Hellenistic Astrology: Joyous House Placements for the Sun and Moon

Hellenistic Astrology: The Study of Fate and Fortune
by Chris Brennan
Joys of the Planets, P. 336

Sun in H9 – World View, Distant Travel, Higher Ed
Moon in H3 – Siblings and Relatives, Communication

Any testimonies or comments?

My testimony/comment:

My Sun is in Campanus H9 and my Moon is not in H3.

Being Christian in the Modern World: Liberalism, 5/21/2017, Rev. Walt Marcum

Watch here: http://www.hpumc.org/sermon/liberalism/

Following the Author/Blogger More Frequently

The author/blogger makes more posts at the Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/GreatestBibleStudyInHistoricalAccuracy/?fref=ts than here.

Christianity MUST Reconcile Leviticus 17: 10 with Jesus’ Direction to Do Something Which Turns God’s Face Away and Excommunicates One from God’s People

It’s not that I’m not interested in your book Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, I’m interested in the scholarly treatment of the most weighty issues. In Misquoting Jesus (your trade book equivalent to the scholarly work), an amazon reviewer quotes you from page 207-208 of that book:

Was Jesus an angry man?
[of interest to me, even if in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (OCS)]

Was he completely distraught in the face of death?
[of interest to me, even if in OCS]

What should get me a publishing contract are these issues:

1) Was he distraught about the impending destruction of the Temple if you address that somewhere.

2) I, as an essayist and public speaker, have a problem with Jesus not sweating blood over Jerusalem surrounded by armies and the Temple being destroyed. He probably was distraught over that [emphasis being added] and then came up with the cannibalistic remembrance and the consumption of blood which turned God’s face from him, his Son of Man movement, and the followers which stayed with him after he instituted that affront to Lev. 17: 10. According to John’s gospel he did that way before the Last Supper which puts a whole different spin on why Orthodox Temple Authorities needed to get rid of him for just cause. And the Babylonian Talmud would be absolutely correct in finding fault in Jesus for leading people astray: leading people away from the face of God.

Textual Criticism is woefully incomplete until we reconcile Lev. 17: 10 and the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew and wherever else Jesus is linked to scriptures in the Hebrew Bible. Jesus’ affront to Leviticus 17: 10 causes one to lose the Sunshine of God’s Face and to get excommunicated from God’s people. (This needs to be in edited scholarly and trade/mass market books, in Wikipedia, discussed at the Society of Biblical Literature, and much more.) Writing to be famous? This is the issue that can come forward. My time spent with Jewish scholarship shows there is a need for the issue to be discussed in that circle as well. This is a major (big, big, big as Oprah would say) theological issue.

Jesus Supplanted Temple Sacrifice Then God Turned His Face from Jesus

In the Synoptic gospels, Jesus has the bread and wine metaphor for body and blood consumption.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus says it is not a metaphor, followers are literally eating his body and blood. (In the gospel of John, the last of the four gospels, Jesus brings up literal cannibalism before the last supper. Jesus brings it up and loses followers. He says this teaching is too hard for those who do not stay with him.)

Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.

Lev. 17: 10

The agony in the garden happens after Jesus makes the bread and wine metaphor.

Jesus renounces the God of Israel, then he goes to the Garden of Gethsemane and finds the God of Israel is not on his side for him to continue living.

The Historical Approach to the New Testament

When I think of an Historical Approach to the New Testament, the first thing I think of is the historical accuracy of the content. The second thing I think of is the historical context: literature under Roman occupation, under Rome dealing with an uprising, under Rome putting down an uprising, under Rome not wanting to deal with another rebellion anytime soon; under Rome which put an end to the biblical Jesus’s earthly ministry, under Rome which, very importantly, supplanted or usurped the Son of Man’s Kingdom of Heaven/Righteousness–Rome which didn’t necessarily come like a thief in the night, but certainly did steal Jerusalem, took away the treasures of the Temple, destroyed the City, destroyed the Temple, destroyed Temple Judaism, destroyed Masada.

When I think of an Historical Approach to the New Testament, I think primarily of what was written no later than 95 Common Era. Maybe a modern investigative reporter or an archaeologist can uncover something to add to biblical accounts circa 27 – 36 Common Era (for Jesus). But then again, historical accounts about Jesus and all his wonders needs to have been written no later than 40 Common Era. The flurry of gospels were written after: 1) the death of other Jewish purists a) King Izates [50 C.E.], b) Queen Helena [no later than 56 C.E.], and c) James the brother of Jesus [64-66 C.E.; 2) the start of the Jewish Revolt in 66 or 67 Common Era and/ or when sacrifices for the well-being of the Roman Emperor stopped; 3) the Destruction of the Temple by Rome, 70 CE; and 4) the end of the Jewish Revolt, 73 C.E. The flurry of gospels being written after all these suggest an impetus not of the wonders of Jesus 27 – 36 C.E. but the need for a collection of writings that calm the rebellious nature of Roman subjects. And, that’s what the New Testament is, a book to build character away from rebelling against Rome.

Given Rome’s indispensable contextual value, we must explore even further the great story of a man sacrificed so others can live. When we do this, we come to the historian Livy (64 or 59 BCE to 17 CE). For the full reference, see The History of Rome 8,9. Briefly, the following: “Decius exclaimed: Valerius, we need the help of the gods! Come now, you are a state pontiff[!, I’m adding emphasis on the word pontiff] of the Roman people–dictate the formula whereby I may devote myself to save the legions…” Decius Mus was did lose his life for victory which is a model for victory in Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus is palatable for Roman ears where Christianity survived in Roman Christianity. Decius Mus saved a military advance and that was the military good news. Decius Mundus would be a savior of the world, a Christian claim. The character Decius Mundus appears in the second of three passages in Antiquities of the Jews, written by the Roman historian, Josephus. The first passage is the Testimonium Flavianum where Josephus speaks of Jesus being crucified by Pilate and appearing to loved ones after his death. Jesus who died to save others (only he was taken from the Garden of Gethsemene, saving his disciples from capture, let alone saving people by dying for the sins of the world) is linked to Decius Mus who died for his followers, let alone Rome or whatever the stakes were in the battle being fought. So, Jesus is Decius Mundus who appears to a loving devotee on the third day. Josephus, an insider to Rome’s patronage of Christian literature, whistleblows a fact of Christianity to us at the end of the Decius Mundus passage and in the third passage of the three.

So, a historical approach to the New Testament brings its readers to the mountains of Christian History: Rome’s governance of Palestine, the gospels/military good news of Rome’s keeping the peace in the area, Rome’s historians, Rome’s propaganda to quell descent, Rome’s theft of the treasures of the Temple, Rome’s theft of Temple Judaism and Jesus’s Kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness.

What Is Spiritual but Not Religious?


Some people are re-incarnated spirits on a human journey.

Many people with some association to Christianity are familiar with:

“…to gain the whole world, but lose your soul.”

So, there is consideration for the post-incarnate existence–the spiritual existence after the bodily existence.

Some people are spiritual in their bodies and after the body is no longer a functioning vehicle for the spirit.

With spirit being somewhat the opposite of material body, the spirit digs quantum physics’ non-locality principle. Yes, the body may be decomposing in the grave or already cremated but, the vibrations of consciousness can still make its presence felt or manipulate nature to give a sign to loved ones left in the material world.

So there are those who are spiritual whether or not there is a spiritual institution worthy of repeat visits.

Not Religious

I used to religiously go to church but I have discovered corruption in the basic texts of Christianity.

So, I’m not as religious as I used to be.

My thought for the day:

Christian communion is based on what happened when the food supply in the city of Jerusalem ran out during the Jewish Revolt. A woman named Mary sacrificed her son, eating half of him, and later, eating the other half of him. This child was a lamb of god. The historian who recorded the event writes:

(paraphrasing)I do not want to write this down. If I write it down it would be a sign foreshadow an icon of cannibalism for future generations…

“I had indeed willing omitted this calamity of ours, that I might not seem to deliver what is so portentous to posterity…”

but in my own generation, there were many witnesses.

“but that I have innumerable witnesses to it in my own age…”

Well, some may say, we’ve given Jesus’ last supper a different meaning. We can ignore its origins.

My response: wolf in sheep’s clothing theology–a reason not to be religious, or at least not religious about the sacrament of Holy Communion.

The lamb of god was sacrificed for the sins of the world.

The world at that time, in context, was the Roman empire.

Jesus died for the sins of the Roman Empire and those who supported it during the Jewish Revolt.

The little boy was sacrificed by his parent-mother for the sins of those who set fire to the food supply and for the sins of the Romans who sat back and said, we don’t have to do anything if they are destroying their own food supply; and, we definitely are not providing humanitarian relief.

That’s the historical meaning of a sacrifice for the sins of the world.

As with Abraham ready to sacrifice Isaac because god asked him, as with the mother who sacrificed her son due to starvation and hopelessness, Jesus’s Heavenly Father sacrificed his son. Christians have communion in remembrance of Mary and her sacrificed and eaten son.

Life did not end with the atrocities of the Jewish Revolt, so some of us can continue to be spiritual without being religious about the sacrificed son which may have been Mary’s Last Supper.

My House Shall Be Called a House of Prayer – Not Historical

Bart Ehrman: “…someone like Jesus, an “enemy of the state” who was executed for treason.”

Jesus wasn’t an enemy of the state until Palm Sunday week and the Jews brought him to Pilate’s attention?

John the Baptist supposedly preached “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”
Jesus, continuing the element of John the Baptist’s message also preached, “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”
Neither of these two instances made either of the two speakers “enemies of the state.”

John the Baptist was not executed for treason by Pontius Pilate (26 – 36 A.D. after Gratus before Marcellus) under the reign of Tiberius.

John the Baptist, in the gospels, not necessarily in Josephus, preached a kingdom other than the Roman Empire for which people should set priorities.
Jesus preached a kingdom other than the Roman Empire for which people should set priorities.
This gets a pass by Rome.
Both speak of a Kingdom of Heaven which implies a king–and that king is not Tiberius.
That’s a little bit too much leeway.

So, what made Palm Sunday and Monday’s turning over the tables treason?

The turning over the tables was not an act of treason, it was an act, as reported by the gospels, of Temple spiritual integrity: “Is all this commerce a house of prayer or what?”
Even this does not sound right. This sounds right if Jesus was not Jewish and thought all the slaughtering was not necessary. A Jewish Jesus would have known the necessity for sacrifices to be arranged. He didn’t like the layout of Herod’s Temple? Prayer is done in deeper courts of the Temple. Passover is not Yom Kippur.

Yom Kippur (Hebrew: יוֹם כִּפּוּר, IPA: [ˈjom kiˈpuʁ], or יום הכיפורים), also known as Day of Atonement, is the holiest day of the year for the Jewish people.[1] Its central themes are atonement and repentance. Jewish people traditionally observe this holy day with an approximate 25-hour period of fasting and intensive prayer, often spending most of the day in synagogue services.

Leviticus 16:29 mandates establishment of this holy day on the 10th day of the 7th month as the day of atonement for sins. It calls it the Sabbath of Sabbaths and a day upon which one must afflict one’s soul.

Leviticus 23:27 decrees that Yom Kippur is a strict day of rest.

I’d like to make a criticism that a singular biblical Jesus did not make a scene on Passover saying this is a place and time for prayer. It is not historical.

Okay, and it’s not a reason for treason against Rome. So, we’re left with Caiphas explaining to Pilate that Jesus’ entry was Jesus’ way of saying, I, like Solomon, am a Davidic king of Jerusalem and the Jews. Then, in Roman simplicity, they put this over his cross and crucify him.

Now, if Jesus’ entry is not historical, we have a problem.

Dr. Ehrman, I have a problem with the Monday event (turning over the tables) of Passover Week. Is there any criticism of the Sunday event, the manner in which Jesus entered Jerusalem?

Atwill’s Cranked-up Jesus Richard Carrier Blogs Freethought Blogs Review

Richard Carrier believes Jesus was not crucified on Earth. Richard Carrier has a reading comprehension problem. When asked for his peer-reviewed article which will show whether or not he has examined the Testimonium Flavianum as a sarcastic inclusion by Josephus, he does not provide the name of the journal and the name of the article so a person can search for it at a seminary library.

“Others propose that Josephus included the passage so as to curry favor with the Christians, because he was in trouble with his own Jewish compatriots. Still others interpret the passage as intended sarcasm, though the argument for that view is too convoluted to summarize here.”
– p. 234 of Josephus and the New Testament, Second Edition by Steve Mason

In a thorough examination, even challenging views must be heard for a final decision to be claimed. One version of the sarcasm view is not all that convoluted. Joseph Atwill advises that one simply read the passage after the Testimonium Flavianum and see 1) Decius Mundus as a sarcastic reference to Savior of the World/Mundus and 2) Decius Mundus appeared to one who loved him on the third day, as did Jesus appeared to those who loved him on the third day.

Re: Page 225-227 of Josephus and the New Testament, Second Edition by Steve Mason

My reply:
I would like to introduce my reply with a preview of the bottom line, which is beyond page 227, but on page 236, and I quote: “…since most of those who know the evidence agree that [Josephus] said something about Jesus, one is probably entitled to cite him as independent evidence that Jesus actually lived, if such evidence were needed. But that much is already given in Josephus’s reference to James (Ant. 20.200) and most historians agree that Jesus’ existence is the only adequate explanation of the many independent traditions among the NT writings.”

What you have written is this:

The most credible alternative theory of Christian origins is that Jesus began life as a celestial being, known only through private revelations, who was believed to have been crucified and resurrected in the lower heavens. The Gospels were the first attempts to place him in history as an earthly man, in parables and fables meant to illustrate Christian theology and ideals. Their picture of Jesus then became the most successful among the competing varieties of Christianity over the ensuing generations, and the eventually triumphant sects only created and preserved documents supporting their view, and very little supporting any other.

To date the best case presented for this hypothesis is by amateur historian and classics graduate Earl Doherty (in his two books, The Jesus Puzzle and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man). My own forthcoming book, probably titled On the Historicity of Jesus, inspired by his work, will be the first making the case for this hypothesis to pass academic peer review. It will be published this February by the publishing house of the University of Sheffield.



Moving on, if you would have mentioned the title of the article and the journal, I could have been on my way to Dallas Theological Seminary or Bridwell after work or on a weekend to do some reading. Your comment 145.1 does not give me and other readers that information. So your criticism is premature. I REALLY WANT TO READ WHAT YOU’VE WRITTEN ON THIS TOPIC.

Now, I want to clash directly with what you’ve written: “Josephus is just listing disasters that increased tensions between the Romans and the Jews. None of those disasters are commentaries on Christianity. They are simply things that happened that increased tensions between the Romans and the Jews.”

My reply, the Decius Mundus passage is a story about a believer in Isis. The Decius Mundus passage did not make the zealots and rebels more angry at Rome! You are mistaken. ON page 226, Mason even relates this not to an expulsion of Jews from Rome but an expulsion of Egyptians from Rome. I direct the readers of this post to score this point to me.

What Mason does say about the Isis Decius Mundus incident is this: it shows both that the Jews are no worse than other national groups and, second, and more important: Jews share the morals of the Romans.

Steve Mason does not catch the connection of Jesus appearing to believers on the third day and Decius Mundus appearing to a believer on the third day. So, your claim, Richard Carrier, is wrong: the Decius Mundus – Isis passage was not written to give a count of incidents that fueled the rebels, bandits, and zealots. So, while you thought you scored a point on me, I’ve justified my statement, and on top of that, I’ve proven your reading comprehension of page 226 of Mason’s book is in error.

Visions of Jesus by Those Who Had Come to Love Him / Testimony of Josephus (Testimonium Flavianum) Is Authentic

Specifically, what evidence do we have, apart from the Gospels, that any of Jesus’ disciples actually had visions of Jesus after his death?

Dr. Bart D. Ehrman:
The short answer is that apart from the Gospels the only other good evidence we have are the book of Acts and the letters of Paul

Steefen (personal essayist), author of Insights on the Exodus, King David, and Jesus / The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy, 2nd Ed.:

He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, * * those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them * * spending a third day restored to life,  – First century historian, Joseph ben Matthias (Josephus) contemporary to James, brother of Jesus.

Note: The Testimonium Flavianum is authentic. Scholars who said it was not gave reasons. One reason was that it was out of context, unrelated to the passage following it. That simply is not true. The Testimonium Flavianum is followed by a passage of a god appearing to a woman and spending time with her – god made man and walking among us, a claim of Christianity. Furthermore, this god appeared to her on the third day. As we know, Josephus changed camps from Jewish rebel leader against Rome to supporting the Romans against the Jewish rebels. IN CHARACTER, Josephus tells us the God who appeared to the lovingly devout woman and spent time with her revealed that he was not god.

This is Josephus’ stance of atheism against his former religion which was warranted because after the Babylonian exile, after the Seleucids, after Rome wipes away the success of the Macabbees, after Rome takes away a Jewish king in Jerusalem, after the garments of the high priests have to be given to Romans, and after the handwriting on the wall that Rome was going to win the Jewish-Roman war, after Joseph ben Matthias (Josephus) gave his speech with tears in his eyes and speaking (while crying) to the rebels, explaining if they did not stop, we would lose the Temple to destruction, after all this and more, zealotry for the Jewish God was not amounting to anything but demise.

The TF is not just Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3 but Sections 3 and 4! (This will appear in the 2nd ed of my book and will be on my website in a few weeks: http://www.waterbearingfish.com/SaulJosephus_ben_Matthias.html

The second reason the TF is authentic is because while Vespasian enriched Josephus for his support of the Romans, Vespasian also enriched another rabbi, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai who headed the university of Yavne after the Jewish Revolt was put down. Rabbi Joseph ben Matthias and Rabbi Johanan proclaimed the Christian story. We know of the TF. As for Rabbi Johanan, he proclaims the impregnation of Mary by God, the Lion of Judah, and that God tried to save his people through her son.