernce in the passage and decide it is all about that when it is quite clear it is used as a metaphor for something else - the future power of Joseph. You also ignore the other dream because that does not fit your theory.
@markdzima One could do the same thing with astronomical metaphors in Shakespeare but iyou would be hard pressed to convince anyone Shakespeare was actually writing about precession.
You wrote: "In context, this dream was an interpretation of Joseph's future role in Egypt and not of any zodiacal association. Of course, out of context, you can make it anything you want." Again, you seem to be grasping at straws to avoid thinking. The question you should be pondering is: Why was the stellar imagery used? That is not explained in YOUR context. Also, you lay too much emphasis on the word "zodiacal", perhaps because you don't understand the astronomical concept.
@markdzima I would suggest you actually read the passage since it is interpreted in the very next verse. There is nothing really to argue about:
When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?”
@markdzima It appears you are the one grasping at straws. You are unable to allow the text to speak for itself but instead cherry-pick any verse that refers to the heavens and insist that is what everything is about. Why nort focus instead on the previous dream with the stalks of wheat bowing down and decide its all about growing grain or use the countless other types of metaphors in the Bible and conclude it is all about whatever was used. If you ignore the context, all you have is pretext.
You aren't well enough informed to realize the proper context. If you were aware of the history of ancient cities, temples, etc. being laid out to reflect ancient ideas of cosmology, then you would know the proper context by which to consider the symbolism of the arrangement of the encampments of the 12 tribes around the tabernacle. Your idea of context is limited, and you presume that you know all there is to know about relevant context rather than be humble enough to ask.
@markdzima The difference is I make no assumptions about the text that are not contained in the texts or its surrounding culture. You have read concerns of Greco-Roman late antiquity into a text from another culture prior to that period.
@labarum312 You make the mistake (1) of confusing the probable date of the writing of the relevant passages with the time depicted in them, and (2) confusing the constellations (or stars) of the ecliptic with the "zodiac" per se. Even if we accept your date for the origin of the classical zodiac, this refers only to certain symbolic representations. The concept of dividing up the ecliptic into 12 parts would be as old as man recognizing there are roughly 12 full moons and 12 new moons yearly.
@markdzima I mentioned this in the video. I stated one could, for example, calculate precession using any relational system (say, for example, decans) although we have no evidence this was done. However, the particular view I was addressing specifically uses the associated signs of the zodiac with a bull age, a ram age, a fish age, etc. Without Taurus, Aries, Pisces, that all becomes quite meaningless.
For such questions as whether the 12 tribes were depicted circled around the tabernacle as a depiction of cosmology, classical astrology isn't necessary. 12 was a crucial number: "If one tribe were to withdraw from the union or to be absorbed into another, the number 12 would be preserved, either by splitting one of the remaining tribes into two or by accepting a new tribe into the union." (Jewish Virtual Library). Context may be amphictyony modeled on cosmology as with Greece.
I read through a writing by E. Raymond Capt some time ago. And even though he murdered some prophetic verses in the Bible, he seemed to be making some sense. I became aware of that book by Capt because Dr. Gene Scott was teaching on it.
@labarum312 does this vid have some to do with that there are some using star and planet alignments to predict when Jesus will rapture people, and that Revelation 12 was fulfilled? For example I found a couple vids from this lady debunking this stuff. It almost sounds like what your talking about here watch?v=uxL203L3iYA watch?v=4oH_i2L-7WU It seems some are trying to tie all this into the Jewish feasts, Tetrads, and the Zodiak. They call it though the Mazzaroth.
I think you should take on some users. As I think there are good users who are on the otherside superfly, trurth surge botiof whom have done videos that seem better then certain users god aImighty and voiceofreason.I would love you do responses to them because they have read scholarly sources. So i dont think you should abandon responses in gneral just ones to waste of times like princelordchris and all those lot.
@labarum312 you never did explain how for thousands of years churches have been complete spitting on gods laws in the bible. nearly all or way too many christian religions have pedophile problems, they don't seem to worried about covering them up, they don't seem to worry about god judging them, they continue their
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 Sometimes comments are so absurd they do not deserve the minimal respect accorded by an answer.
labarum312 1 month ago
@labarum312 so you canr aanswer aa simple q like why dozens of christian religions have pedo problems and etc, so you insult , wow what an intellectual champ. Too hard to point out a real rebuttal? What other excuse is tthere to explain all the pedo in the church and their complete lack of concern for man or godsjudgement?
