13th sign of the zodiac

endescent said:
I found it odd that the story was carried so widely on mainstream networks. The symbology of adding a myth with a serpent to our zodiac is, to me, very curious. There's another word with the same root as Ophiuchus, Ophiolatreia, which means serpent worship. If the PTB wanted this story circulated, what might it symbolize?
Click to expand...

I think it's just a cheesy journo trying to stir the pot.
 
endescent said:
I found it odd that the story was carried so widely on mainstream networks. The symbology of adding a myth with a serpent to our zodiac is, to me, very curious. There's another word with the same root as Ophiuchus, Ophiolatreia, which means serpent worship. If the PTB wanted this story circulated, what might it symbolize?
Click to expand...

Well, there you have it! PTB/4DSTS...serpent worship...let's promote that one! ;)
 
Well, I've just completed my own natal chart as a birthday gift to my self (January 21st) and I am deffinantly Aquarius, no doubt about it.

Rising sign in 18 degrees Cancer
Sun in 01 degrees Aquarius
With my moon in 27 degrees Aries
Mercury in 23 degrees Capricorn
Venus is in 18 degrees Pisces
Mars is in 16 degrees Pisces
Chiron opposite Uranus

And all the rest of it.

Ophiuchus or not, I am still very Aquarius. :)


And I agree with Laura,
I think it's just a cheesy journo trying to stir the pot.
Click to expand...
 
I am not very well edumacated on astrology. I am/was an aries, so according to this i am now pisces?! I must now read up on my new sign and find out how a proper pisces is supposed to act. ;-)
 
I am illiterate when it comes to charts.

Was sag, now apparently ophiuchus... I have sag tendencies, but I am not as bold as they say a sag should be(but every now and again I call the bluff of fear and act against rational thought I suppose, but I'd like to think that is through choice but sadly it isnt, more because something up there is yanking my chain and gives me no choice), in that sense I suppose there is an element of boldness but I wouldnt describe it as boldness interms of personality boldness. Also abit clumsy and I would like to think after lofty ideals like spiritualism(just kind of dislike the practical aspects of it eg, the I got to meditate or change what I eat, bad aspect of this quality which am working to rectify), abit of a dreamer, dislike animals(not a sag quality), ok not really dislike, they are alive! and most things living scare the living daylights out of me. Looked up ophiuchus traits. Have some of those to but I am not into any of the medicine stuff(infact I hate medicine) but one thing got me. Left most of my extended family who I havent seen in years at an early age when I was young.

I'll just say am a mix of both! There...

Am happy now.

I have a question to ask.

When you look up traits of these signs, what part of you are they meant to be describing? Is it the personality? Or the essence of the soul/Real I?

Thanks in advance.
 
Here is another look at why Ophiuchus is not really "the 13th sign"

_http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_ophiuchus_e.htm


Ophiuchus - the 13th Sign of the Zodiac?
by Dieter Koch
One must never equate Sun signs with fixed star constellations.
Every few years we hear the same old news from critics of astrology, mostly astronomers and physicists who know nothing about astrology.

They argue that the signs of the zodiac used by astrologers do not correspond to the actual constellations of stars on the sky. They say that the real star constellations have been shifting relative to the astrological signs by nearly one month in the course of the last 2000 years. They explain this with the so-called precession of the equinoxes.

In addition, they claim that astrologers suppress a 13th constellation, the Serpent Bearer (Ophiuchus), despite the fact that the Sun passes each year through this constellation.

These statements are true in a certain sense. But they are based on naïve and incorrect assumptions about the essence and history of astrology, and therefore they miss the target. Those who argue against astrology that way may well understand a bit about astronomy. But they are incompetent regarding astrology and have not done their homework. They speak in the media about something they have never studied.

Ptolemy was fully aware of precession
Already in the second century C.E. the astrologer and astronomer Ptolemy was fully aware of precession and the issues mentioned above. He knew that the equinoctial points were slowly shifting in relations to the star constellations – by about 1° in the course of a human life span of 72 years (Ptolemy, Almagest VII.2.f). Still, he decided to give up star constellations and to let the zodiac begin with 0° Aries at the spring equinoctial point (Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos 1.10f). Why? He did this in the opinions that the actual constellations of fixed stars were not relevant for astrology, that the sun signs should be fixed at the cardinal points of the Sun's annual path. Aries begins at the spring equinox, Cancer at the summer solstice, Libra at the autumn equinox and Capricorn at the winter solstice.

Ptolemy's decision was only logical because astrologers had always considered sun signs to be related to the seasons. In ancient Mesopotamia around 2000 B.C.E. the appearance of the Libra stars immediately before sunrise in fitting symbolism indicated the autumn equinox (as documented by cuneiform text Mul.apin I iii 1-2). 1000 years later, when this rule did not work anymore due to the shifting of the equinoxes by precession, the beginning of autumn was redefined as the entry of the Sun into Libra.

