The Bible and the Zodiac

[Nefelie]

...Thats just a theory...

I absolutely agree with you

Not to mention that, during ancient times, the so called “Holy Books” of each religion, served multiple purposes: spiritual, moral, social, posing laws, and -most importantly- educational.

Consider this: for many ages, the children (of those who could afford education) were being taught history, philosophy and sciences from just one book: the sacred one of their religion. How else would that be possible if not with multiple layers in the document?

As for those who couldn’t afford education, they were taught orally, with myths. Hence all the layers in myths as well

.

 

[Quagmire]

Below is the scorpio eagle info

http://thezodiac.com/eagle2.htm

Trying to incorporate Native American symbology into classical astrology in order to reinterpret Judaeo/Christian tradition . . .

Like I said, very creative.

 

[Nefelie]

Trying to incorporate Native American symbology into classical astrology in order to reinterpret Judaeo/Christian tradition . . .
Like I said, very creative.

It's not just Native American symbology. It is also ancient Egyptian and Babylonian (which is probably the actual origin of the connection for Ezakiel).
The Eagle is the higher expression of the Scorpio.
To understand that read this and this and this and I've got more if these are not enough

.

 

[Walter Russell]

Trying to incorporate Native American symbology into classical astrology in order to reinterpret Judaeo/Christian tradition . . .

Like I said, very creative.

Maybe the ancient Arabic or Egyptian association will be more to your liking in the link below.

Now would you like toaddress Jesus as the clear Sun of god and not Son of god per the evidence i've posted?

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/astrologicalmusings/2006/11/the-scorpion-the-eagle-and-the.html

 

[Nefelie]

Maybe the ancient Arabic or Egyptian association will be more to your liking in the link below.

We posted the same link! hahaha...

 

[Walter Russell]

We posted the same link! hahaha...

Lol, I didn't even know you had posted when I replied

 

[GoodbyeDave]

It's not just Native American symbology. It is also ancient Egyptian and Babylonian (which is probably the actual origin of the connection for Ezekiel). The Eagle is the higher expression of the Scorpio.

If you look at the Babylonian sources, you see that the Scorpion is just that. They did have a constellation called the Eagle, which is the one we still use, translated into Latin: Aquila. As for the Egyptians, their constellations included an ape and a sheep, but no eagles. The eagle association comes via Ezekiel, but Israel was not notable for astrology.

 

[Walter Russell]

If you look at the Babylonian sources, you see that the Scorpion is just that. They did have a constellation called the Eagle, which is the one we still use, translated into Latin: Aquila. As for the Egyptians, their constellations included an ape and a sheep, but no eagles. The eagle association comes via Ezekiel, but Israel was not notable for astrology.

Israel was very well versed in astrology.

Astrology runs throughout both the OT and NT. Its unreasonable that anyone would deny it in light of the over whelming evidence.

Below is yet another link tying scorpio to the eagle.

https://mesocosm.net/2011/12/22/the-tetramorph-the-sumerian-origins-of-a-christian-symbol/

 

[Quagmire]

Maybe the ancient Arabic or Egyptian association will be more to your liking in the link below.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/astrologicalmusings/2006/11/the-scorpion-the-eagle-and-the.html

All that site is doing is agreeing with you (or visa-versa) it doesn't actually verify -- or even explain --- anything other than an opinion.

And there's nothing there suggesting that there was any sort of perceived astrological connection between the scorpion and the eagle according to Arabic or Egyptian astrology. All the author is doing is suggesting that the two were symbolic of what he believes to be complementary traits, which is completely subjective.

To go from that to claiming that the eagle and scorpion are universally interchangeable representatives of the same sign is quite a reach.

Now would you like toaddress Jesus as the clear Sun of god and not Son of god per the evidence i've posted?

Let's deal with this first.

 

[Walter Russell]

All that site is doing is agreeing with you (or visa-versa) it doesn't actually verify -- or even explain --- anything other than an opinion.

And there's nothing there suggesting that there was any sort of perceived astrological connection between the scorpion and the eagle according to Arabic or Egyptian astrology. All the author is doing is suggesting that the two were symbolic of what he believes to be complementary traits, which is completely subjective.

To go from that to claiming that the eagle and scorpion are universally interchangeable representatives of the same sign is quite a reach.



Let's deal with this first.

Ok I just reposted the last link as my previous post. Take the time and read it.

You are choosing to focus on 1 small part of this entire thread just because it isn't that well known although Nefelie and I have posted link after link. How about you start providing some evidence that refutes the association. If not than I'd say your rebuttal has no standing.


https://mesocosm.net/2011/12/22/the-tetramorph-the-sumerian-origins-of-a-christian-symbol/

 

[Quagmire]

Ok I just reposted the last link as my previous post. Take the time and read it.

You mean waste more time looking for something that isn't actually there. I just did, but that's the last time I'm gong to do that.

You are choosing to focus on 1 small part of this entire thread just because it isn't that well known although Nefelie and I have posted link after link. How about you start providing some evidence that refutes the association. If not than I'd say your rebuttal has no standing.


https://mesocosm.net/2011/12/22/the-tetramorph-the-sumerian-origins-of-a-christian-symbol/

You keep posting links that don't actually address your point, let alone verify it. Are you actually reading them before you post them?

You are choosing to focus on 1 small part of this entire thread just because it isn't that well known although Nefelie and I have posted link after link. How about you start providing some evidence that refutes the association. If not than I'd say your rebuttal has no standing.

Asking me to prove a negative. OK, as evidence I'll submit that fact that so far there's been absolutely nothing posted to substantiate the point you're trying to make.

What we're debating here is whether or not the eagle was ever used as the representative symbol for the sign of Scorpio in classical astrology. Not whether there's some symbolic cross-over between the two across the whole spectrum of human mythology.

 

[Walter Russell]

You mean waste more time looking for something that isn't actually there. I just did, but that's the last time I'm gong to do that.



You keep posting links that don't actually address your point, let alone verify it. Are you actually reading them before you post them?



Asking me to prove a negative. OK, as evidence I'll submit that fact that so far there's been absolutely nothing posted to substantiate the point you're trying to make.

What we're debating here is whether or not the eagle was ever used as the representative symbol for the sign of Scorpio in classical astrology. Not whether there's some symbolic cross-over between the two across the whole spectrum of human mythology.

You are clearly the one who's not reading. Its ok though, I understand.

When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest.

 

[Quagmire]

You are clearly the one who's not reading. Its ok though, I understand.

Looks like you have a whole bunch invested in not understanding, but that's OK, I understand.

When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest.

You should make that your signature. That way you could look at it every time you post. Maybe something will click at some point.

 

[Nefelie]

What we're debating here is whether or not the eagle was ever used as the representative symbol for the sign of Scorpio in classical astrology

What would qualify for you as proof of that connection?

We already gave you links about it (did you see the others I posted?) and I can ask you to ask any astrologer about this to confirm what we say. If those are not enough, what is? Maybe we can provide the proof you need.

.

 

[Walter Russell]

Looks like you have a whole bunch invested in not understanding, but that's OK, I understand.



You should make that your signature. That way you could look at it every time you post. Maybe something will click at some point.

Its ok, you can be mad. It doesn't change the truth. Evidence abounds showcasing Christianities theatrical story telling of the sun and its journey across the heavens. Too bad it can't even claim to be the first.

You want to tell me next that the other 3 fixed point faces don't refer to their signs either? Or that Da Vinci's painting is purely coincidental? Or that anything else in the thread is mistaken?

I'd love to see you give it an earnest effort.

 

[Quagmire]

What would qualify for you as proof of that connection?

I'm just looking for something with clear-cut examples showing that the Eagle has been used to represent the sign on Scorpio in classical astrology, not just somebody saying that it has been. That doesn't mean anything.

We already gave you links about it (did you see the others I posted?) and I can ask you to ask any astrologer about this to confirm what we say. If those are not enough, what is? Maybe we can provide the proof you need.

.

I've already read through the links the OP provided, none of which addressed what we're talking about.

And anyway, just posting links with miles of text and telling the people you're debating with to go search through it all and see if they can pin-point something relevant to the conversation isn't how this works. It's bad manners even when there's actually something relevant there. It's something worse than bad manners when it's just a wild goose chase.

If there actually is something somewhere in any of these links that demonstrates the point being discussed, it shouldn't be too hard to isolate it from the rest of the text and post it here in a breif paragraph or two.

 

[Quagmire]

Its ok, you can be mad. It doesn't change the truth. Evidence abounds showcasing Christianities theatrical story telling of the sun and its journey across the heavens. Too bad it can't even claim to be the first.