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 How many times do I need to correct you? I have already done so on the history of the zodiac, the Pope Leo pseudoquote, the origin of Peter Joseph's ideas, and most recently the Gospel of Mark. I might andwer a comment in that video just to show everyone just how stupid you are. For now, you are a waste of my time and you are just out of here.
labarum312 1 month ago
@labarum312 all these vids and you never even got your facts straight about who wrote the text for Z. amazing and you talk and criticize others call them names and it turns out the master himself is ironically a hypocrit - just the church. yes they tell you not to kill, but its okay for them to sponsor genocide. wonder why they don't care about gods judgement?
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 The script for Zeitgeist was written by Peter Joseph. It was based upon the videos of a crackpot conspiracy theorist named Jordan Maxwell. Peter Joseph said so himself. He stated the whole film, partiucularly Parts 1 and 3, were a "walk through Maxwell's work" and that he "owed Maxwell a debt of gratitude." I even gave you the audio where Joseph said it! After the film was exposed as bogus, he later brought in Acharya S as an advisor for the final cut version.
labarum312 1 month ago
@labarum312 looks like you confused the new world order z stuff which I'll concede sound like Maxwell with the rreligious portion which is from murdoch.she has written many books on the topic, while Maxwell has none but appears tto have his own vid on astrotheology. Your answer is rather broad and wwithout seeing the vid of hismconfession I can't comment on exactly what he meant by a "A walk thru maxwells work". The vid I saw axtuslly says who wrote the religious portion.
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 Maxwell also did the same stuff you see in Zeitgeist on religion and Peter Joseph explicitly stated part 1 (Religion) and part 3 (Fed) were based on his work. Search for Maxwell's "Astrotheology" and his other stuff on religion and you will find everything you see in Part 1 of Zeitgeist.
labarum312 1 month ago
@labarum312 funny so sometimes the bible is metaphore but when the literal is inconvenient it becomes a metaphor... a bit like christians who say god hates homosexuals but they ignore the sabbath. its great when you pick and change the text and create another christian religion.. how, any thousands of christian variations are we up too now?
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 It's pretty obvious when something is a metaphor. The Bible is full of metaphors. So is most other pieces of anciet literature. When someone compares the grandeur or power of something, it is common to use something in nature as a reference point. It's not that hard to figure out. As for the Sabbath, if you had any familiarity with the NT, you would already realize your folly.
labarum312 1 month ago
@labarum312 sorry countless bible books use the same lang, about light=good dark=bad, jsus in the clouds etc. If one reads it as the suh in the clouds etc, there is no miracle but rather the author admiring nature and the power of the sun to warm up gibe light so plants and crwautres alike can grow and live. Take the ark of the covenant, supposedly if you touched it you died, and yet the bible itself says thenphillistinsntook it and now its lost, and they didnt die,
mPky1 1 month ago
@labarum312 so if I make the bible simple by understanding sun=light and good and feeds me by way nnature doesn't that make sense rather inventing all thisnotgher nonsense? Nowhere in mark does it say jesus died for our sins, nor does it say he was resurrected.that stuff was made up at a later stage of chrisitianity, just like santa, the easter bunny. No where does the bible say slavery is bad, christianity never banned it but rather gave authority and did it itself.
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 Are you just a troll or are really this clueless?? In Mark, Jesus states he will rise from the dead and ends with the empty tomb. Ummm ... guess the inference. And then Paul's letters, written long before Mark, spoke of Jesus' resurrection countless times. Your childish outbursts only illustrate your immaturity. Get an education and then come back when you grow up.
labarum312 1 month ago
@labarum312 look how poorly the bible is written, hundreds of different religions telling you incompatible tyhings about the bible. Why couldn't god keep it simple for u fools?so it was incorruptable? How is it possible that jjesus is not ,entioned by name or even directly in the OT? Plz don't tell me us=god +jesus, that's hardly proof. Somehow its easier to believe thejews that jesus was not the messiah or gods son.
mPky1 1 month ago
@labarum312 thanks for the childish insults, seems you can take the time to insult people and yet you almost never quote anything and take yourself to be some authority. I tried to verify your comments but as always they nearly are impossible to find, unlike my pouints of iew.
