Black Spirituality Religion : THE ORIGIN OF THE "VIRGIN BIRTH" CONCEPT...

Discussion in 'Black Spirituality / Religion - General Discussion' started by Aqil, Nov 12, 2002.

  1. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    Christians the world over still celebrate Christmas on December 25th, when astronomers and historians – both secular and ecclesiastical – unanimously agree that December 25th of the year 1 AD was NOT the authentic date of the birth of Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact, December 25, 1 AD is incorrect in regards to both the day and the year...

    The responsibility for this error lies at the door of the Scythian monk Dionysius Exiguus, who made several mistakes and miscalculations. He lived in Rome, and in the year 532 AD he was instructed to fix the beginning of the New Era by working back through the years. But he forgot the year 0, which should have been placed between the years 1 BC and 1 AD. He also overlooked the four years that the Roman Emperor Augustus had reigned under his own name, “Octavian.”

    The Biblical tradition gives us this clear indication: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king...” (Matt. 2:1). We know from numerous contemporary sources who Herod was, and when he lived and reigned. In 40 BC, Herod was designated King of Judea by the Romans. His reign ended with his death in 4 BC, therefore Jesus must have been born before 4 BC, as we shall see – but first, the real reason why December 25th was chosen as the birth date of Jesus Christ.

    (It should be said here, however, that the choosing of this date for the celebration of Christmas was purely astronomical in nature, and it would take a profound knowledge of astronomy and astrology to fully comprehend the cosmic and esoteric significance of Christmas.)

    December 25 is referred to in documents as Christmas Day in the year 354 AD for the first time. Under the Roman Emperor Justinian (ca. 527-565 AD), it was recognized as an official holiday. An old Roman festival played a major part in the choice of this particular day. In ancient Rome December 25th was the “Dies Natalis Invicti,” i.e., the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun”; the third day after the Winter Solstice, and, at the same time, the last day of the “Feast of Saturnalia,” which had long since degenerated into a week of unbridled carnivals, and therefore a time when the Christians could feel most safe from persecution. Here is its cosmic and esoteric significance:

    The Sun enters the sign Capricorn on the 21st of December. This is the lowest point of the Sun’s arc (i.e., 23°27' south declination). In other words, the Sun can go no further south. It is directly below the Earth (or in "Hell"). For three days (the 21st, 22nd and 23rd) he (the Sun or Savior) is stationary, or in darkness (crucified).

    And now it is Christmas Eve (the 24th); he (the Sun or Savior) begins to move, and at midnight on the 25th he is born, as the constellation Virgo rises in the eastern hemisphere of the Heavens (hence “born of a virgin”), and 1° Libra (the sign of peace) rises on the eastern horizon of the ecliptic, along the zodiac belt.

    The sign Capricorn thus becomes the “manger” in which the Sun (or Savior of the world) is born. This is the cosmic significance and the esoteric interpretation of the celebration of Christmas, or “Christ’s Mass,” i.e., the “Birth of the Sun” Mass...


    Whereas, according to the above, the Sun of God is born on December 25th of every year, Jesus Christ, the earthly son of God, was not born on this date. He was born on September 8, 7 BC, having been conceived around the time of the Winter Solstice in 8 BC. He was born under the astrological sign Virgo, which is another cosmic verification of the Biblical expression, “born of a virgin.”

    The “immaculate conception” myth was the result of some immaculate deception on the part of some of the Biblical translators, who developed the “virgin birth” idea by misinterpreting a prophecy made by the prophet Isaiah, who lived some 700 years before Jesus was born. The prophecy is found in Isaiah 7:14, which reads: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name “Immanuel.” The name “Immanuel” means “God be with us.” As the Bible abounds with occult knowledge, this verse is interpreted esoterically as follows:

    The only virgin that can bear a son and still remain a virgin is Virgo, the sign that gives birth to a sun every year between August 23rd and September 23rd.

    In his rabbinical writings, Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508), the great Jewish theologian and scholar, states that the ancient astrologers predicted the appearance of the Messiah when there was a conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn in the sign Pisces. Thus it is quite conceivable that the great prophet Isaiah, being skilled in the knowledge of astrology, knew that a great conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn would occur in Pisces – the astrological sign of the ancient Israelites – in 7 BC, the year of the birth of Jesus Christ...

    Astronomical records show that in the year 7 BC the planets Jupiter and Saturn formed exact conjunctions three times. Mathematical calculations further establish that these three great conjunctions were clearly visible in the eastern Mediterranean area. The brightness of the light of this great conjunction was the “star” the Biblical Wise Men (who were Chaldean astrologers) saw “in the first rays of dawn,” on the meridian over the city of Bethlehem in Palestine. Having no knowledge of astrology, the Biblical translators had to therefore conceive the “immaculate conception” myth...
     
  2. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    Astrological origins of Christmas...

    The only virgin that can bear a son and still remain a virgin is Virgo, the sign that gives birth to a sun every year between August 23rd and September 23rd...
     
  3. Destee

    Destee destee.com STAFF

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    34,787
    Likes Received:
    8,982
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Ratings:
    +9,680
    Myth???!!! Now you know these are fighting words! :uzi:

    Are you suggesting that Mary was not a virgin, that there was no immaculate conception??!!! :eeek:

    Defend This Position or Be Stoned! :)

    :heart:

    Destee
     
  4. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    Re: Destee's queries...

    As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, Destee, I will - before I proceed further on the subject - offer some other observations on the word “revelation,” as it relates to the subject at hand. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man...

    No one will deny or dispute the power of Almighty God to make such a communication – if He pleases. But admitting – for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and to revealed to any other, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it...

