by
Andy Lloyd
August 2000
Sirius, commonly known as the Dog Star, or simply ‘The Dog’ to the Greeks
and Romans, is the brightest star in our sky. It tends to sit fairly low in
the sky, and sometimes scintillates with the colors of the rainbow, due to
atmospheric effects experienced visually while viewing near the horizon. We
have already seen how it is strongly associated with ancient female deities,
particularly the Egyptian goddess Isis. What may be surprising to many is
that a certain astronomical aspect of
Sirius is steeped in controversy, and
has been for centuries; namely, its color!
Sirius is a bright, white star. Yet there are many references in ancient
literature to its redness. Astronomers have been attempting to come up with
an explanation for this, so-called ‘red’ Sirius anomaly, for hundreds of
years. Dependent largely upon the cosmological theories in favor during
various times, the preferred solution to this problem has banded
back-and-forth.
On the one hand, it is held that
Sirius could never have
been red, and that the quotes from the ancient literature were simply
erroneous, and on the other hand it is held that this anomaly describes an
intrinsic change in Sirius’ character as a star, that requires explanation.
Unfortunately, there is none. Sirius simply could not have changed
color in
this short time, least of all from red to white. A complete solution to this
puzzle remains elusive, although much of the erroneous material clogging up
the debate has been adequately dealt with.
I am in the unusual position of being able to offer a new, and radical,
explanation, with potentially far-reaching consequences. Given the generally
poor level of debate regarding this anomaly historically, however, it must
be noted that my explanation is a working hypothesis only. I do not wish to
pin the strong case for the Dark Star Nibiru onto this poorly documented
anomaly without this proviso. Even so, it will become evident that it might
offer us a dramatic opportunity to establish Nibiru’s passage during
Christ's life-time.
Professor Whittet of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute introduces his
1999 paper, "A Physical Interpretation of the ‘red Sirius’ Anomaly", with
this summation:
"Sirius A, the brightest star in the night-time sky, appears white to the
unaided eye, consistent with its classification as an A1 V star with
negligible interstellar reddening. Historical evidence that Sirius appeared
red as recently as 2000 years ago has been widely discussed in the
literature in recent years. This phenomenon, which I refer to as the ‘red
Sirius’ anomaly, appears to have stimulated interest and
skepticism in
almost equal measure. The evidence is based on interpretations of ancient
texts from several cultures, including Babylonian, Greco-Roman, Chinese and
early mediaeval European sources, over a time span of approximately 1400
years.
Some of the claims have been disputed on grounds of misidentification or
misinterpretation: as an example of the former, the star supposed to be
Sirius in the early mediaeval Lombardic text discussed by Schlosser and
Bergmann (1985) may be identified more reasonably as Arcturus. Ancient
Chinese texts have been re-evaluated in detail by Jiang (1993), who
concludes that all such reliable sources are consistent with Sirius
being
white. However, other historical evidence for a red Sirius seems both
reliable and unambiguous. Babylonian cuneiform texts, and the writings of
classical Greco-Roman authors, including Cicero, Horace, Seneca and
Ptolemy,
refer consistently to Sirius as a red or reddish star.
Seneca (c.25AD)
stated the redness of Sirius to be ‘deeper than that of
Mars’."
(1)
Whittet then analyses some of the proposed ways in which a star could change
color temporarily and concludes that none of these fit the data about
Sirius given our present understanding of astrophysics. So he then attempts
to discover an extrinsic cause, more due to the viewing conditions that the
observers were subject to, and concludes that the reddening of the star
observed was due to observers witnessing Sirius during its heliacal rising
and setting
(1,
2). He also shows that the later recordings of
‘red Sirius’,
particularly that of Ptolemy in 150AD, were down to plagiarism of
traditional texts by other authors adding to his text:
"Why did Ptolemy, an experienced observer, list
Sirius amongst red stars
without qualification? The answer will probably never be known, but Ceragioli (1996)
(4) suggests two possible explanations. First, as an
astrologer, Ptolemy may have been more concerned with the astrological
significance of Sirius than with its usual physical appearance. Secondly, it
has been shown that parts of the Almagest were probably not attributable to
Ptolemy himself - tradition seems to have played an important role in
shaping the text, and a tradition that emphasized ‘red Sirius’ may have been
favored over objective observation."
(1)
The importance of Ptolemy’s astronomical catalogue,
the Almagest, cannot be
under-estimated, and for that reason the reference within it to Sirius’
redness became the most important piece of evidence for the argument that
Sirius was once red. But as important as the text is, it was subject to much
editing in the centuries after Ptolemy wrote it, and certain erroneous
interpolations have been noted. It seems likely that this is the reason for
the reference to a ‘red Sirius’ in the Almagest, especially as
Ptolemy
himself made no reference to this anomalous color in the star catalogue in
his accompanying astrological text, the Tetrabiblos.
(4)
So most of the evidence about
Sirius being red can be dismissed, except that
of Seneca in 25 AD. Ceragioli has produced excellent papers on the
historical evidence for the redness of Sirius
(3),
(4), and concludes that
Seneca offers the most unassailable and credible description to support its
veracity. Accounts before Seneca seem a to have been composed in a rather
more poetic fashion, particularly that of Cicero’s translation of
Aratus,
and were largely taken out of context. As noted above, later Greek accounts
seem to rely heavily on a tradition of ‘red Sirius’ derived from
Seneca. But
the 1st century Roman’s description is more difficult to explain away, as
Ceragioli describes:
"Much more straightforward is the Roman philosopher
Seneca (early to mid
first century A.D.)… In his prose treatise on nature, the Naturales
Quaestiones, Seneca discusses the causes of fiery phenomena in the sky such
as lightning and meteors; he mentions Aristotle’s opinion (Meteorologica
1.4.341b) that the Earth exhales different varieties of particles into the
air, some of which catch fire. Seneca then remarks:
Nor is it strange if the Earth’s exhalation is of every sort and diverse,
when in the sky too the color of objects is not uniform, but rather the red
of the Dog Star is piercing, while that of Mars is mild, and
Jupiter has
none, its glow being translated into clear light.
Seneca, Naturales Quaestiones 1.1.7
This passage has always been
recognized as the most compelling evidence
beyond Ptolemy’s (which Ceragioli later shows is possibly derived from
Seneca). It is straightforward and unambiguous. Yet even so it has often
been misunderstood. Usually the key words are summarized as saying that
"Sirius is redder than Mars". But this not what
Seneca means. He says that
"the red of the Dog Star is piercing (acrior), while that of Mars is mild
(remissior)", meaning that Sirius’s redness is somehow vivid and striking,
while Mars is flat and nondescript. It is a question of greater vividness,
not a deeper shade of red."
(3)
A few things should be noted about all of this. Other accounts roughly
contemporary with Seneca describe Sirius as white,
as we see today. Yet,
during his discussion of fiery phenomenon in the sky, he chooses to describe
Sirius’ piercing redness, described in the present tense. This tends to
suggest a short-lived phenomena, picked up by only a few astronomers of that
time. But also a very real one. The piercing vividness of the star denotes
its unusual visual impact.
The 'Red' Nibiru Anomaly?
Let us assume that the Dark Star Theory is right, and that a
brown dwarf
star appeared in the sky near Sirius during the time of Christ. Would it not
appear as a piercing red star? Is it possible that the brown dwarf’s
brightness and fiery countenance effectively eclipsed the dominance of
Sirius in that portion of the sky, causing observers at that time to
conclude that Sirius was red? That Seneca misinterpreted its anomalous
appearance as Sirius, setting in motion an erroneous tradition of ‘red
Sirius’, that has perplexed astronomers ever since.
Whilst writing about
fiery celestial phenomena in 25 AD, he rather bizarrely included Sirius,
which he perceived at that point in time as red. Perhaps its unusual
countenance was actually the reason he wrote this essay in the first place,
in an attempt to explain why Sirius was now red. But instead, unknown to
him, he was looking at the altogether brighter Nibiru in
Canis Major!
This is a remarkable proposition, one which might seem a little far-fetched
when examined out of context. Yet the Dark Star Theory already calls for the
appearance of a bright red star near Sirius during the time of Christ, and
here it is. In 25 AD.
The account is accepted by astronomical researchers to be honest and
accurate, the problem for them simply being what it could mean. The modern
scientific explanation centers around the ancient tradition of viewing
Sirius as it sat on the horizon, explaining its apparent redness
extrinsically.
Yet this ‘solution’ is problematic, as Sirius would still
have been a bright, white star under normal viewing conditions, and
therefore should have been described as such. The ancients may have had some
unusual ideas, but they were not fools. Ceragioli cites the German
astronomer H. Osthoff as producing the strongest rebuttal to this
scintillation and absorption theory, a theory that now holds sway among
astronomers:
"He (Osthoff)
criticized the hypothesis of scintillation and absorption - no
doubt thinking about Ptolemy - by saying: "But does an experienced observer
let himself be deceived by this? At higher altitudes colored scintillations
diminish and the true color of the star can be easily recognized.
Likewise
it is questionable whether one may adduce as an explanation the redness of
the star at rising and setting which results from the unfavorable air of
the lowest strata. Why is this false color not cited in the case of all
other white stars?" These are important questions which are still in need of
an answer today."
(3)
Quite. A tradition of Sirius appearing red formed from
Seneca’s account,
despite other contemporary accounts identifying it correctly as white,
including many Roman texts that described it as ‘sea-blue’. The strength of
that tradition among 1st and 2nd Century astronomers, like Ptolemy, points
to the impact of the ‘red star’s’ description by Seneca, a significance
certainly not lost on the Egyptians. It may also have triggered the
resurgence of the cult of Mithras in the Roman Empire.
My contention is that Seneca’s ‘red Sirius’ reference marks an
historic
appearance of the red Nibiru near Sirius, a sighting profound enough in the
Greco-Roman world that it remained part of their astronomical tradition for
more than a century afterwards. But in the Middle East, this astronomical
event was seen as something far more significant still, and marked a
sea-change in world history, as Nibiruan appearances tend to do.
The
Mesopotamian and Egyptian traditions which had managed to maintain the
belief in the Winged Disc had been anxiously awaiting its reappearance since
the time of Alexander the Great. It was late, and had overshot its average
3,600 year passage by about 5 generations. The Messianic
Star, Horus, was
overdue, and rumors of the appearance of the Messiah were raging in the
occupied lands of Israel and Egypt. They would surely not have made the same
mistake as Seneca. Carefully they watched the heliacal setting and rising of
Sirius for a sign of the return of the Winged Disc. Can it be that their
vigilance was rewarded in 25 AD?
Yet the anomalous appearance of the ‘Star of Bethlehem’ is traditionally
understood to have occurred at the start of Jesus’ life, not near its end.
What is going on here? All will become apparent, but first I would like to
address another problem. If Nibiru appeared as a bright red star near
Sirius, then why didn't Seneca describe its bizarre retrograde motion across
the heavens, a movement that would clearly contra-indicate its
identification as Sirius?
Nibiru’s Conjunction With Ra
Whittet and
Ceragioli’s argument that the viewing of this assumed ‘Sirius’
occurred near the horizon may give us a clue as to why the Star, if it was
Nibiru, was not described as a planet journeying through the heavens. Simply
put, the sighting may have occurred at the crucial point of the
disappearance of Sirius from the skies, during late Spring, denoting its
perihelion passage to be on the other side of the Sun (this may neatly
explain old North American mythology describing the gods as living on a
'planet behind the Sun'; but more on this another time).
In the same way that planets cannot be observed when in conjunction with the
Sun, so too could Nibiru disappear during its brightest point of the
perihelion passage. The ability for the ancients to have followed Nibiru’s
movement across the heavens was, therefore, very much dependent upon the
time of year it appeared.
Consider this argument: Many people who have read the Dark Star Theory to
date have pointed out the apparent problem of Nibiru’s extreme distance from
the Sun at aphelion. 25,000 Astronomical Units is a tremendous distance, it
must be said, and an elliptical orbit attaining this length of longitudinal
axis is conventionally ascribed as several million years. Yet the new
discoveries of the orbits of extra-solar planets indicate that this need not
be so. Some of these giant worlds spin around their stars at great speed,
often in highly elliptical orbits. I suggest this is true of Nibiru also.
After all, it was not one of the Sun’s original planets, but an interloper
captured into an anomalous elliptical orbit, after a planetary collision of
tremendous violence.
Consider Voyager’s flight out of our Solar System. Each year it travels a
vast 3.5 AU. Therefore, in half a Nibiruan orbit it will have traveled an
awesome 5000 AU! So, Nibiru need only be traveling five times faster than
Voyager’s current rate to achieve the kind of distances that would fit with
Murray’s analysis. This is no sedate sojourn through the depths of space,
I’ll
admit, but it is in keeping with the extra-solar planet orbits, and
appears reasonable compared to our own space-probe, Voyager 1.
Now, at the
perihelion
point of its passage, Nibiru will be moving around the Sun at an
even faster rate than this average, as is the case with the comets.
It won’t
be hanging around in our skies, that’s for sure. This is also in keeping
with the accounts of Anu’s state visits to Earth, as described by
Sitchin,
which were constrained to a tight time-table indeed, perhaps just a few
weeks. This indicates a short perihelion passage.
Sirius below the Horizon
Sirius drops below the horizon for 70 days of each year, a period of time
held sacred by the ancient Egyptians. Could it be that the tense wait for
its return was because of the fear of missing the appearance of the Winged
Planet at this time? During the Pyramid Age, they positively worshipped
Sirius as it achieved its heliacal rising from the Sun in mid June,
reappearing above the horizon after this annual absence. Again, the
significance of this might be totally due to the awaited reappearance of
Horus, in the guise of the dark Sun god.
In other words, at any other time
of the year, Nibiru’s appearance would be clear to all and sundry as a
bright red star moving backwards through the Duat
region of the sky. But,
during those two months of Sirius’ absence, the risk was that no one would
actually be able to see Nibiru at all. It might come and go without note,
unless it was carefully watched for each year on those dates. Thus the
ancient Egyptian obsession with the heliacal setting and rising of Sirius.
I suggest that this was the scenario during Nibiru’s last passage. The
portion of the
perihelion movement actually visible through the heavens was
minimal; most of its passage lost through the drop of Sirius below the
horizon and the approximate conjunction of Sirius and Nibiru with the summer
Sun. Note that, for this to be the case, Nibiru must have been spotted near
Sirius before its disappearance, not after. Otherwise the retrograde motion
though Orion would have been clearly seen. If Nibiru appeared just before
the crucial 2 months prior to Sirius's annual disappearance, then its
observation as a stationary, rather than moving star, becomes plausible.
Sirius enters its 70 day period locked below the horizon as the Sun moves
past the Hyades in the constellation of Taurus. It then re-emerges during
its heliacal rising when the Sun is adjacent to Regulus. During the
Pyramid
Age, this coincided with the Summer Solstice
(5), placing the dropping of
Sirius below the horizon to two weeks after the Vernal Equinox. Given the
effects of precession of the equinoxes between the Pyramid Age and the time
of Christ, then the point of disappearance of Sirius occurred about
one
month later in the Christian era. This corresponds with April-May time. If
Nibiru was seen between Cancer and Canis Major before Sirius disappeared for
70 days, then this occurred at the time we now call 'Easter'.
Almost the entire passage of Nibiru across the heavens may have been visibly
lost to the people of the 1st Century Roman Empire, but Seneca at least
spotted Nibiru as Sirius set below the horizon, and erroneously went on to
describe Sirius as ‘red’. (It may well be that the receding brown dwarf was
finally spotted moving through Taurus towards the end of the perihelion
passage). If my reasoning is correct, this gives us an clear-cut
astronomical observation of the Messianic Star in 25 AD, during the period
of time preceding Easter. One notes this coincidence with the heretical
Christian account of the Crucifixion. In DarkStar6, I cited Jean Cocteau's
rendition of the Dark Star at the scene of the Crucifixion, which
Picknett
and Prince have linked to the teachings of the heretical society, the
Priory
of Sion.
