Jesus, and why I need an Astrophysicist a/o an Archaeo-Astronomer regarding Him.

[Dan DAlimonte]

Even more support from the Bible and my old buddy, Nostradamus. 

The way I see it there were only three times when the whole earth could have been affected by God,
in the Old Testament.  If I'm wrong, correct me. Now, going in chronological order these are.

1.  The three days of darkness which befell Egypt during the time of Moses.
You can research that, if you want.

2.  The long day of Joshua and I'll addressing that in a minute or two and ...

3.  The King Hezekiah story which I already mentioned. 

Now, again whether these events took place in reality or they were symbolically projecting an event which
would be really taking place re Jesus is a moot point to me.  Like I said, I have my hands full trying
to get one theory investigated let alone, if those above could have taken place.  Now consider the following
from, Nostradamus.  First two lines of Quatrain 31, Century 4.

The moon in the middle of the night over the high mountain.
The young wise man alone with his brain has seen it.

Well, since other people put in there two cents as to what those lines could mean, here's mine.

It was the moon, alright.  But it wasn't in the middle of the night, it was the middle of the day.
And, it wasn't over the high mountain, it took place over a valley  The valley of Ajalon, to be exact.
Check out the following.

On the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites to the Isrealites.  Joshua prayed
to the Lord and said in the presence of, Isreal.  Stand still, Oh sun in Gibeon  Oh moon in the valley
of Ajalon.  And the sun stood still and the moon stayed.  Is this not recorded in the, Book of Jashar?
The sun halted in the middle of the sky.  Not for a whole day did it resume its swift course.

So, first of all, why would Nostradamus focus on, Joshua and what does he have to do with. Jesus?
Well, when Jesus walked on this planet He was known as, Yeshuah.. That translate into, Joshua, and
over time, that became, Jesus.  Okay.  So why would Nostradamus put the line in a way, that is - contrary - to how it
appears in the Bible?  I don't know, maybe he was telling us that something in regards to Jesus (this Joshua) was contradicted?
Some celestial event which involved the earth and it didn't come to light?  Of course, if that happened he must have known that
the only person who would figure this out with his brain, would notice that.  And, also notice it had to be put right.  But, Dan,
when I checked out that quatrain it says the - new sage - not - a young wise man.  Yeah, I know.  Believe it or not,
Nostradamus, has been known to alter his own quatrains every now and then.  Then and now?  It could still fit. 
So, to recap.

1.  We have three days of darkness which could match the three days Christ would be spending in the tomb and the earth
could have been affected.

2.  We have a celestial event re Joshua whereby the sun and moon stood still which may be foretelling a real event
as it concerns a future, Joshua, which may have affected the earth and ...

3  We have the, King Hezekiah, story which, in several ways matches up with Jesus and what I believe was the, Sign of Jonah,
and how the earth could have been affected accordingly.   
 
Is there an Astrophysicist or Archaeo- Astronomer in the house who could do an investigation?  Do you know any?   
One with an open mind?  A definitive answer before I die would be greatly appreciated.

Btw ... getting back to Jesus when He was speaking about the, Sign of Jonah.  Afterwards,
He said the following and please note the slight variations.  ... and now, Something Greater than Jonah is here.
... and now, Someone Greater than Jonah is here ... and now, One Greater than Jonah is here.  No problem, as far as I'm concerned.
But you can add to it. as well,   ... and now, Someone Greater than, King Hezekiah, is here ... and now, Someone Greater,
than, Joshua, is here.  If Jesus surpasses all three, then the event itself should surpass all three together ... Well, I think it did. 

[Dan DAlimonte]

And?  Wouldn't you know it?  Back to the Gregorian Calendar again.

Believe me, I don't want to rehash this again but because it will support me, I have to mention it.
Pope Gregory dropped 10 days from the calendar to coincide with the Council of Nicea's documentation
of the spring equinox taking place on, March, 21st, in 325 AD.  His aim was to have a continuous spring equinox 
always appearing somewhere between, March 21st to the 22nd.   Yes - most sites I visited did state the Council''s
finding re the first day of spring was on the 21st in the year, mentioned above.  However, some sites maintain the first
day of spring was actually, on the 20th of March when registered by the Council.  Not, the 21st. They also state it was
Pope Gregory's desire to keep that spring equinox to always appear between the, 20th and 21st of March. 
Not between, the 21st and 22nd.  So, what's the big deal?  He still dropped the 10 days to readjust the calendar,
did he not?  What would change?