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 I have already pointed out all the citations you need to find out the history of the zodiacand that it was developed around 500 BC. Here it is again:
Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology (1994) 13-14; Koch-Westenholz, Mesopotamian Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial Divination (1995), 51-53; Jim Tester, History of Western Astrology (1987), 13-14; Herman Hunger & D. E. Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia (1999), 17.
labarum312 1 month ago
@mPky1 An scholarly history on the topic will contain the same information. Thus it is apparently fine for you who hasn't given one scholarly citation on the topic to call me a liar but not ok for me to respond with sarcasm at your own intellectual laziness. Do some real research first. You obviously haven't done so yet.
labarum312 1 month ago
@labarum312 eitehr way its quote evident from the greed, murder, pedophilia and general total disrespect for "gods" laws that the catholic and protestant church leaders and ministers that they have absolute no worries about gods punishment for their sins. I find it extraordinary that for centuries the churches continue with their evil and not once do they ever do "good". They will never be able to counter the past evil and blood on their hands - that is a fact and unarguable.
mPky1 1 month ago
@labarum312 so how did they introduce xmas on dec 25 if this was a totally new bad holiday. the same goes for easter. should not past and present christians reject these pagan days. btw the vatican is over a mithra site. you really should stop lying. its on wikipdia
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 If you want to know why Christmas is on 12/25 and Easter is in Spring, try something called research. And wikipedia is not research. Begin with Thomas Talley's "The Origins of the Liturgical Year." By the way, the first pagan celebration of 12/25 as the birthday of a sun god does not occur until 274 AD.
labarum312 1 month ago
@labarum312 You completely missed the point of my comment. What i was trying to say if xmas was completely pagan and obviously sun worship, how or why exactly did christians accept it back then, if they were squeeky clean. Again i never asked about the origins.
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 The first celebration by Christians using 12/25 actually preceded 274 by decades and for entirely different reasons.
labarum312 1 month ago
@labarum312 the first saturnallia is irrelevant, its obvious the choice of 25/12 is to match he winter solstice. So many if not all jewish festivals are agricultural/environmental in origin, easter=spring equinox and so on. Help Passover is named as ssuch bcause its when the sun passes over the eequator as it travels between its path. Early christians selected 25/12 because they knew christ is the sun. Look at the language etc light of the world etc it couldn't be simpler or plainer
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 First of all, Saturnalia was not 12/25. It ended a few days earlier. Second of all, the holiday we call "Easter" was not called such by Christians except in England. Everywhere else it was "Pascha."
labarum312 1 month ago
@mPky1 Easter or Pascha was not celebrated on the Spring Equinox. It was based on the early Spring Jewish holiday of Pascha (what we call Passover). This occurred on 14 Nissan in the Jewish calendar (which was lunar) where Nissan was the first spring month and months began on new moons.
labarum312 1 month ago
@mPky1 Since the month began on New Moons, the 14 of Nissan and Passover was a full moon. Since Nissan was the first month of Spring, it began on or after the Spring Equinox. Since the resurrection occurred the Sunday following 14 Nissan, the formula is the first sunday following the first full moon on or after the spring equinox. it is based on Passover - not a pagan holiday.
labarum312 1 month ago
@mPky1 As for the light of the world, it is something called a metaphor. Christ and/or God are also called rocks and fortresses in the Bible but one would hardly think they had architecture or geology in mind.
labarum312 1 month ago
@mPky1 When Christians began using that date in Carthage, it was not that big a deal with Roman pagans - that came later. When Roman pagans began using it, it became a sign of loyalty to Rome - their version of July 4. With Constantine's favor, it was quite clearly embraced for political reasons. There were half a dozen dates for Christ's birthday but that one gave a poltical advantage for Christians in establishing their postion.
labarum312 1 month ago
@labarum312 I fail to see the relevance of quoting 274AD as the origin of Saturnalia and how that is proof of anything. Nor do i understand what Tallys book contributes to your argument, what of interest did he say ? You really should write complete thoughts and if references. Not very scholarly or logical. Btw the moon landing was in 1969.
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 I mentioned Talley because he is an actual scholar who has written the definative work on the subject. But since you seem more interested in recycling the claims of conspiracy theorist crackpots rather than doing any real research by people who do understand the topic, I guess the suggestion was pointless.
labarum312 1 month ago
@labarum312 again you miss the point - what of interestdid talley say that backs/supports your immediate accompanying argument. Im not saying your cimpleetely wrong in all your points, but one mistake does not negate everything else. Why do you spend so much time with childish insults, waste those characters on elaborating your quote and what is wrong with me oor other.
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 Everything Talley said is in my video on Easter: /watch?v=jRji0aklUYc. If I have written something and it includes sources, I am under no obligation to rewrite it in Youtube comments. Particularly when none of the stuff is terribly surprising to anyone who has bothered to do a mininum of factchecking.
labarum312 1 month ago
@mPky1 It wasn't the first Saturnalia. That is not on 12/25. But it hardly gives a basis for Christianity to be "copying other gods" on this point when no other gods had that date as their birthday.
labarum312 1 month ago
@mPky1 Given the Vatican is built a former cemetary and necropolis as well as other Roman buildings, it is not surprising that among the things excavated was a Mithraeum. They were all over the place in Rome. But it is not as though that is why they put the Vatican there. St. Peter's was built over the alleged burial spot of St. Peter and the surrounding area was seized to construct a large complex. If wikipedia citations are what you call research, then you are out of your league.
labarum312 1 month ago
@derekhowardm even the pope Leo x admitted jesus was a myth. many catholic positions are astrological terms, cardinal, de an,minister etc. @labarum312
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 You are truly an idiot. This supposed quote was part of a WORK OF FICTION. It was written by a Protestant satirist to attack the pope. It is not a real quote. Any other nonsense you need me to correct??
labarum312 1 month ago
@labarum312 Give me proof it was a work of fiction, here again you go with making quotes and statements that nobody knows and without references. I notice you completely ignore the sun iconography, astrological dates etc connected with the catholic church.
mPky1 1 month ago
@mPky1 The quote comes from John Bale's satire "The Pageant of the Popes" which was an anti-Catholic tirade by a Protestant polemicist. Thus I have just had to explain where YOUR quote came from since you obviously did not know it yourself.
labarum312 1 month ago
It is an exquisite pleasure watching an entire movement get destroyed by a guy lounging in a Myrtle Beach T-shirt
DerekHowardM 5 months ago 8
"Zeitgeist" (which is crap) and the silly people you rightly deride are not the only people associating Jesus with the precession of the equinoxes, as you should well know as you are familiar with Ulansey. Ulansey has been published in serious journals such as "Scientific American" and the "Journal of Biblical Literature".
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima But Ulansey does not associate Jesus with precession but Mithras. Moreover, as I pointed out in the video, Ulansey was aware of the Bablylonian discoveies, credits Hiparchus with the discovery of precession, and notes that under the system then used (Babylonian System B), the "Age of Pisces" would not begin until about 900 A.D. - thus making Jesus about a milliennia too early for any "Age of Pisces."
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312
Ulansey brings Christian imagery into the discussion in his articles in both of the journals I mentioned above (although not explicitly making the precession of the equinoxes argument). I expect that the agument will be made more explicit in his upcoming book, "The Other Christ: The Mysteries of Mithras and the Origins of Christianity".
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima That book was published in 2005 and it didn't. I do think Ulansey's website does need some updating.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312 Thanks for letting me know about that, I looked for it under Ulansey's name on Amazon and it didn't come up, but just now tried again under the title and see that it is out of print and hard to find. But now that I know it is published (thank you) I can try to track it down.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima I should have pointed out that Ulansey refers to ROMAN Mithraism only. The Roman version was a Hellenistic mystery religion bearing no resemblance to the Persian form of the god.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312
I'm well aware that we are talking about a Roman and not a Persian Mithraism.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima I'm glad you are but understand that I cannot assume that to be the case. In any case, the factors of astrology in late antiquty means the sun was still rising under Aries in their system - thus undemining the common representation of Jesus as the deity for an "Age of Pisces." See Ulansey here:
well.com/~davidu/appendix3.html
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312
I don't believe in astrology. As a justification for the founding of a religion the timing would be expected to be opportunistic, I think. The common man would have no notion of the exact timing, and as Ulansky points out that there are different ways by which the timing could be calculated anyway. It isn't set in stone. We've "New Age" movements and talk of the dawning of the Age of Aquarius today independent of exact time considerations.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima As far as I know the first mention of the Age of Aquarius was in the nineteenth century. While the Roman Mithraists likely observed the change from Taurus to the Aries (under BSB) and would have realized there would be future changes, there is no indication they ever developed a full blown theory of the ages. It may be the concern of some modern commentators, but it just does not appear to be their concern.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312
Considering that Mithraism was a "mystery" (i.e. its doctrines were to be kept secret) and we have no surviving written accounts of their beliefs, just iconography, there is not much value in your statement that "there is no indication they ever developed a full blown theory of the ages." But considering that they valued antiquity enough to pretend to date back to ancient Persian religion, it would be amazing for them not to cast their beliefs in an ancient context.
markdzima 5 months ago
Here's something that I'd think they'd say if they viewed this video. "It's a pile of dust, huh? Well you haven't even dealt with our arguments and evidence!" I could totally see that as a response. You have to admit, they have quite an imagination. It engulfs their lives so much that they have to make films and books about it and try to pass it off as truth. It sounds to me like they should be in an insane asylum if they believe in an alternate reality.
seinfan9 5 months ago
LOL@Moses=Ares/Golden Calf=Taurus. Hell, I'm not even a Christian or Jew, and even I have to facepalm at that one. XD
GodoftheMagic8Ball 5 months ago
@GodoftheMagic8Ball Wait until you get to the house servant as Aquarius. ;>)
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312 lmao, that seemed random as hell, I mean geez, would they use Jonathan shooting the arrows for David as a symbol of Sagittarius? Cuz that's how much of a fudge this seems to me.
GodoftheMagic8Ball 5 months ago
@GodoftheMagic8Ball Well, Acharya S once wrote about supposed traditions of Jesus being born in a stall between a horse and a goat and claimed this was Sagittariius (I guess the horse part of the centaur) and Capricorn. Of course, the traditions were medieval and were actually an ox and a sheep. I'm not making this up ... really ... honest.
labarum312 5 months ago
"Former" mathematics major? Did you pursue another major? In fact, I'm not sure if you've already answered this here on your channel, but what is your educational & occupational background, if you don't mind sharing?
GodoftheMagic8Ball 5 months ago
@GodoftheMagic8Ball I was a mathematics major who, like many in that area, dropped out to make money during the IT boom and never went back (the IT field was largely populated by college dropouts until recently).
labarum312 5 months ago
Yo, atheist here.
I made it (thus far) to over an hour. You are rambling and could IMO present the subject matter much better, but I concur.
However, how do you explain the creation week and the twelve tribes? That still sounds pretty astrotheologically to me.
I might have had this question answered in the next three quarters of an hour, in which case I humbly apologize.
*logging off*
deemzje 5 months ago
@deemzje I am not sure why the creation week (seven days) would be connected to astrology. At least the twelve tribes use twelve but so do a dozen donuts or eggs and again it precedes the use of the zodiac. If you wanted to make an argument for some astronomical connection, the twelve months (which precede the zodiac by millennia) might make more sense but it is more likely to be a mere coincidence. Any number would be significant to some ancient society in some way.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312 The first part seems easy, as there are 4 weeks in a lunar month,and I think they had them back then.
For the second part, twelve lunar months might be spot-on. It might not be zodiacal, and it might not comprise an entire solar year, but why couldn't it be their time-reckoning? I'm pretty sure they didn't know donuts back then.
For the last part, I'm pretty sure none would divide a year into just one part.
This is all just an opinion, I'm no expert.
*should be asleep right now*
deemzje 5 months ago
@labarum312
It helps to have an understanding of ancient astronomy in order to understand numbers that are significant for it. The number 7 relates to the 7 "planets" (they counted sun and moon as such) visible with the naked eye. If I recall correctly, Josephus confirms this as a significance of the number 7 in the symbolism of the temple. In our names of the days of the week there is still evidence of "planets" seen in the names Sunday, Monday (Moon-day), and Saturday (Saturn-day)
markdzima 5 months ago
@labarum312
You are mistaken about the age of the zodiac not being in dispute. I have an astronomy magazine with an article arguing a case for a much more ancient zodiac.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima There are always various attempts to paint the zodiac using such things as the caves in France, etc. but all of these fail. The problem with relying on an astronomy magazine is the same as relying on a history magazine's opinion on astronomy: it is out of their field of expertise. It is a simple fact of history that the zodiac developed in the first millennium BC in Babyion. (cont'd)
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312 Those who dispute this are simply unfamiliar with the evidence complied by Assyriologists over the last century and are largely basing their views on conejcture. Yet, as I pointed out in the video, even if there were some neolithic zodiac (which is certainly possible although unlikely), it does not help Murdock and the Zeitgeist claims since there was clearly no use of it in the Ancient Near East prior to the development by the Babylonians about 500 B.C.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312
I've already said that Zeitgeist is crap, and the "silly people" I referred to include Murdock, so you can leave them out of our discussion.
markdzima 5 months ago
@labarum312 It was a "simple fact of history" for 70 years of scholarship that Mithraism in Rome derived from Persia, but now that is no longer "a simple fact of history". It turned out Mithraism was essentially Roman. The guy who made that erroneous claim that was deemed so certain for so long was Franz Cumont. Can you guess the name of the authority for the time frame you like for the origin of astrology? Did you guess the same Franz Cumont?
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima Actually the current timeframe for the zodiac and astrology was established not by Cumont but by Franz Xaver Kugler and his study of the cuneiform tablets. Whether Cumont might have agreed or even guessed as much is irrelevant since that is not what lies at the basis of current scholarly opinion. It is the writings of the Babylonian astrologers themselves.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312
For the matter of the influence in people's minds regarding the precession of the equinoxes, the date of Hipparchus (128 B.C.E.) bringing this idea out, and the timing of the first mention of Mithraism (67 B.C.E.) is timely for an influence upon nascent Christianity. The rending of the heavens is part of the precessional myth, which connects to Jesus's crucifixion: See Ulansey's "The Heavenly Veil Torn: Cosmic Symbolism in the Gospel of Mark" (cont'd)
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima (cont'd) What Ulansey failed to add (but I expect that he probably will in his next book on Christian origins) is that Jesus's crucifixion is, in the stories told in the Gospels, linked to the vernal equinox. The crucifixion is linked to Passover, and Passover was observed on the full moon of the vernal equinox. Thus the precession imagery in the Gospel of Mark, discussed by Ulansey, is also directly tied to the full moon of the vernal equinox.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima Actually, Passover was observed on the first full moon after the barley was observed as aviv (ripe). (See Leviticus) If after twelve months, the barley was not ripe again, they added an extra month. Since this usually occurred in early spring, it often followed the vernal equinox but not always and that was not what it was based upon until after the destruction of Jerusalem. I did a recent vid on "Explaining the Formula for Pascha (Easter)" on this topic.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312 What are the evidences for reliably fixing a date to that change?
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima Even into the second century there are records of messages sent out that the barley was not ripe in Jerusalem,etc. After the faiure of the Bar Kochba revolt, it is assumed the diaspora forced a change to calculating in the solar year. The same applied to Christians who substituted 14 Artemisios (April 6) for 14 Nissan in the East and came up with the formula now used (Sunday after first full moon on or after V. Equinox) in the West.
labarum312 5 months ago
@markdzima A lot of the details for this evolution are given in Talley's "The Origins of the Liturgical Year."
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312 Thanks for this source, I'll take a look at it. Does it say that this method of determining Passover was used by Jews far removed from Palestine (such as those who lived in Rome)?
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima It mentions those in Jerusalem were in contact with those elsewhere (we know they had strong contact with the Jewish scholars in Babylon) but notes the impracticality of this setup as the Jews were dispersed and that different practices may have evolved in different locales before more unity was developed among the rabbis.
labarum312 5 months ago
@markdzima I have read Ulansey's article and he does not even mention precession. He is speaking strictly of the concept of the veil being rent related to the sky being rent and refers to another article wherein the context is quite clearly within Second Temple Judaism. The "precessional myth" is a creation of some modern New Agers but was hardly existent in that detail among those of late antiquity.
labarum312 5 months ago
@markdzima Ulansey never once mentions precession in the article at all and never infers it has any connection to the topic. I would also point out again the book on Christian origins was released in 2005 and it also makes no connection between Christianity and precession.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312 You wrote: "The problem with relying on an astronomy magazine is the same as relying on a history magazine's opinion on astronomy: it is out of their field of expertise." This opinion of yours, a rather dubious argument from authority by the way, does not make it legitimate for you to claim that there are no disputes.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima What I stated in the video is there are no disputes among experts in this field - and there aren't. There may be those outside the field who are just not aware of the evidence and this is forgivable but does not mean their opinion holds the same weight. More importantly, as I pointed out in the video, even if their were some neolithic zodiac somewhere, it obviously had no legs since the Babylonians had to develop it anew.
labarum312 5 months ago
@markdzima The above (Bablylonian development) is the key point for discussing whether earlier gods (Horus, Persian Mithra, etc) were based on the zodiac. There is no evidence any other culture in the region used the zodiac prior to the Babylonians who developed it over many centuries (~10000-500 BC). Without any such evdience the assertion of a "precessional myth," no matter what the source, is itself a myth.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312 You wrote: "The above (Babylonian development) is the key point for discussing whether earlier gods (Horus, Persian Mithra, etc) were based on the zodiac." I never made any statements whatsoever about earlier Gods being based on the zodiac, nor Horus, nor Persian Mithra (except that Roman Mithraism isn't truly based on Persian Mithra, according to Ulansey). And your statement that a precessional myth requires an earlier zodiac is just silly: example of Mithraism, remember?
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima A "precessional myth" as opposed to the specific use of precession in one mythology (i.e., Mithraism) would requite some knowledge stretching back centuries. And, by the way, the example of Mithraism you cited DID use an earlier zodiac since it developed after the use of the zodiac and the discovery of precession and specifically used zodiacal imagery.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312 I was criticizing your statement: "There is no evidence any other culture in the region used the zodiac prior to the Babylonians who developed it over many centuries (~10000-500 BC). Without any such evdience the assertion of a "precessional myth," no matter what the source, is itself a myth."