Sun signs vers. fixed star constellations
Modern astrology has remained true to this old tradition. It does not consider constellations of the fixed stars, but divides the zodiac in correspondence to the cardinal points of the seasons. The actual star constellations in the sky are astrologically irrelevant. One must never equate Sun signs (signs of the zodiac) with fixed star constellations. Fixed star constellations are configurations of stars visible in the sky, sun signs however cannot be seen in the sky. They are mathematical divisions of the annual path of the Sun in the sky, of precisely 30° size for each of the 12 parts.

If astronomers claim that astrology cannot be true because it does not use the actual star constellations, they claim this in the mistaken belief that astrologers have forgotten where the fixed star constellations are. In fact, every astrologer knows they are different from the astrological zodiac signs. The historical truth few are concerned with lies in the fact that the fixed star constellations received their names from the seasons and from the annual rhythm of the Sun's movement, not the other way around. Where the constellations are found nowadays in the sky is simply irrelevant. The astrologer is only interested in the sun signs, based on the seasons.

Now what about Ophiuchus, the Serpent Bearer? Because this is also – only – a fixed star constellation, it has no astrological relevance. The Sun passes through it nowadays between 29 november and 17 december, which falls into the astrological sign of Sagittarius.
Click to expand...

And another look at it from Ed Falis:

Reply #13 - on: 14. Jan 2011 at 22:09 [UT+0] » I'd have never expected to see this taken seriously on an astrology web site. There are two issues being conflated in this internet meme.

1. Constellations vs signs. Constellations are connect-the-dot imaginary pictures in the sky. The stars in them can be incredibly distant from each other. Different cultures have different ways of connecting the dots, and give different names to different areas in the sky. The currently accepted astronomical boundaries of the constellations were set by the IAU (International Astronomers Union) in ~1932, and the boundaries are quite arbitrary in many cases - "best guesses" if you will. The "zodiacal" constellations do not share equal segments along the ecliptic.

Signs are 30 degree divisions of celestial longitude. The divisions are named after some of the constellations that intersect with the ecliptic. Planets' positions are measured in celestial longitude by the distance of their ecliptic intersects from 0 degrees tropical Aries by both tropical astrologers and astronomers. Both have also been known to use equatorial coordinates, whose longitudinal component (right ascension) also starts at 0 degrees tropical Aries. Planets have been placed into signs rather than constellations at least since the development of Hellenistic astrology, and this includes Jyotish.

That's because astrology is about measurement and modeling rather than some sci fi fantasy of "influences".

2. Precession. The equinoxes precess backwards relative to the background of the stars (most of which have their own proper motion as well, but which is vanishingly small). Those who use a "sidereal" zodiac adjust celestial longitudes and right ascensions to give zodiacal positions against a zodiac that is not tied to precession. Such zodiacs lead the tropical zodiac by about 24 degrees at the current time, so that tropical positions become ~24 degrees earlier in the sidereal zodiacs.

Some tropicalists also apply precession when comparing positions at different times. This is a way of making two frames of reference equivalent for comparison, by reducing positions measured relative to the ecliptic on one date to that of another date.

Astrologers have known about precession at least since Antiochus (~200BC?).

So, this latest regurgitation of the same nonsense that appears periodically shows nothing but the ignorance of astrology of those promulgating it.

- Ed
Click to expand...
 
Hello boucles58, I suggest to read " the Secret history and how to get out alive first volume, in there you'll find most of the answers you seek, then you can come back and share your thoughts....happy reading. :lkj:
 
Mods, this thread should be merged with this one

cassiopaea.org

New Zodiac Sign Dates: Ophiuchus The 13th Sign?

_http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/13/new-zodiac-sign-dates-oph_n_808567.html#s223863&title=kristin_leigh Astronomer Parke Kunkle says that due to changes in the Earth's alignment the dates of many zodiac signs have changed, according to NBC. In addition, there may be a 13th Zodiac sign...
cassiopaea.org cassiopaea.org
 
Laura said:
Mods, this thread should be merged with this one

cassiopaea.org

New Zodiac Sign Dates: Ophiuchus The 13th Sign?

_http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/13/new-zodiac-sign-dates-oph_n_808567.html#s223863&title=kristin_leigh Astronomer Parke Kunkle says that due to changes in the Earth's alignment the dates of many zodiac signs have changed, according to NBC. In addition, there may be a 13th Zodiac sign...
cassiopaea.org cassiopaea.org
Click to expand...
Done
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom