EW Bullinger's 'The Witness of the Stars'

[Cybernetic_Jazz]

I got curious about this realizing that a lot of Chuck Missler and David Flynn's stuff came from him regarding biblical astronomy/astrology, Pember being another major Victorian source for Christians who were trying to sort out the whole mess between bible and astrology or to understand the rituals/mysteries of what were considered pagandom and how they tied out into the bigger picture. What I do love about Victorian era authors on topics of religion - ardent Christians spoke and wrote as articulately and as thoughtfully as theosophists.

Part of my reading this is that I'd have to agree with two very different people about 80 years apart here - Rudolph Steiner on one hand (or Edward Reaugh Smith in 'Burning Bush') as well as Bill Cooper that both new and old testament are mystery school documents. Heck, when I threw away any notion that I could accept the kitsch answers that a lot of pastors give on what they don't really seem to understand or only grasp the surface layer of - I found myself much more often reading the epistles (ie. Paul, John, Peter, James, etc.) because I really got the feeling with the gospels and particularly with the words of Jesus, a literal reading wasn't even touching the slightest grain of moment or content of those words and I had to admit to myself; Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, that I was out of my grade of reading comprehension. If you read all four in one day not only does the synoptic problem jump out (as well as Edward Reaugh Smith's points on the two-Jesus theory, the different ancestries between Matthew and Luke, etc.) but it also stands out just how far beyond the first three that John's content stands on it's sheer resonance - it's like reading three Yahoo news writers and then reading Plotinus.

IMHO anyone who can solve the mystery of the bible and who Jesus was or what salvation actually meant really holds the keys to understanding a phenomenal amount about the west as well as what's been going on here for thousands of years beneath the surface.

So the mystery then becomes - who claims the stars? Right now with my first read through Bullinger I'm hoping I'm thinking he'll at least be a trustworthy source for what the decans are as that's a topic that I'm interested in figuring out. Right now I'm leaning toward the probability that most of the Hebrew writings of the OT were a merging of different mystery and cultural beliefs from around the area including Sumeria and Egypt. What I already somewhat suspect Bullinger on would be claims such as that the ear of corn that Virgo holds, while represented in Ceres and Isis, is not a symbol of either of the later and that pagandom was strictly a corruption of the original story which he'd claim was scattered around the world at the time of Genesis 11 with the confusion of languages at the tower of Babel. My problem with stories like the tower of Babel or the great flood which supposedly cut the line in the sand between Atlantean and Aryan epochs - the evidence for languages spreading out from the middle east to the far east in that order seem to be every bit as scant as evidence for a global flood anywhere between 10,000 BC and 2,500 BC no matter how wide people want to open that window for leniency. The ubiquity of the flood story makes me consider the likelihood that 'flood' was likely a metaphor for something more cultural, informational, or spiritual rather than geological.

I just realized I really went on there. Has anyone else read on the symbolic history of the zodiac and decans? If you read Bullinger what thoughts did you walk away from regarding the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments?

[Nahemah]

I didnt know who you were talking about,but I tracked a pdf of the book.

http://www.levendwater.org/books/witnes ... linger.pdf

I'll read it and get back to you afterwards,may take me a couple of days though,in between my regular doings and duties. [thumbup]

Ill have to lok up who the other authors are also.

I know a fair bit about the subject,outside of Abrahamic Religious accounts but also about connections within them too,so I may be helpful or harmful depending on the content and context of the writings you've mentioned. [geek2]

[ne1]

My two cents

Though I had not read this text before (I looked through the link Nahemah posted). I’ve heard of, and agree with, the concept of sections of the Bible being mystery school (particularly connected with Egypt) oriented. According to its self-proclaimed history, two of the most prominent figures, Moses and Jesus, both lived in (and most likely educated in) Egypt. I also agree that the text itself is encoded with a number of symbols traditionally associated with magic, such as numerology, astrology, divination, etc. Many of these codes have been recognized by Christian and Jewish Kabbalah as well. It is, I think, a complex text but also has a mixed history.

As far as the Bible, as it is currently constructed. I do not see in the construction or the teachings as practiced in the modern era, the awareness of these codes. But then these books were chosen by committee. While I can commend them for their effort to obtain and preserve early texts written in the “correct” area, they did have an agenda in compiling the text they did. One glance at the (also early) Egyptian Gospels, and Jesus’s reported words (particularly in Matthew and Mark) about salvation and the kingdom of heaven take on a very different meaning. In the context of these, the gospel of John, where Jesus speaks as if being the *only* “divine” incarnation stands out like a sore thumb.

I like to point the finger at Paul, the main writer of “sin” and who set out the restrictions carried on by the human institution of the church, but he is not the only one. He just happened to be Roman (look at how they saw Caesar if you want to see his “motives” ) so was in a position to influence more. He also happened to agree with those who eventually came to power. His “church” won in history, and instead of a message of love and joy and looking within to find god it became a message of restriction. Creating yet another face, this time the face of a “Savior” so that humans did not seek to see the face of “god” for themselves.

Jesus, according to the Bible, was a dangerous dude. He not only practiced magic but taught others how to do it as well. He interacted with respect to both “demon” and “angel”, and could “command” them (without calling on other spirits to intervene, lazy people… ). What exorcism movie have you ever seen where they do that? That’s what’s messed up about how history has taken those teachings. The dude practiced magic, real physical manifestation stuff, and taught anyone who was willing to listen how to do it too. Paul never met Jesus and Paul couldn’t do magic.

Personally, I think history fucked it up. But then what do you expect of an institution that wanted to preserve its own power?

As far as his research goes, I do not agree with all of the passages he names; I think he stretches a bit. But then he is also quoting translation. There would be, I think, a need to update this research with use of the Hebrew and Greek sources (which I can’t read so yeah, lazy here) and take more modern anthropological and archeological evidence into account (such as the astrological symbols appearing in first century synagogues and such). So (from first reading at least) though I find fault with some of his argument and methodology I agree to the theory and some of his work.

[Nahemah]

I read this over the holidays.

Honestly,it was tough going.

There is so much there that is cut up to fit the theory,it made my eyes bleed.[figuratively of course,not literally.]

I did say I might have a negative view,so yep, no surprises there.

It was written at the tail end of the period of repression of all artefacts Sumerian,though.So there's that in it's defence,at least.

The author cuts between Dendera and Babylon at an alarming rate,with not much rationality in between,also the manner in which he rejects evidence because it dosen't align with the theory also shows a lack of understanding of the astronomical sciences he quotes from at various points.

It's basically a mish mash of thoughts and ideas.from a heavily Christian [Protestant] perspective that extrapolates rather wildy from what is known and understood,from a secular [or unbiased] viewpoint and an accurate historical,mythological and and cultural perspective about the original material, that we call the Babylonian Zodiac here.

That's the quick off the top of my head response.

I have been collating information since,looking at my own sources and references,to compare and contrast,but I'm curious to hear from other readers too and I know that as a non Christian I do not attach the same sense of wonder or reverence to this subject that the author shows in the writing.

I can't recall if he discusses the Hoshen,Jazzman,does he?
[I'll go check in a bit..]


More later.

[Cybernetic_Jazz]

I hate to say it but I don't know how far I got into the book - have it on kindle and I might have stopped with this one not too long after my post. The impression I was getting was similar to what you said in the top - that it's a lot of stuff crammed in to fit an official narrative and it makes the mazzaloth and decans sound like a lot of meaningless stuff (ie. if someone had explained that as the meaning of the stars I don't think that narrative would have lasted very long for it's sheer redundancy and vagueness).

I think what might have answered some more of my questions was seeing other things, like the seven day week coming from Babylon which may well edify the idea that the Pentateuch could have been written during the captivity. Lots of stuff seems to be coming to light in general regarding the Hebrew narrative and how other cultures interacted with it. Having joined AMORC back in October and going back though a lot of the digests I feel like I'm finding a lot of good potential leads for further research.

[Nahemah]

I have ploughed my way through the Book of Jasher and various other testimonies/writings that are not regarded as part of the official cannon and some of these works are clearly from much later than they claim to be and there are many which serve to muddy the waters so much that it can be very difficult to work out what actually belongs where,in the timeline and why it was written.

There is a lot of theory out there and much of it is aligned with attempts to prove a particular religion as the valid one in accordance with the Zodiac,there is a lot of 'woo' around the subject too : Bad Astronomy,lol.

The period of the captivity is the important thing in all this,I think.It's where the Hebrews learned about the Zodiac and it's clear a lot of mythology was adopted and adapted from Babylonian and earlier Sumerian sources.

I find the history fascinating,personally,but it's a long term study subject and a lot of valuable information is found in Jewish resources,which so many Chrisitan authors do not include in their works,especially in older [Victorian era is especially prominent in this] writings,where anti Semitism is so often blatantly displayed.

I'm also not a fan of work that attempts to prove genetic engineering/ancient astronaut hypotheses either and it's inevitable when studying this subject that one will find a lot of this too.I've read Von Daniken and others of that ilk and wow,the only word I have for it is 'heednip' - a local slang term for 'headache inducing',lol.

I'm glad I answered honestly about the book,but I was concerned about it as I don't want to come across as mean or cyncial about this.It has it's place as a study tool and it shows what the consensus thought at that time was,in the West,among the more intellectually inclined types of Christians.And I came away from the book impressed by Mr.Bullinger's sense of amazement at the skies and his reverence for 'the wonders of creation' [as he would put it].So,my reading experience wasn't all bad,lol.

[Cybernetic_Jazz]

I really get the same impression. Anywhere I try to look up the origins of the seven day week or the 12 signs of the zodiac as we know them - it's tied to the exact time you mention; ie. Babylonian captivity.

One of the things I wondered about is a theory in a book that Poke Runyon floated on his show - ie. Jesus the Canaanite. The theory was that Cyrus and Ezra were the ones who wrote the Pentateuch and collated the whole thing as an exercise in nation-building (aside from that they drew a lot of comparisons between the doctrin of Jesus and El the merciful - as opposed to calling him an Essene, a Hermeticist, a Gnostic which are the usual college tries). While it superficially sounds like it covers all bases I do wonder just how much and how thick the lines of documentary common-place recorded history we have in Israel and the tribes regarding the times between the Exodus and the captivity. The reason I wonder about that - I also wonder greatly about Hebrew being the appropriation and evolution of the Canaanite language in addition to the possibility of what of doctrine was there in the era of Kings/Chronicles. It seems like in a way the Judaic mysteries ended up being so boss because they were a collection of the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Canaanite mysteries by, in a Cricks and Watson sort of way (DNA discovery) they were crafty enough to connect all the dots, make it their own, and make something so deep that you can sit there and flip letters and numbers back and forth all day for your entire life, barely feel like you scratched the surface, and it seems like it's built in such a way that you're absolutely meant to.

Even if it would hurt a lot of young-Earth Christian's feelings, I can't help but think that the real origin and real story of the book would open up so much of it's real value rather than just it's ability to get grown adults together once a week to sit on uncomfortable-ish wooden pews,fork over $20 a session, and get bored to sleep without asking any questions. The Jesus John wrote about sounds conspicuously like the Hermit at the top of the mountain in Key 9 of the tarot and for whatever reason it doesn't seem like getting numb arses and stiff necks once a week is getting most people much closer to him.

[Atlanteandruid]

Bit off the specific topic raieed by the OP, but on the subject of the early church being a mystery chool I recommend the books of Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, such as "Jesus and the Goddess", also "The Masks of Christ" by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. They argue very clearly that the early church was a typical mystery school, with an outer and inner court. The outer court evolved int what we know as Christianity, the inner court survived in secret as various heresies, although a lot of them probably died in the Siege of Jerusalem.

I was myself a born-again fundamentalist Christian for 16 years, and I can tell you that in our church the whole emphasis was on Paul's letters, with very little mention of Jesus's teachings or of the events in his life, other than his death and alleged resurrection. Not only did Paul never meet Jesus, there is only one direct quotation from Jesus in the whole of Paul's letters, and scarcely any mention of the events in his life (other than his death and resurrection). Oddly enough, the one quote from Jesus is not found in any of the four official gospels, although it does sound like something he would have said. ("It is more blessed to give than to recieve").

[Cybernetic_Jazz]

What's fascinating with Paul also is his claim that Jesus was a priest in the line of Melchizedek. Melchizedek not being of the Jewish tradition lineage would have been considered perhaps something like a pagan saint of the highest order and his drawing him in from nowhere to say that Christ was closer to him than any of the Levitical tradition just thickens the heck out of the plot.