Your response to my refutation does not make this argument of yours any less wrong.
markdzima 5 months ago
How about a current "authority" regarding the date of zodiacal origins. Not some "authority" one hundred years old either, as there are newer cuneiform findings and translations. I doubt that there is a dated tablet that says "Today we created the zodiac". Are we dealing with just a matter of what is the earliest example found? More relevant would be: Are there earlier astronomical tablets found that would be expected to reference the zodiac but don't? Such analysis makes a difference.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima How about:
Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology (1994) 13-14.
Koch-Westenholz, Mesopotamian Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial Divination (1995), 51-53.
Jim Tester, History of Western Astrology (1987), 13-14.
Herman Hunger & D. E. Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia (1999), 17.
I could go on but this should illustrate the point. All of these are experts in this area and this is not really a question under serious dispute.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312
Finally some references. I'll check them out.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima If you watched the video you would have your answer. It is not as though the zodiac just appeared out of nowhere and you might wonder if it was earlier. We actually have a timeframe as it gradually develops from an early three paths of the gods with 17 consteallations in the ecliptic to a gradual rearrangement that brings it down to 12. The major impetus is when they begin keeping diaries of the night sky rather than more general observations that begins about 750 BC.
labarum312 5 months ago
@markdzima As I stated in the video, there is not any serious current scholar in this field who seriously doubts the zodiac developed between 1000-500 BC in Babylon. We see its development in the tablets occur before our eyes by their own record until it reaches its final form at the end of that period. This was then taken up by others: the Greeks began using it shortly thereafter but the Egyptians did not until the Ptolemaic era.
labarum312 5 months ago
@markdzima You might want to check out this website:
members.westnet.com.au/gary-david-thompson/index1.html
He is an atheist so I obviously don't agree with everything he says but he has a lot of info on the development of the zodiac that covers most of the important info.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312 Thanks for the reference source page, but this is no answer to my request that you provide a modern authoritative reference that gives evidence and analysis that supports your claims re the age of the zodiac. Did you notice that he includes a lot of astronomy magazines in his bibliography (you've argued that such references aren't qualified). Including astronomy magazines as worthwhile sources, your claim that the age of zodiac is not in dispute is definitely false.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima I did give such sources above prior to this one but added this page since it gives a basic intro from a layman's point of view. It also does refer to numerous scholarly sources - not just astronomy magazines. Even with the astronomy magazines, it is one thing if the source quoted is someone whose expertise is in this field and something else entirely if it is not.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312
A hint about a possible astronomical connection with the twelve tribes comes from the connections of the tribes with Joseph and his brothers, and Joseph's dream of the sun and the moon and the eleven stars making obeisance to him. Another possible connection with constellations of the ecliptic might be the layout of the encampment of the 12 tribes in a ring around the tabernacle, like the constellations of the ecliptic around the axis mundi.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima You forget this was only one in a series of such dreams and the only one with an astronomical connection. In context, this dream was an interpretation of Joseph's future role in Egypt and not of any zodiacal association. Of course, out of context, you can make it anything you want. Similarly the ecampment of the tribes around the tabernacle centuries before the zodiac is developed in the ANE is for obvious reasons but once more can be made to mean anything out of context.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312
How is the fact that this dream is only one in a series of dreams and the only one with an astronomical connection important? It sounds like you are looking for any feeble excuse to avoid considering the point.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima The dream, like the one before it with the stalks of wheat, is written as prophetic of the fact that his family would one day bow before him - which occurs later in the story. Whether or not any of this ever really happened, the intent of the passage in context is obvious: Joseph would one day hold authority over his brethren. It has nothing to do with astrology any more than the previous dream had to do with horticulture.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312
Your argument seems to be that imagery is meaningless. The fact that you want it to be meaningless does not necessarily make it so. This is but a single point in a constellation of evidence (so to speak), a larger context which is hardly going to be able to get full presentation in the mode of YouTube comment boxes.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima I agree with the frustration of comment boxes but that is why video responses were invented. The problem with your claim is that it suffers from confirmation bias. You focus on the astronomical refernce in the passage and decide it is all about that when it is quite clear it is used as a metaphor for something else - the future power of Joseph. You also ignore the other dream because that does not fit your theory.
labarum312 5 months ago
@markdzima One could do the same thing with astronomical metaphors in Shakespeare but iyou would be hard pressed to convince anyone Shakespeare was actually writing about precession.
labarum312 5 months ago
You wrote: "In context, this dream was an interpretation of Joseph's future role in Egypt and not of any zodiacal association. Of course, out of context, you can make it anything you want." Again, you seem to be grasping at straws to avoid thinking. The question you should be pondering is: Why was the stellar imagery used? That is not explained in YOUR context. Also, you lay too much emphasis on the word "zodiacal", perhaps because you don't understand the astronomical concept.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima I would suggest you actually read the passage since it is interpreted in the very next verse. There is nothing really to argue about:
When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?”
Later in the story that is exactly what happened.
"
labarum312 5 months ago
@markdzima It appears you are the one grasping at straws. You are unable to allow the text to speak for itself but instead cherry-pick any verse that refers to the heavens and insist that is what everything is about. Why nort focus instead on the previous dream with the stalks of wheat bowing down and decide its all about growing grain or use the countless other types of metaphors in the Bible and conclude it is all about whatever was used. If you ignore the context, all you have is pretext.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312
You aren't well enough informed to realize the proper context. If you were aware of the history of ancient cities, temples, etc. being laid out to reflect ancient ideas of cosmology, then you would know the proper context by which to consider the symbolism of the arrangement of the encampments of the 12 tribes around the tabernacle. Your idea of context is limited, and you presume that you know all there is to know about relevant context rather than be humble enough to ask.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima The difference is I make no assumptions about the text that are not contained in the texts or its surrounding culture. You have read concerns of Greco-Roman late antiquity into a text from another culture prior to that period.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312 You make the mistake (1) of confusing the probable date of the writing of the relevant passages with the time depicted in them, and (2) confusing the constellations (or stars) of the ecliptic with the "zodiac" per se. Even if we accept your date for the origin of the classical zodiac, this refers only to certain symbolic representations. The concept of dividing up the ecliptic into 12 parts would be as old as man recognizing there are roughly 12 full moons and 12 new moons yearly.
markdzima 5 months ago
@markdzima I mentioned this in the video. I stated one could, for example, calculate precession using any relational system (say, for example, decans) although we have no evidence this was done. However, the particular view I was addressing specifically uses the associated signs of the zodiac with a bull age, a ram age, a fish age, etc. Without Taurus, Aries, Pisces, that all becomes quite meaningless.
labarum312 5 months ago
@labarum312
For such questions as whether the 12 tribes were depicted circled around the tabernacle as a depiction of cosmology, classical astrology isn't necessary. 12 was a crucial number: "If one tribe were to withdraw from the union or to be absorbed into another, the number 12 would be preserved, either by splitting one of the remaining tribes into two or by accepting a new tribe into the union." (Jewish Virtual Library). Context may be amphictyony modeled on cosmology as with Greece.
markdzima 5 months ago
I'm disappointed that by the producers over at the History Channel who have been giving some of these conspiracy nuts a lot of positive coverage.
rofyle 5 months ago 5
HAHAHAHA That Abram thing had me rolling on the floor laughing.
gambleor 5 months ago
How about YT user Xoroaster's take on it? Have you had time to have a look at that yet?
wimsweden 5 months ago
@codegoddard :P <3
machwon 5 months ago
I read through a writing by E. Raymond Capt some time ago. And even though he murdered some prophetic verses in the Bible, he seemed to be making some sense. I became aware of that book by Capt because Dr. Gene Scott was teaching on it.
CreatorsKid 5 months ago
The Venus Project = Repackaged Atlantis
watch?v=tCWwCN2pz_Q
DrMarioBrotha1 5 months ago
@labarum312 does this vid have some to do with that there are some using star and planet alignments to predict when Jesus will rapture people, and that Revelation 12 was fulfilled? For example I found a couple vids from this lady debunking this stuff. It almost sounds like what your talking about here watch?v=uxL203L3iYA watch?v=4oH_i2L-7WU It seems some are trying to tie all this into the Jewish feasts, Tetrads, and the Zodiak. They call it though the Mazzaroth.
peacebygrace 5 months ago
THIS MOVIE DOESN'T HAVE FLASHY ANIMATIONS OR XYLOPHONE MUSICS, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID!
machwon 5 months ago
I think you should take on some users. As I think there are good users who are on the otherside superfly, trurth surge botiof whom have done videos that seem better then certain users god aImighty and voiceofreason.I would love you do responses to them because they have read scholarly sources. So i dont think you should abandon responses in gneral just ones to waste of times like princelordchris and all those lot.
bossman103 5 months ago
The entire Zeitgeist film was complete garbage.
Ga5524 5 months ago 2