Crucifixion Eclipse : The Large Gizāh Pyramid : Nostradamus’ Birthdate at Central Axis of Giza Pyramid :
|[Contact, Search]||World History - Yahoo! - Help|
|: H O M E :|
Apokálypsis; "Article II."Government Systems"
Bookoflife.org © Michael Johnathan McDonald
Released: 13th september 2011: (12:19 p..m. Burbank, CA.)
Topic: Egyptian Deity Horus and Astrological Terminology
Article ii, sec. i, b
The horograghs & Horoscopy discussed in the ‘Nostradamus Encyclopedia’ communicate confusion Because all the Great Astrologer/Astronomers never used the system promulgated in this poorly researched work.
Also the mis-term of horoscopy or horograghs counters all historical astrological/astronomical interpretation/terms, a Horoscope only applies to a person’s birth date as the starting point of all events and surroundings of one’s life, as interpretive and promulgated around 400 B.C.E. by historical astrologers/astronomers and onward till today. The confusion possibly comes from a misreading of Ptolemy on his judicial astrology work (Tetrabiblos) where he mentions that a state’s chart acts like a horoscope when using primary directions for prognosticatory purposes for a mundane chart or a world chart. This does not mean or imply that mundane charts are horoscopes. This is poorly academic compartmentalization of ideas. States are formed by a community of unified thinking individuals as a group and not an individual. Even military leaders who begin states have an apperatus of forces that place them into power. A leader’s horoscope can be a window into a state’s future but it serves little explanation that a larger mundane chart would entail.
When Horoscopes became the fashion of astrological-nativity- interpretation, the Egyptian deity Horus was in vogue. Abū Ma‘šar draws upon Ptolemy’s interpretation of progressing a nativity of kings, allowing for certain mundane events, such as accession of a leader to be classified as similar to a personal progression in a nativity chart. When the Jewish Bible was mainly compiled, and many parts written certain writings discus mathematical astronomical-systems where one day equals one year. Since Daneil supposdily composed in the region of Neo-Babylonia we suggest this knowlege was arready in vogue long before Hipparchus or later Ptolemy’s writings on astronomy/astrology. Coincidently, when these writings took place at the same time Horoscopes were becoming a novelty, and thus the same idea of the one-day-for-a-year method was later classified by modern academics as ‘horoscopy.’ Chronologically listed are the Arabic astrological-astronomical sources: Zarādušt, Ğāmāsb, Māshā’allāh ibn Athari, Kankah al-Hindī, ‘Umar ibn al-Farruhān, Sahl ibn Bišr, al-Kindī, an-Nayrīzī, al-Battānī, Ibn Kibriyā’, an-Nawbahtī, as-Siğzī, Ibn Magur, Ibn Abi r-Rigal, and Muhyī d-Dīn al Maġribī. Abū Ma‘šar was the most prolific. Out of all of these examples not one person, even Ptolemy of whome most derived at least some-part of their knowledge of traditional judicial astrology from had conceived what Chavigny wrote as Nostradamus’ method of matching planets to signs in a geometrical-historical-complex. The expression ‘comparable horoscopy’ would be under Ptolemy and Mā šā’allāh systems of nativity progressions in regards to large groups of people. The Nostradamus Encyclopedia’s author apparently had no idea what he speaks of and the non-references appear to confirm a suspicious confusion and/or just a blatant copy of some subjugated knowledge. By all means there is little academic quality in the Nostradamus Encyclopedia astrology sections, unfortunately – which today are proven by the innacurate forcasts – you cannot blame Nostradamus’ method promulgated in this screed of emotionalism because it is not his to begin with but the authors’ ideas projected onto his system. He did match plantary influences but never claimed a repetition of an historical event.
After the Egyptian deity Horus cult usurped the Osiris cult, creating the conservative to progressive categories, it was the later period of the Egyptian dynasties which gave rise to ‘Horus’ - scope, which we derive as our own personal part of the god Horus, as he made everything, we are only a part of him/her thus our own horoscopes are personal and have nothing to do with mundane astrological charts. In cross-culture we could assume an Elohimscope, an Allahscope, a Jesusscope or a variety of names. Abū Ma‘šar’s writings confirms this for his period of Arabic contributions. A scholastic term of some ‘continuum horoscopy’ refers to a progression system of a horoscope ( a person’s astrological birth-chart) and not a world chart or a religion chart).
This was a part of Genethialogy, a branch of Greek astrology, and re introduced in the Book of Religions and Dynasties by Abū Ma‘šar. His system remains largely untested. Besides of sources we know of Ptolemy, Ma‘šar uses mainly, Mā šā’allāh’s work, to which progressions of the ascendant under accession or arcs from trigonic changeovers, or even a interval of a Jupiter and Saturn conjunction, is expressed under a system that some later modern academics describe as a genre of ‘horoscopy,’ and yet all of these systems rely on a single point in time to which a theoretical expression implies progressing into a non-real-time frame to which is expressed by these astrologers as the key to unlocking historicy and/or world events.
Other systems included upon the accession of a ruler use the Aries zero point (not always tropical) and then count the years and progress planets or degrees to achieve a type of reading of the future. Ma‘šar prefers this method and uses primary directions, usually the ascendant or mid-heaven’s direction for one sidereal year and then move all the planets according to this integer, and therefore 360 degrees is a relative equivalent to 360 years of a state’s rule. However, he also interchanges the natural motion of the Chronocrator series to combine two theories into a complexive reading for the future. At other times, he relies only on one method if he cannot find two synchronistic astronomical/astrological signatures.
