> This is a very thin thread.
That's because some people lack informative knowledge on the subject, so I disagree with you that the evidence is thin, and I have plenty more evidence to present...
> If there was any evidence that
> Jesus referred to astrology it would gain some credibility.
The book of Revelation was given to John by Christ and this book is full of astrological references... in respect to this, I would recommend that you read a book called "Meditations on the Apocalypse", by F. Aster Barnwell.
> As an admirer of most avatars in history, I have never seen
> anything that directly links Jesus to astrology, or any avatar
> to astrology as what they are doing is far too important.
Then you haven't looked hard enough... if you would like further links and resources, please let me know, but you may also find evidence of this in the discussion in the posts in this thread, started by a poster called Te Henua Nagual:
Twelve Jewels: Precessional Code
Personally, for the record, I don't regard Christ as a mere avatar, but that's another issue!
> To bring Jesus down to the level of promoting astrology seems
> almost blasphemy to me.
I disagree... Some commentators attempt to suggest that the stories of the Bible are merely based on man's observations of the Sun and the stars of heaven, but it's actually the other way round... There is astrology in the Bible but that doesn't mean the Bible is about Sun worship or that Jesus is a sun deity, in the Pagan sense.
It's true that there are even many more Zodiacal correlations to be found in the Bible than any mortal could even dream of but God created the Zodiac, so it's not surprising we find His archetypal design filtering down, through the Zodiac, to lay itself upon earth, in the archetypal stories that we're now familiar with!
The error comes with venerating the Creation rather than the Creator. The Zodiac is often used to cast a veil over the true spiritual Light that shines from above the material Sun and the stars and their respective metaphysical forces.
Be not blinded by the Sun and stars of the world, but rather perceive that which gives the Sun its glory, namely God, who resides far beyond our physical Sun, which is only one of billions in the Cosmos, and He created them ALL!
We're affected by the stars because they have energies, but the energies come primarily from God, who is above the stars.
The physical stars are located in the physical universe but their energies come from beyond time and space dimensions. Many of the stars, actually the celestial beings they represent, rebelled against God and fell and made themselves into gods, and so man worshipped the stars of heaven as gods, and in so doing, became misled. That's why today, astrologers can't be fully trusted. Their art has been corrupted by the fallen host of heaven.
The Zodiac that the 'illuminati' reveres is a mess. The spiritual stars of heaven are all messed up - and this messed up state of affairs, in the Zodiacal layer, is reflected down here on earth, where we find, lo and behold, that man's political governance of earth and their reflection of it in the stars, is also all messed up! That's why God says he shall bring in a new heavens and a new earth!
> The Bible is not a reliable source of
> anything anyway as too many people have had their fingers in
> the pie along the way.
You're welcome to your opinion but I disagree!
> To suggest this quote from Luke
> supports your age hypothesis that Jesus coincided near the
> beginning of the Pisces age remains unproven.
At the end of the day, we're discussing our opinions. I respect your opinions on the subject, although I personally disagree!
> Re … the advent of Christ did change the world, making it a
> more dynamic place.
> What support from non-Christians do you have for this sweeping
> generalisation? Unless a reasonable number of non-Christian
> historians etc support such a statement it also has no
I already went on to present why, IMO, how Christ changed the world and I'm sorry I omitted the word, "culture", but it's in that context I was writing.
> Re So much of our current civilisation has been influenced by
> what Christ said.
> You should have said “So much of our current western culture
> has been influenced by what Christ said.”
That's a very pedantic point because I took it as given that it was culture I was referring to.
> Islam now has more
> followers than Christianity. There is no doubt that Jesus was
> an influential person but just because he is the avatar of
> western culture does not make him the key influence to commence
> the Pisces age. Where does Mohammed sit? On a per capita
> basis, Mohammed has been more successful. Buddhists seem far
> closer to God than Christians.
Actually, Churchianity is still has the largest following in the world... 33% is a widely acknowledged figure, followed by Islam at 21%... Adherents.com
However, I do not follow any organised religion. I also would argue that Revelation prophesied that Babylon the Great, and the Churches of Christendom would begin loosing her adherents, hence her "rivers drying up", a process that is already happening in this apocalyptic period that we're now in, in the run up to Armageddon.
> You are obviously touched by Jesus but this is a subjective
> analysis that you have given. What group of influential or
> reputable historians, anthropologists or the like that will
> vouch that around the arrival of Jesus marked the end and start
> of a new epoch? The historians I have read indicate that
> around the 15th century AD and 8th century BC are the true
> epochal centuries. I can get support for this statement, can
> you get support to your statement that Jesus appeared near the
> start of an epoch? If so you have not revealed it.
2000 years ago is around the start of the precessional epoch, IMO, and I would also point out that you too can only offer your opinions based on the opinions of those you regard.
> Re “… for, behold, the Kingdom of God is within [among] you."
> - Luke 17:20-21
> Who put the `[among]’ in the above quote? This assumption
> totally destroys the statement. Jesus never said “The Kingdom
> of God is amongst you”, this is a total corruption of what he
> said and has a totally different meaning.
Because if you look at the actual texts, Strong's dictionary, for example, you'll find that the original expression used was "among" or "in your midst". It does also not have a totally different meaning but adds to the context of what Christ said. The kingdom of God is within, but only if it's recognised. It's not there by default, which is why Christ said that not everyone will enter into God's kingdom.
> Re The Israelites lived in the Age of Aries, depicted by the
> Ram, also known as the "Age of the Father".
> In my 30 years of studying this subject I have never seen the
> Aries age called the "Age of the Father". It makes absolutely
> no astrological sense as “father” is ruled by Capricorn. You
> are inventing your own form of astrology – it could be called
> astrology without limits.
That's your personal opinion, but if you have never heard of the Age of Father being referred to as the age of Aries, then you obviously haven't read widely enough on the subject! Neither have I said that God is ruled by any star sign. In respect to this, please review my notes on astrology and the Bible above.
> Re Following the "Age of the Father", the "Age of the Son"
> This is just some kind of personal invention or fantasy with no
> link to historical reality and definitely not to astrology.
I disagree and you're conveniently ignoring what else I wrote on the subject in the post you replied to in this thread!
> Good luck on your approach to the ages. Your approach is
> called Christology. There cannot be meaningful dialogue with
> a Christologist as it is like talking to someone who has
> concussion or amnesia. I was under the misunderstanding that
> this was a topic on the end of an age as part of the topic of
> ages, but it is a misrepresented front for Christology. You
> should link up with other Christologists as I doubt anyone else
> would be interested – also you never know, two wrongs may make
> a right.
> For us researchers looking for the truth re the ages, we like
> substantiation from people who are logical, clear headed and
> have facts to support their arguments. Opinions are a dime a
> dozen, delusions are a dime a ton. I have more meaningful
> requirements on my time to waste them on these speculative
I could turn around everything you wrote in your above two paragraphs to fit my opinion of your views and in deed that is what I would do because at the end of the day, your views are only your opinions too! If you want to run away from the discussion with your fantasies and your amnesia, so we'll just have to agree to disagree! ;)