(6)
This heretical imagery becomes crystal clear when considering
the above argument. The Messianic Star, which had been anxiously awaited for
hundreds of years, didn't appear over a lowly cattle shed in Bethlehem, but
instead symbolically set the scene for the Messianic Crucifixion in
Jerusalem. This, I admit, is a staggering statement, and I do not make it
lightly. For starters, it overturns my previous working assumption that the
Messianic Star appeared in 4 BC. It extends that particular orbital period
by 28 years to 3784 years, still further away from the Sumerians' ball-park
figure of 3600 years for Nibiru's orbit. Yet it explains a great deal:
-
Why Nibiru wasn't charted astronomically as an anomalous wandering star
during its last passage.
-
Why Christ emerged as a Messianic figure later in his adult life, despite
the mythology attached to his birth.
-
How Horus, the
Messianic Star, can be readily identified with the advent of
Christianity, and the appearance of Nibiru.
-
How the hidden teachings of
heretical Christian Sects, almost persecuted out
of existence by the Church, tie in with Dark Star Theory, enabling us to
link Nibiru with Christ.
-
Why the Early Christian church is so readily identifiable with
Egyptian
Mythology, particularly the ancient myths associated with Isis, Osiris
and
Horus.
Please note that I am not claiming that the timing of
Nibiru's passage is
coincidental with the actual crucifixion. Rather that its appearance
triggers the later events of the New Testament. The Crucifixion is analogous
with the mysteries of the ‘god of the dead’, Osiris, so presumably relates
to the movement of Nibiru through Orion. It is likely that this part of the
perihelion passage occurred when this constellation was locked below the
horizon, and went unnoticed by the people of Earth. It is probable, though,
that the final aspect of Nibiru’s 1st century celestial passage was seen,
and became embodied in the resurgence of the cult of Mithras. More about
this in a moment.
However, of greater interest to us is the initial
appearance of Nibiru. The ministries of John and Jesus came to fruition
because the star appeared in Canis Major, as noted by Seneca in 25 AD. The
Winged Disc cults of the ancient world had been waiting for its return for
hundreds of years, and the prophecies called for the return of a Messiah and
Kingship on Earth. This miraculous rebirth of the dark star propelled the Isian-based rituals of John the Baptist to the forefront of Judean religious
belief, dangerously competing with the monotheism of orthodox Judaism at
that time. Jesus continued this radical movement, and the rest is history.
John the Baptist and the Star
There is an interesting, and possibly crucial, thread that connects John the
Baptist's mission with the myth of the Star of Bethlehem. The visit of the
3
Wise Men to the stable in Bethlehem is described in the Gospel of Matthew.
The Church celebrates this important chapter of the Nativity story on the
Epiphany on 6th January. Matthew is the only Gospel writer to describe the
Nativity, leading one to suspect that its derivation lies in the recreation
of the 'divine child' mythology. Gilbert points out the connection with
John:
"So important was the legend of the
Magi considered to be by the Church that
the Epiphany, celebrated in honor of their supposed visit, is a major feast
day. However, the 6th January was not always connected with Jesus' physical
birth. In the early Church, it was indeed a Holy Day but it had nothing to
do with the nativity. Rather it was considered to be the day of Christ's
Baptism in the Jordan River and was called the 'Day of Lights', relating to
the Illumination of Jesus and the Light which shone in the Jordan."
(7)
Gilbert does not bring this point to our attention to create doubt in our
minds that the Nativity was a later construction of the Roman Church. But
that is surely the effect. The early Christian church described the baptism
of Christ by John as the 'Day of Lights', and later incorporated the myth of
the Magi's visit into this crucial date. Instead, the first appearance of
the Divine Star occurred with the symbolic baptism of Jesus by John,
initiating the Christ figure into the Isian rites associated with the
Messianic Star.
Only later, when the connection of Christianity with pagan polytheism needed
to be exorcised, did the Church replace this initiating event with the
Nativity.
This date of 6th January might symbolize the first time that the emergent
divine star was seen by the astronomers and astrologers of 25 AD, as it
progresses from Cancer to Sirius, to be 're-born' in the sky. This
penultimate section of the Duat became the 'Day of Lights' in early
Christian mythology. The Baptism symbolism is understood in this context
through the Biblical recollection of the Flood. After all, this was caused
by a Nibiruan passage 10,000 years in the past, disaster which 'cleansed the
Earth' and brought about the destruction of the
Annunaki's extensive
operation on this planet.