    It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him – and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me. And I have only his word for it that it was made for him...

    When I am told that a 14-year-old female called the “Virgin Mary” said that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not. Such a circumstance requires much stronger evidence than just their bare word for it. But we don’t even have this – for neither Mary or Joseph wrote of any such matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said so – it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence...

    Revelation is a communication of something that the person to whom that thing is revealed did not know before. For if I have done a thing, or seen it done, it needs no revelation to tell me I have done it, or seen it, nor to enable me to tell it, or to write it. Revelation, therefore, cannot be applied to anything done on Earth, of which man himself is the actor or witness; and consequently all the historical and anecdotal parts of the Bible – which is almost the whole of it – is not within the meaning and comprehension of the word “revelation,” and therefore is not the word of God...

    When Samson ran off with the gateposts of Gaza (if he ever did so), or when he visited his fabled Delilah, or caught his foxes, or did anything else, what has revelation to do with these things? If they were facts he could tell them himself, or his secretary – if he kept one – could write them, if they were worth either telling or writing; and if they were fiction, revelation could not make them true; and whether true or not, we are neither the better nor the wiser for knowing them...

    When we contemplate the immensity of the Creator of the Universe, who directs and governs the incomprehensible whole of His creation – of which the utmost perception of human sight can discover just a part – we ought to feel shame at calling such paltry stories the “word of God.”

    As to the account of the Creation, with which the Book of Genesis opens, it has all the appearance of being a tradition that the Jews had among them before they came into Egypt; and after their departure from that country they put it at the head of their history, without telling (as it is most probable) that they did not know how they came by it.

    The manner in which the account opens shows it to be traditional. It begins abruptly; it is nobody that speaks; it is nobody that hears; it is addressed to nobody; it has neither first, second, nor a third person; it has every criterion of being a tradition; it has no voucher. Moses does not take it upon himself by introducing it with the formality that he uses on other occasions, such as that of saying, “The Lord spake to Moses, saying...”

    Why it has been called the Mosaic account of Creation I am at a loss to conceive. Moses, I believe, was too good a judge of such subjects to put his name to that account. He had been educated among the Egyptians, who were a people well-skilled in science – particularly in astronomy – as any people of their day. And the silence and caution that Moses observes in not authenticating the account is good negative evidence that he neither told it nor believed it...

    The truth of the matter is that every nation of people has had their saviors of the world, and the Israelites had as much a right to set up the trade of saving the world as any of the rest...and since Moses was reared an Egyptian, he might have chose not to contradict the tradition. The account, however, is harmless; and this is more than can be said of many other parts of the Bible, including the fabled Book of Revelations...
     
  5. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    Re: Destee's queries...

    Continuing:

    The true word of God is the Creation we behold, and it is in this word - which no human invention can counterfeit or alter - that God speaks universally to man...

    Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of being used as a means of unchangeable and universal information. The idea that God sent Jesus Christ to publish, as they say, glad tidings to all nations - from one end of the world to the other - is consistent only with the ignorance of those who knew nothing of the extent of the world, and who believed - as all the saviors of the world believed - and continued to believe for several centuries - that the Earth was flat, and that man might walk to the end of it!

    But how was Jesus to make anything known to all nations? He could speak but two languages (Aramaic and Hebrew), and there are in the world several hundred languages. Scarcely any two nations - at that time - spoke the same language or understood each other; and as to translations, every man who knows anything about languages knows that it is impossible to translate from one language to another - not only without losing a great part of the original, but frequently of mistaking the sense. And besides all this, the art of printing was wholly unknown at the time Jesus lived...

    It is always necessary that the means that are to accomplish any end be equal to the accomplishment of that end...or the end cannot be accomplished. It is in this that the difference between finite and infinite power and wisdom discovers itself...

    Man frequently fails in accomplishing his ends - from a natural inability of the power to the purpose - and frequently from the want of wisdom to apply power properly. But it is impossible for infinite power and wisdom to fail as man fails. The means it uses are always equal to the end...

    But human language - especially since there is no universal language - is incapable of being used as a universal means of unchangeable and uniform information, and therefore it is not the means that God uses in manifesting Himself universally to man...

    It is only in the Creation that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaks an universal language, indendent of human speech or human language, as various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original that every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered and it cannot be suppressed.

    The Creation does not depend on the will of man as to whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the world to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know God...

    Do we want to comtemplate God's power? We see it in the immensity of the Creation. Do we want to contemplate His wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate His munificence? We see it in the abundance with which He fills the earth. Do you want to contemplate His mercy? We see it in His not withholding that abundance, even from the ungrateful...

    Do we want to know who God is? Search not the book called the Scripture, which any human hand might make, but the Scripture called God's Creation...
     
  6. Omowale Jabali

    Omowale Jabali The Cosmic Journeyman PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    21,179
    Likes Received:
    9,463
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Creative Industrialist
    Location:
    Temple of Kali, Yubaland
    Ratings:
    +9,585
    2012


    What happens when both the Sun and Pluto enter Capricorn and can go no further South?
     
  7. Angela22

    Angela22 Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    6,583
    Likes Received:
    2,894
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +3,317

    If one searches deep, they can find even more which proves the virgin birth, but I'd think one wanting salvation from the One who cleanses us all of sins by His sacrifice upon the tree, and the One who guides us to redemption after His resurrection from the dead the 3rd and His Ascension to the Father's Right Hand, would be enough for one to believe and show faith in that which is read in the Bible, to start. The great compassion and love shown, the truth which is revealed, is all so very worthy of our trust in the KING and more.

    The Son is of the Father on High, and not of men, so I think it can be understood why a virgin would birth our Savior.
     
Loading...