Which isn't actually what we're discussing. The fact that you're trying so hard to cloud the issue at this point pretty much wraps this one up.

You want to tell me next that the other 3 cardinal point faces don't refer to their signs either?

No, I want you to either address my objections or admit you can't.

Or that Da Vinci's painting is purely coincidental?

LOL! How'd Da Vinci get in this (Dan Brown? Is that you?)

Or that anything else in the thread is mistaken?

I'd love to see you give it an earnest effort.

At what? Humoring you. Sorry, if that's what you were looking for you probably shouldn't have posted this in a debate forum.

 

[Walter Russell]

Which isn't actually what we're discussing. The fact that you're trying so hard to cloud the issue at this point pretty much wraps this one up.



No, I want you to either address my objections or admit you can't.



LOL! How'd Da Vinci get in this (Dan Brown? Is that you?)



At what? Humoring you. Sorry, if that's what you were looking for you probably shouldn't have posted this in a debate forum.

Which isn't actually what we're discussing. The fact that you're trying so hard to cloud the issue at this point pretty much wraps this one up.



No, I want you to either address my objections or admit you can't.



LOL! How'd Da Vinci get in this (Dan Brown? Is that you?)



At what? Humoring you. Sorry, if that's what you were looking for you probably shouldn't have posted this in a debate forum.

So you didn't "actually" read the last link. Open the pdf, page 16 discusses the first Zodiac, Sumer 4400-2200 bc, in short states that the eagle was a royal constellation.
I can't give evidence as to how scorpio and the eagle became linked but if thats your focus than you've veered off topic.
The point of the thread is to show astrology in the bible. The Ezekiel reference was to show that the faces in Ezekiels vision are that of the constellations, which I have done.

 

[Quagmire]

So you didn't "actually" read the last link.

Yes, I did, and it doesn't say what you seem to think it does.

Open the pdf, page 16 discusses the first Zodiac, Sumer 4400-2200 bc,

Not seeing any pdf files on that page.

If you mean this: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JBAA..108....9R

Great: Now you're sending me to search through a huge link, trying to find another link, that will take me to more links that link to more links wash, rinse, repeat . . . .

The conversational equivalent of a Matryoshka doll.

in short states that the eagle was a royal constellation.
I can't give evidence as to how scorpio and the eagle became linked but if thats your focus than you've veered off topic.

Pointing out a perceived flaw in your argument is actually on-topic. Or did you mean that it's not allowed?

The point of the thread is to show astrology in the bible. The Ezekiel reference was to show that the faces in Ezekiels vision are that of the constellations, which I have done.

To your own satisfaction, which is apparently enough for you.

All you, or the author of this article did: https://mesocosm.net/2011/12/22/the-tetramorph-the-sumerian-origins-of-a-christian-symbol/ was take the symbols for the four zones of the sky from Sumerian astrology, super-impose them on a representation of Ezekiel's vision, and since in that context the eagle is where the scorpion should be, decided that they must be the same thing.

That's not going to impress anybody unless they already have their heart set on being impressed.

 

[Walter Russell]

Yes, I did, and it doesn't say what you seem to think it does.



Not seeing any pdf files on that page.

If you mean this: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JBAA..108....9R

Great: Now you're sending me to search through a huge link, trying to find another link, that will take me to more links that link to more links wash, rinse, repeat . . . .

The conversational equivalent of a Matryoshka doll.



Pointing out a perceived flaw in your argument is actually on-topic. Or did you mean that it's not allowed?



To your own satisfaction, which is apparently enough for you.

All you, or the author of this article did: https://mesocosm.net/2011/12/22/the-tetramorph-the-sumerian-origins-of-a-christian-symbol/ was take the symbols for the four zones of the sky from Sumerian astrology, super-impose them on a representation of Ezekiel's vision, and since in that context the eagle is where the scorpion should be, decided that they must be the same thing.

That's not going to impress anybody unless they already have their heart set on being impressed.

I'm sorry that you found it so difficult to get to the Harvard link I found it quite easy.

You've been given ample evidence. Your not debating anything, in fact you've stated nothing worth reading, you've given no counter. Your opinion isn't enough whats been presented.
You may be staff but at this point your just trolling, so until you post something worth responding to, i'll just disreguard you.