posted December 03, 2003 01:56 PM              

Today's example comes from the book titled:

"Ancient Wisdom and Secret Sects" whose "expert consultants" are listed in the bibliography as Marcello Truzzi a self proclaimed "constructive skeptic" (HA!) and Robert A. Gilbert, an antique bookseller (but apparently not a book reader) who studied psychology and philosophy at Bristol and therefore is considered an "expert" who has written many books on the history of the occult, including The Golden Dawn Companion.

I would like to suggest that anyone buying one of his books might want to enjoy the material contained therein as the only redeeming qualities of his books and regard any speculation on his part as mostly scholastic rubbish. Study the material, ignore the rhetoric is my suggestion.

Here we have a photo from page 151 of "Ancient Wisdom and Secret Sects":

The caption reads, "Illustrating the charter of the Golden Dawn are the "four living creatures" of the Bible symbolizing four apostles. Clockwise from the top are the man (Matthew), the lion (Mark), the eagle (John), and the ox (Luke)..."

Well that was a very interesting hypothesis gentlemen, except that any first year astrologer could probably tell you that those aren't the " 'four living creatures' of the Bible symbolizing four apostles", but are instead the four FIXED SIGNS of the Zodiac: Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius. In addition, they are positioned in a way that forms a cross. The purpose of them was almost certainly to FIX the charter in place, symbolizing the PERMANENCY of the pact and of the organization which the charter was meant to represent.

Would it have hurt these guys to study a little bit before they started popping off at the mouth? Why aren't some of US making money selling books? Apparently you don't have to know much about any particular subject in order to write a book on that subject.

I think I'll write a book on prehistoric prenuptual agreements. No doubt the fact that I coined the term should be qualification enough!

posted December 03, 2003 02:37 PM            

I agree, but I must add, historically those four signs of the zodiac have also been linked to the 4 apostles. I have read that in various tarot books as well as in astrology.

posted December 03, 2003 03:14 PM              

The Bull, Taurus is the sign of Andrew.
The Lion represented Thomas.
Scorpio was Bartholomew and
Aquarius was John. (Oooo another clue. See also The Awakener)

That's according to Professor Seward, an astrologer, and I'm much more inclined to believe HIM.

Not only did they assign them to the wrong apostles, but then the authors jump to the conclusion that these symbols were meant, in this instance, to represent four "apostles."

That they didn't notice that these were the FIXED signs of the zodiac shows an apalling lack of insight. It's a pattern that's often repeated by skeptics, where they try to marginalize occult knowledge by associating it with faith, which the worshippers of the "empirical" way of life have made synonymous with "superstition."

The connection to the "apostles" (Luke and Mark were less apostles than...sigh nevermind, just read here), was secondary on this particular document, to the FIXED nature of the symbols chosen.

The fact that they overlooked the cross formed over the document, when going from one sign to the other (in their zodiacal order) is further evidence of how little thought was put into this caption and how little study went into this book.

posted December 03, 2003 03:21 PM            

Most people researching a matter are motivated by curiousity and the ability to get all the facts. These people obviously didn't care but as you stated, they only wanted a quick sell.

I must add though, I disagree about your take on Jesus not being of God in the Human form. I also believe that Luke did not casually add a few notes about Christ, but actually conducted serious interviews with numerous people that lived with Jesus and knew him intimately. He even interviewed Mary.

I guess we are all allowed to follow our heart to our beliefs. I know that I have searched long and hard to determine what I believe in and why. My heart tells me different than what I have read on some of these threads, but I do not care to share my personal convictions at length here.

posted December 03, 2003 03:31 PM              

See? We're EXPERTS now!

posted December 03, 2003 03:41 PM            

What always amazed me was how strong the animal really is. We would have dogs that had tire marks across their bodies, but still they managed to make it through the shock, surgery and rehab.

Ewwwwwwwwwww, that link was terrible!! LOL..the car wanted to hit the squirrel. LOL..well, I always swerve for animals, must be my saggie nature...or that I am a bad driver.

posted December 03, 2003 05:02 PM              

(For a preview, find out what the basis of Paul's "conversion" is. Then find out who wrote the account that forms that basis. Then find out what his relationship to Paul was. Then find out who the authors of the books of the New Testament were and who the primary founders of the early Christian church were.)

For those of you who don't know what we're talking about...the link is here: