Which sign was the mother of Jesus?
- Thread starter vox
- Start date
It is not really that simple minded. The question, as I saw it, was which birthdate represented the Mother of Jesus. I am seeing it as which one is most representative of the iconic mother, the Virgin Mary.
I cannot see Leo being the sign of that iconic symbolic mother image. It is perfectly suited to the sign of Virgo. That is just my simple minded opinion though.
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
I heard once from a mystic up in Cancun that the Virgin Mary was born an Aquarius.
junoisuppose
Well-known member
I'd go for virgo too.
You may say that is "simple minded", I'd prefer to keep insults out of it.
Astrology is often about symbolism, for example when a ship is involved in an accident and the name of the ship is some of the key words of the planets that were in aspect that day.
I don't remember much about Mary's character in the Bible, she is usually just seen as "the mother" I think & a very, very good person, cancer is the universal "mother", taurus is the "earth mother" & the time of year associated with fertility, in fact all the earth signs are associated with fertility. Virgo fits with the symbolism of "virgin" and also with the asceticism of monks and nuns devoted to the virgin Mary, so I think that's a good choice.
But she could have been anything, with virgo or cancer on the ascendant or MC.
You may say that is "simple minded", I'd prefer to keep insults out of it.
Astrology is often about symbolism, for example when a ship is involved in an accident and the name of the ship is some of the key words of the planets that were in aspect that day.
I don't remember much about Mary's character in the Bible, she is usually just seen as "the mother" I think & a very, very good person, cancer is the universal "mother", taurus is the "earth mother" & the time of year associated with fertility, in fact all the earth signs are associated with fertility. Virgo fits with the symbolism of "virgin" and also with the asceticism of monks and nuns devoted to the virgin Mary, so I think that's a good choice.
But she could have been anything, with virgo or cancer on the ascendant or MC.
Last edited:
Birch Dragon
Well-known member
Ask a simple-minded question, vox, get a simple answer. (With the note that there's more virtue in simplicity than simple-mindedness.)
In my day on this site [Reaches for cane. Strains to straighten creaking back] a host of well-experienced, astro-wise astrologers would pop up to challenge questions like these and nip pop-sun-astrology threads in the bud. I get the sense that doesn't happen as much any more.
But really... don't ask a sun sign question and then scoff because you think somebody's response isn't deep enough...
I'm worried this post verges on attacking. I apologize and I'm happy to delete it if the moderators think so.
Last edited:
Where's the offense though!? All I was asking for was readers to cast their personal opinion by sifting the likeliness based on historical records... What I get are two identical answers based on role coincidence; isn't that like saying: "Hmm, I've never heard of Usain Bolt but wouldn't he be a Leo - because lions run fast, therefore..." *Correct, but no merit.*
So please provide prima facie evidence based on clues and facts, rather than on shallow coincidences, before alleging any attack...
So please provide prima facie evidence based on clues and facts, rather than on shallow coincidences, before alleging any attack...
Last edited:
My answer was much deeper than the example you provided. I don't think it was as simple minded as you believe it to be.
I am not going to base my answer upon historic records because I do not have a lot of faith that anyone can accurately pinpoint a woman's date of birth from thousand of years ago. There are too many variables with language, calendars, memories, faulty records, etc etc. I do not believe we will ever be able to establish it with certainty.
The Mother of Jesus has profound and deep symbolic meaning for millions of people around the world. She symbolizes purity, personal sacrifice, humility, and unconditional love and compassion. In my opinion, she sounds like the essence of Virgo, the virginal feminine principle and symbol of bounty and Earthly harvest. JMO
Do you understand the difference btw full evidence and prima facie evidence?
You'd have to address your thoughts to : http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Virgin_Mary
Birch Dragon
Well-known member
This isn't worth engaging in a fight about, and I'm not going to. Except I did interject myself so I'm going to do a jerk thing here: say my piece and walk out this thread's door.
I think there's no problem or offense if you ask people to speculate on the sun sign of a mythological figure - or, if we prefer, a hint of a figure stretching so far back in history we experience her today as primarily mythological. What "sign" was Achilles? What "sign" was Moses? What "sign" was Confucius? Could be fun.
But recognize that the only way such a question can be an engaging, educational investigation into astrology - or Christianity, in this case - is if we approach Mary as an archetype and consider what zodiacal sign seems to fit with that archetype.
The offense - and frankly, really, the dumb thing to do if you want anybody to discuss it with you - comes with scoffing at the first person to engage with the question.
Granted vox might have thought: "Well, katydid just said "Virgo" and didn't explain why." Sure... but it's an online posting site. People write quick responses all the time - and they have incentive to. When people do make long, thought-out (read: non-simple-minded) posts like I often do, I'm convinced most people don't read them. These days they even seem to just kill the thread. So, instead of assuming katydid's thoughts are simple-minded, the better response in that case (humanly, but also pragmatically for you, since, again, being a jerk turns people off) is just to re-post: "Oh, why Virgo? Explain?"
Now... let me say something about why this isn't nearly as interesting and serious a question as vox seems to think it is - unless you approach it exactly the way katydid and junoisuppose have: treating the Mother Mary as a cultural archetype, and considering the zodiacal archetype that seems to correlate.
Two problems:
1) How do you propose approaching Mary as a historic figure that we can know anything about?
2) What's interesting, as students and scholars of astrology, about knowing Mary's sun sign, if it's not about archetypes?
Of problem 1) With your talk of "evidence" you seem to want to approach Mary as a documentable historic figure, a complete person we can investigate the way we might investigate Gandhi or Hitler, for example.
But where does your (or anybody's) "evidence" on Mary come from? Where it comes to historic documents, are there any that say anything substantial about Mary other than the Gospels? And the Gospels were never intended as documentation. Today, in modern times, we think of history as a quasi-scientific endeavor: documentation of actual events. But that was never the point of history prior to modern times. The Gospels, like Torah and the books of the prophets before them, were always intended as accounts of moral and theological import - not historical. (Heck, just read them. They're very different. And Jesus is quite a different figure across the four of them. If historical accuracy was the point presenting the four Gospels together would have been seen as much more of a problem than clearly it was.) The purpose of the Gospels was to paint a shifting cosmology amongst early A.D. Jews (and then, in Paul's hands, Gentiles) and to spread that shifting cosmology. The Gospels do not qualify as the kind of documentary historical documents we would look to today to establish anything about the birth, life and times of a historic figure. They cannot be evidential in the way vox seems to want them to be when you talk of "full evidence" and "prima face evidence."
Of course, given the nature of this site, the kind of evidence vox is thinking about may come from an esoteric source: psychics, channelling, etc. But if that's the case, we're even more in the realm of un-verifiability. If that's the case, me thinks box would need to do a tremendous amount of work to substantiate whatever "evidence" we're talking about, of the sort piercetheviel, for example, has done in his decade-long exploration of the chart on Jesus that he's drawn up. (See the Sabian Symbols section).
On problem 2) If we do want to treat Mary not as a basic cultural archetype but as a full, complete, complex human being for whom we can find historical evidence and who's real, individual astrology chart we might actually be able to draw up and dwell on - if we do want to say everything I just wrote about problem 1 is wrong - then what does it serve us to debate her sun sign?!? This is an amateur learning site, but not that amateur.
If, for example, the most convincing chart for Jesus ever posted on this site, out of the multitude of them - if we judge by work done by the proposer to back it up - is piercetheviel's, in that chart Jesus is an Aries sun! Now, if we look closely at that sun position, particularly considering the Sabian symbol - it's pretty convincing. But it's hardly what most people would jump to when thinking about (their cultural, archetypical impression of) Jesus. And unless we do very close work of the sort vox's original post - a simple poll - hardly invites, we won't see or learn much that's interesting in it.
In conclusion - hey, if a poster wants to make a thread asking about the sun signs of ancient figures, all power to ya. Seems like a fun thing to do. But don't scoff at people who venture an answer, as if the point of the exercise was remotely anywhere as deep and meaningful as vox is suggesting vox thinks it is. All this poll/thread can ever be is either:
1) An interesting consideration of howe the cultural archetype expressed by the ancient figure in question fits with astrological archetypes (as posters have tried to do) or
2) A bit of silly fun - not worth scoffing at anybody over.
I think there's no problem or offense if you ask people to speculate on the sun sign of a mythological figure - or, if we prefer, a hint of a figure stretching so far back in history we experience her today as primarily mythological. What "sign" was Achilles? What "sign" was Moses? What "sign" was Confucius? Could be fun.
But recognize that the only way such a question can be an engaging, educational investigation into astrology - or Christianity, in this case - is if we approach Mary as an archetype and consider what zodiacal sign seems to fit with that archetype.
The offense - and frankly, really, the dumb thing to do if you want anybody to discuss it with you - comes with scoffing at the first person to engage with the question.
Granted vox might have thought: "Well, katydid just said "Virgo" and didn't explain why." Sure... but it's an online posting site. People write quick responses all the time - and they have incentive to. When people do make long, thought-out (read: non-simple-minded) posts like I often do, I'm convinced most people don't read them. These days they even seem to just kill the thread. So, instead of assuming katydid's thoughts are simple-minded, the better response in that case (humanly, but also pragmatically for you, since, again, being a jerk turns people off) is just to re-post: "Oh, why Virgo? Explain?"
Now... let me say something about why this isn't nearly as interesting and serious a question as vox seems to think it is - unless you approach it exactly the way katydid and junoisuppose have: treating the Mother Mary as a cultural archetype, and considering the zodiacal archetype that seems to correlate.
Two problems:
1) How do you propose approaching Mary as a historic figure that we can know anything about?
2) What's interesting, as students and scholars of astrology, about knowing Mary's sun sign, if it's not about archetypes?
Of problem 1) With your talk of "evidence" you seem to want to approach Mary as a documentable historic figure, a complete person we can investigate the way we might investigate Gandhi or Hitler, for example.
But where does your (or anybody's) "evidence" on Mary come from? Where it comes to historic documents, are there any that say anything substantial about Mary other than the Gospels? And the Gospels were never intended as documentation. Today, in modern times, we think of history as a quasi-scientific endeavor: documentation of actual events. But that was never the point of history prior to modern times. The Gospels, like Torah and the books of the prophets before them, were always intended as accounts of moral and theological import - not historical. (Heck, just read them. They're very different. And Jesus is quite a different figure across the four of them. If historical accuracy was the point presenting the four Gospels together would have been seen as much more of a problem than clearly it was.) The purpose of the Gospels was to paint a shifting cosmology amongst early A.D. Jews (and then, in Paul's hands, Gentiles) and to spread that shifting cosmology. The Gospels do not qualify as the kind of documentary historical documents we would look to today to establish anything about the birth, life and times of a historic figure. They cannot be evidential in the way vox seems to want them to be when you talk of "full evidence" and "prima face evidence."
Of course, given the nature of this site, the kind of evidence vox is thinking about may come from an esoteric source: psychics, channelling, etc. But if that's the case, we're even more in the realm of un-verifiability. If that's the case, me thinks box would need to do a tremendous amount of work to substantiate whatever "evidence" we're talking about, of the sort piercetheviel, for example, has done in his decade-long exploration of the chart on Jesus that he's drawn up. (See the Sabian Symbols section).
On problem 2) If we do want to treat Mary not as a basic cultural archetype but as a full, complete, complex human being for whom we can find historical evidence and who's real, individual astrology chart we might actually be able to draw up and dwell on - if we do want to say everything I just wrote about problem 1 is wrong - then what does it serve us to debate her sun sign?!? This is an amateur learning site, but not that amateur.
If, for example, the most convincing chart for Jesus ever posted on this site, out of the multitude of them - if we judge by work done by the proposer to back it up - is piercetheviel's, in that chart Jesus is an Aries sun! Now, if we look closely at that sun position, particularly considering the Sabian symbol - it's pretty convincing. But it's hardly what most people would jump to when thinking about (their cultural, archetypical impression of) Jesus. And unless we do very close work of the sort vox's original post - a simple poll - hardly invites, we won't see or learn much that's interesting in it.
In conclusion - hey, if a poster wants to make a thread asking about the sun signs of ancient figures, all power to ya. Seems like a fun thing to do. But don't scoff at people who venture an answer, as if the point of the exercise was remotely anywhere as deep and meaningful as vox is suggesting vox thinks it is. All this poll/thread can ever be is either:
1) An interesting consideration of howe the cultural archetype expressed by the ancient figure in question fits with astrological archetypes (as posters have tried to do) or
2) A bit of silly fun - not worth scoffing at anybody over.
Last edited:
ashriia
Well-known member
Do you understand the difference btw full evidence and prima facie evidence?
This also borders on attacking.
1, for one this is posted in GENERAL CHAT. Meaning, veering off course is allowed and short replies are expected.
2. Just because katydid, didn't respond to your question as you would have liked or in a way you had in mind, doesn't mean you have to belittle her response to the topic. I smell hard Pluto aspects..
3. I agree with her response, Virgo. I don't believe there are "historical facts' when it concerns religion/religious figures. Thousand of years ago, most people were illiterate and very interested in storytelling and any religious figure would have been taken to represent a symbol or astronomical configuration in the sky, at the time.
The symbolism of virgo, seems highly fitting.
whereby: To what extent does the figure's chart intriguingly reflect her archetypical role model?
The assumption could have come from anyone though...
I was hoping this site was the place to discover and reflect upon further knowledge.
A prima facie evidence lies somewhere between utter conjecture and total speculation...
If the dates were 100% reliable, then I would never have started this thread...They even have her birth time, down to the minute. How can I argue with that?
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Quite
Sirius, brightest star next to the sun = Star of Bethlehem.
The stars of Orion the hunter = the Son of Man.
Orions three stars that form its narrow waistline = Wise Men from the East
because they align with Sirius, the star of Bethlehem on December 25.
Virgo = Virgin Mary
and
Bootes = Joseph.
John the Baptist = Aquarius the Water Bearer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a36_CwzA0bk
junoisuppose
Well-known member
It seems that what you were actually trying to ask is "Does anyone know when Mary, the mother of Jesus was born?" or "Does anyone have any historical information as to when Mary, the mother of Jesus was born?"
Katydid and I interpreted it, since this is an astrology forum not a history forum, as you asking "Which sun sign fits best with what we know about Mary, the mother of Jesus?"
Both grammatically correct interpretations of the question "Which sign was the mother of Jesus?".
I hope that in real life you don't go around attacking people like this when they interpret your statements or questions a different way from the way you originally intended. Instead of attacking it might be a good idea to simply explain further what you meant and what you are trying to ask. Just some advice there for you for free, not meaning to belittle you myself for the mistake that you made, we all make them sometimes. But if you attack people then no one is going to want to help you.
Also as others have pointed out to you, knowing a person's sun sign is only a very tiny part of what astrology can tell us about them, and doesn't give us a great deal of information about their life or character.
One ASTROLOGICAL thing you could do if you really want to, is to look at the charts for Jesus, and people seem to suggest that there is a fairly suitable one on here, and try to see what that shows about his mother - moon sign and decan, MC sign and decan, plus any aspects they make to other planets, and maybe one of those will indicate his mother's sun sign. There are also Arabic parts for the mother, but while these usually show the mother's temperament and character very well they do not necessarily show her sun sign (mine is in the sun sign of my mother's ascendant, my arabic part for my father is in the sign of the decan of my father's ascendant).
There are other astrological techniques such as progressions or solar arcs. If you have a potential chart for Mary, and you know some details of how far apart significant events in her life were, then you can use solar arcs to rectify the chart and to see if that date and time does fit with what you know about her.
It seems likely that Mary existed as a historical figure once (prima facie evidence) but it was so long ago and the stories about her have been passed down and embellished with extra details and meaning over time that we really have no idea what she was like.
Also as they say a wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.
I am also, like Birch Dragon, and for the same reasons, going to to respond and run, answer and dash. I'm out.
Katydid and I interpreted it, since this is an astrology forum not a history forum, as you asking "Which sun sign fits best with what we know about Mary, the mother of Jesus?"
Both grammatically correct interpretations of the question "Which sign was the mother of Jesus?".
I hope that in real life you don't go around attacking people like this when they interpret your statements or questions a different way from the way you originally intended. Instead of attacking it might be a good idea to simply explain further what you meant and what you are trying to ask. Just some advice there for you for free, not meaning to belittle you myself for the mistake that you made, we all make them sometimes. But if you attack people then no one is going to want to help you.
Also as others have pointed out to you, knowing a person's sun sign is only a very tiny part of what astrology can tell us about them, and doesn't give us a great deal of information about their life or character.
One ASTROLOGICAL thing you could do if you really want to, is to look at the charts for Jesus, and people seem to suggest that there is a fairly suitable one on here, and try to see what that shows about his mother - moon sign and decan, MC sign and decan, plus any aspects they make to other planets, and maybe one of those will indicate his mother's sun sign. There are also Arabic parts for the mother, but while these usually show the mother's temperament and character very well they do not necessarily show her sun sign (mine is in the sun sign of my mother's ascendant, my arabic part for my father is in the sign of the decan of my father's ascendant).
There are other astrological techniques such as progressions or solar arcs. If you have a potential chart for Mary, and you know some details of how far apart significant events in her life were, then you can use solar arcs to rectify the chart and to see if that date and time does fit with what you know about her.
It seems likely that Mary existed as a historical figure once (prima facie evidence) but it was so long ago and the stories about her have been passed down and embellished with extra details and meaning over time that we really have no idea what she was like.
Also as they say a wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.
I am also, like Birch Dragon, and for the same reasons, going to to respond and run, answer and dash. I'm out.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
DID MARY MOTHER OF JESUS REALLY EXIST OR NOT? http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/ancientwomen/a/120610CW-Mary-Mother-of-God.htm