Because of the inaccessibility of Abū Ma‘šar to get correct information on most foundations (he had Baghdad’s but not the satellite states), he formulates a mundane astrology chart for states beginning by primary direction of the Spring Equinox during the perceived founding year. Scholars who translated and tried to analyze these difficult prognosticator systems mis-named the process ‘continuum horoscopy.’ A horoscope comes from the pre-classical Greek period where an astrology chart is performed upon the birth time of an individual, not a group or a state. The term is derived from Egypt, where the usurped deity, Horus, is the foundation deity to an individual, thus everyone was born from Horus who connection was to the Sun-deity. The affix, scope, is just like a similar modern infinitive of ‘to plot,’ or ‘to cast.’ The method of primary direction were criticized by Roman Empire astrologers, and finally replaced by a method during the period of Placidus during the Italian Renaissance, and we technically call this method a secondary progression. Yet, most modern astrologers just refer to it as a progression chart. Ma‘šar discusses primary directions and state’s charts but this is complicated and too detailed and not to be confused with general assessments of planetary ‘relative cycles,’ the most important for him was the Great Chronocrator Series. Nostradamus refers too in his public writings a sub-series called a trigon which is a part of the Great Chronocrator Series.
Ma‘šar’s book was extremely famous during the middle ages, and has a pedigree for beginning modern myths. For example, Albertus Magnus mistranslated a passage from a corrupted Latin copy On History Astrology (the book was under many different titles during the middle ages) of Isu bn Maryum (without diacritical marks!, Jesus son of Mary) and interpreted it literally, Jesus born from a virgin. Magnus took this to be the constellation of Virgo, and cast a birth Chart for Jesus for 2 September, 2 BC, and this misreading from an improper Latin transitions from Arabic began a myth to which by the mid 1850s became associated to the Pyramidologists spatially organizing the time-lines of the Bible in Stone, the Great Pyramid at Giza) based upon a misreading in the middle ages –without knowing its pedigree. Not all the Pyramidologists used the Magnus subjugated knowlege for Jesus’ birth date on 2 September 2 BC, but this tradition led astrologers to read this incorrect chart for a continuum horoscopy purposes – thus failing over and over again.
During the middle ages no one in Europe knew of classical Latin, this would later come during the time of Petrarch resurrection of the classical Latin era in Roman times. We spoke and wrote a Medieval Latin. If these persons were to achieve the correct Jesus’ birth chart they could use it to foretell the future. But it is safe to say that Albertus Magnus did not have academic access to the petrine fathers, which would have to wait until Desiderius Erasmus was well into his productive years to understand most of these fathers placed Jesus’ correct period of birth from March to May, therefore in the spring-time. This was the consenus during the Chritianity formative centuries. Today the guesses are still not correct, and that is well and good. There was a reason that Jesus did not ask for his diciples to celebrate his birthday, the evil avarice academics would use it to gain knowlege and control.
It takes a really studious mind to address what is astrology. The reason Ma‘šar’s work cannot be validfied is that most of the regions, and places of his day do not have archival retrieval material. To test his theories we would need a correct historical assessment of the themes he relates. However, his promulgation of the mathematics of the ‘relative’ cycles of planets and their intending mundane applications can be analyzed and confirmed. It is ones choice or better yet ones ability to examine with a sharp mind the intensive information one is shown. The reason Astrology is not a scientific field of late in academia is that no-one in academia has the intelligence to engage it properly.
What is explained in concept in the “Nostradamus Encyclopedia” is not horoscopy, is not horograghs, or neither comparative horoscopy. Nostradamus never used the term; he used mundane astrology, a sub-set of the genus of Judicial Astrology.
Any expression to describe comparative horoscopy entails taking two nativities or starting points of mundane circumstances and set them to a progression system, and then determine a reading of these progression to your desired question. This would be an extremely complex system and we can only presume that Nostradamus used such a system. The scholastic term ‘continuum horoscopy,’ only implies on nativity chart and progressing it, as each year defines the continuum of a horoscope. If you use two continuum horoscopes, then possibly it can refer to a comparative horoscopy – but still then the question asks: what are you comparing? Ma‘šar does not use the term but somehow the academics added this confusing term into the mix, and we wonder why other academics cannot understand what they are reading? The fight between Ezra and Ma‘šar are over using exclusivly tropical and sidereal astrology. The clear method used by Nostradamus was sidereal, and this system was indeed more complex a system than tropical astrology. Tropical and Sidereal Astrology do not coincide well with eachother but often combining these two distict methodogies are more preministic than just tropical astrology.
 or the continued term used in this work which is redundant, ‘comparative horoscopy.’
 Ibid., Ma‘šar, “On Historical Astrology...”, preface, p.xi.
 Sources and Doctrines, sec. 2, Genethialogy, p. 576 found in Abū Ma‘šar’s (Kitāb Al-Milal Wa-D-Duwal) in “Abū Ma‘šar, “On Historical Astrology, The Book of Religions and Dynasties ( on the Great Conjunctions),” ed. trans., Keiji Yamaoto & Charles Burnett, vol. 1 (Koninklijke, Brill NV, Lieden: Brill, 2000).
 my verb!
corrections and technical inquiries to