It is not hard to see why the Egyptian ritual of
Baptism would suddenly become highly fashionable in Judea as the Messianic
Star reappeared. By cleansing one's sins through full immersion in water,
the people of that time recalled the past destruction the brown dwarf
brought about, atone for their own sins, as well as hope that the same was
not about to happen again. Fear of this world-wide cataclysm lead the people
of the Middle East into the arms of the Baptist. His was the original
Messianic Movement of 1st Century Judea.
So the date 25 AD indicates the beginning of the Christian movement itself,
possibly some time before the actual crucifixion. But the symbolic timing of
the crucifixion was the same as the Nibiruan appearance, in the Spring, to
mark the death and rebirth of the Messianic Star.
At this point, Nibiru
dipped below the horizon, and its movement through the realm of the 'god of
the dead', Osiris, was lost to viewers on Earth. I will leave it to others
to verify the veracity of the Christian account. It may have happened
historically, or it might be mythology built upon the Dark Star astronomy,
like so much other ancient myth.
Likewise, the actual identity of Christ is beyond the scope of this web
site. My interest lies with the tie-in between the scientific basis for
Nibiru and its mythology, and my stance on Christianity as a religion is
neutral. It is not the purpose of this essay to question the divinity of
Jesus Christ, but rather to place his story in the context of a wider
mythology.
Mithras
Finally, a point about the apparent lack of reaction in the Roman Empire to
the appearance of the Messianic Star. This is a problem particularly for
Biblical scholars trying to pinpoint the historical appearance of this
celestial object. As far as I know, this is one of the few times that the
Star of Bethlehem has been explained by the actual appearance of an new
star. Most other theories call for conjunctions of the planets, meteors,
super novae or even UFOs. What is plain to all is that the Early Christians
placed a great deal of importance on the vision of the Star, yet its
appearance in contemporary records of that time was notable by its absence.
This proposed solution addresses this issue in a radical new way, pointing
out the cultural difference between the dominant Romans and the subjugated
people of Israel and Egypt. The Romans, like the Greeks, were completely
ignorant of the Winged Planet, being a European culture, much younger than
the ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian
civilizations. As an astronomical
event, it was difficult to spot because of the time of year it appeared, and
Seneca erroneously noted its appearance as Sirius itself.
There is another possibility, however, that could provide evidence that the
Romans and Greeks also worshipped this new star. The 1st and 2nd Centuries
AD saw the blossoming of a cult with marked similarities to Christianity,
that of the god Mithras. Originally an alternative version of
Zoroastrianism, Mithras was a fiery Sun-god with heroic qualities.
Gilbert
describes what is known of the Roman version of this ancient Persian god:
“Unfortunately, little in the way of writings concerning
Roman Mithraism
have come down to us although there are a number of relief and statues
still in existence that give us the broad outlines of what the cult was
about. Its central legend has clear links with both Zoroastrian and Biblical
creation myths. Mithras, like Gayomart, is a divine child.”
(7)
Here we have a cult, which originated in Persia, suddenly taking hold in the
Roman Empire around the same time as the emergence of the early Christian
church. Its focus was a fiery sun-god who was a divine child, born on 25th
December, not dissimilar to the Egyptian messianic symbolism. It seems
likely that Mithras became the Roman cult of Nibiru, based upon appearance
of the fiery star noted by Seneca. The main aspect of the Mithras myth holds
further clues. This god was famous for his sacrifice of the heavenly bull.
He seized the bull by the horns, and was then dragged until ‘the great beast
collapsed’. He then picked it up by its hind quarters and pulled it back to
his cave , where he sacrificed it.
If the heavenly bull is Taurus, and I am
correct in identifying Mithras as the Winged Planet moving through the last
stage of its visible perihelion, then this could allude to the retrograde
motion of the divine star through the constellation: Firstly moving directly
onto the horns of the bull, then dragged by them, then grabbing the flank
before disappearing into the darkness of the 'cave' for the sacrificial
rite. This would imply that the increasingly dim countenance of Nibiru was
followed by the Romans before it disappeared from Taurus into the primordial
deep. The Mithras mythology was invoked in cult-form following this
celestial passage.
The Egyptians were more prepared for
Nibiru's appearance, through its
ancient stellar religion, and I suggest that a new, highly significant cult
arose directly because of its perihelion passage. The writings of the
Alexandrian philosopher Philo (30BC – 45 AD) would seem to bear this out.
The Egyptian city of Alexander was one of the predominantly intellectual
centers of the 1st Century world. Early Christianity thrived here, and this
Jewish citizen wrote contemporary passages which seemed to allude to the
connection between the Celestial and Human Messiah. Gilbert describes his
findings regarding Philo:
“One of these great symbols, as far as
Philo is concerned, is the doctrine
of the Logos as the Son of God. He writes:
Moreover God, as Shepherd and King, leads [and rules] with the law and
justice the nature of the heaven, the periods of sun and moon, the changes
and progressions of the other stars – deputing [for the task] His own right
Reason (Logos), His First-born Son, to take charge of the sacred flock, as
though he were the Great King’s viceroy. Mead, in his commentary on this passage discusses how this
‘Heavenly Man’
was for Philo the Celestial Messiah of God. He goes on to quote…
Moreover, I have heard one of the companions of
Moses uttering such word
[logos] as this: ‘Behold Man whose name is East’...”
(6)
This research of Gilbert seems to confirm that the origin of the Messiah is
indeed celestial, at least in the eyes of the Egyptians. Combine this with
the sudden phenomenon of the cult of Mithras in the Roman world, and the
Messianic Star tradition in Christianity and a common thread is developing
throughout the civilized world of that time. It was a reaction to some
event, and I propose that it was the partially observed perihelion passage
of Nibiru, the Dark Star.
Conclusion
This paper offers us the possibility of synthesizing Sitchin's 12th Planet
Theory with early Christianity, using raw astronomical data as evidence.
Seneca's essay on fiery celestial phenomena in 25 AD included an undeniable
reference to a 'piercing' red star in Canis Major, and this event may indeed
have triggered the writing of his document. Because he regards the star as
Sirius, it has been included in the dubious sack of astronomical 'old
chestnuts', the red 'Sirius' anomaly. Yet it stands alone as an irrefutable
piece of evidence of a truly anomalous event.
When one takes the unusual step of regarding Seneca's sighting as that of an
actual red 'star' appearing near Sirius, and effectively outshining it, then
the myth of the Star of Bethlehem begins to find a home in historical
reality. The reason why this thought has not been considered before is that
astronomers simply would not consider it possible that another planet could
move into the Solar System in this way.
But for those familiar with Sitchin's work, and the arguments I have put forward in the
Dark Star
Theory, regarding the new astronomical evidence for Nibiru's identity as a
brown dwarf, this ancient scientific evidence offers the possibility of
pin-pointing Nibiru's last passage, and realizing its effect on the
civilized world at that time. Many of the mysteries of the events of 1st
century Palestine can be readily understood in this context, as well as
repercussions felt elsewhere in the Roman Empire. This hypothesis also
allows us to extrapolate into the future, to a point when Nibiru will appear
again.
Unfortunately, the repercussions of this next passage are more ominous.
1) D.C.B. Whittet Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 310, 335-359 (1999) "A Physical
Interpretation of the ‘red Sirius’ Anomaly"
2) D.C.B. Whittet Journ. Brit. Astron. Assoc., 87, 523 (1977) "Colour Change
of Sirius"
3)
R. Ceragioli J. Hist. Astron., 26, 187 "The Debate Concerning ‘Red’
Sirius"
4) R. Ceregioli J. Hist. Astron., 27, 93 " Solving the Puzzle of ‘Red’
Sirius"
5) R. Bauval & G. Hancock "Keeper of Genesis" p183 Mandarin 1996
6) L. Pickett and C. Prince "The Templar Revelation" p46 Bantam Press 1997
7) A. Gilbert "Magi" pp20, 52-56, 63 Bloomsbury 1996
|