Nothing. Nothing at all, except, for one thing.  Do you remember the lag times, if you will, and how there
were three different equations as to how many days the real calendar would lose in a given point of time? 
It was, 1 every 130 years.  1 every 129 years and, 1 every 128 years.  Okay, I calculated it backwards to a March, 23rd
day of spring which accordingly and chronologically, for that matter, would have been, either, in the year, 22 AD  or, 34 AD or,
46 AD.  So?  Well, it wouldn't have been a, March 23rd first day of spring, it would have been a, March 22nd, first day of spring.   
And?  Here we go again

If Augustus adjusted the calendar to the way Sosigenes intended by, 3 - 5 AD, with a March 25th first day of spring,
how could it drift so quickly to the 22nd, in such a short period of time?  Btw ... that is three complete days, is it not?     

[Dan DAlimonte]

Yeah, More from the Gregorian Calendar and if this doesn't convince you my theory should be investigated
or, at the very least, the history of the Gregorian Calendar should be re-evaluated then I don't know what could.

I did say that the lag would cause a loss of I day every 128 years or, 1 every 129 years or, 1 every 130 years.
Well, i got this info way back when but apparently now, the number is a bit higher.  Since the math shows it would
be roughly, 3 days lost every 400 years, that, rounded off would be, 1 day in every, 134 years.  Okay let's go back.
In 1582, 10 days were dropped from the calendar.  Multiply 134 x 10 and minus it from 1582 you would get
a spring equinox in, 242.  Let's say the Council in 325 did determine the first day of spring was indeed, March 21st.
That would bring us to 242 for a March 21st to occur.  It is before the Council met and it should have stayed that way.
Makes sense.  Do it again 134 years from, 242, an equinox on, March 22nd in 108.  One more time, and we'd get an equinox
on, March 23, around 26 BC.   Really???  Sosigenes, formulated the Julian calendar in 45 BC for a March 25th, first day of spring
and it drifts in less than 20 years to, March 23.  Yeah, right.  Let's say he did make a mistake of 24 hours.  March 24 to drift
that much to March 23, in less than 20 years.  My ass ...essment of that would be - no way.

Now, let's just say that the equinox was on March 20 when it was documented by the Council of Nicea.  Okay.  Go through
the process and it would now be, March 22 equinox around 26 BC from a calendar that was formulated less than 20 years before.
My ass ...essment wold be exactly the same as before.   Now, excuse the pun, but's let's backtrack on the backtrack for a second
to see if a logical progression does take place and when it would have broken down.

Pope Gregory dropped 10 days to line up with the findings made at Nicea in 325 AD and let's again assume it was the 21st
of March.  Going back, as stated, we'd have an equinox taking place on March 21st in 242.  This is again well ahead of the Council
but  the first day of spring would have been on the 21st but it would have been inching itself towards the, 20th.. Makes sense.
Go back another 134 years and you's have an equinox documented in 108 AD as taking place on the 22nd.  This has to make
sense in order to go forward.  There had to be an equinox taking place on the 22nd or what I just stated in the few lines before,
wouldn't have happened.  So where would the logical progression start breaking down?  Well, if the equinox on March 22nd
in 108 AD, had kept going back accordingly, it would have run into two problems.  One - the adjustments made by Augustus
between, 3-5 AD, when there was a high probability the first day of spring was on, March 25th and ... two - the complete insanity
that would have happened if you went back to when, Sosigenes, formulated the Julian calendar in, 45 BC.  Really?  A drift from a,
March 25 or 24th day of spring, to shift to March 23 in less than 20 years.  No way.

So, if this scenario stresses that a March 22nd day of spring had to take place in order to fit, then let's have one.
Let's assume one took place far earlier than it should have.  Again, NOT in the year, 108 AD but some time before
Let's say within the years when most scholars believe, Jesus was crucified?  Somewhere in the early 30's?  Sometime,
when the first day was documented as taking place on March, 25, as per the adjustments made by Augustus
and then ... it drifted to, March 22nd?  Well, as stated, this is exactly what I think happened.  Also consider the following.
Let's just make 33 AD was the year of the crucifixion.   Add 134 years to that and you'd get a first day of spring on the 21st
in 167 AD.  Do it again and there would be a first day of spring in, 301 AD, or just before the Council gathered in, 325 AD.
It could fit, given some scholars believe, Pope Gregory, was aiming for a spring date which would occur within the dates
of the, 20th of March to the 21st.  And, again, that would be three complete days would it not, if the equinox drifted from
the 25th of March to the 22nd?



   

[Dan DAlimonte]

Btw ... just to show my theory does deserve an investigation, let's look at charts, if you will

First Chart - assuming, Sosigenes, did not make a mistake of 24 hours re the first day of spring.
45 or 44 BC - First day of spring - March 25
134 years later - around 89 AD  - Equinox, March 24
134 years again, - 224 AD - Equinox - March, 23
Again                 - 358 AD - Equinox -  March 22
Add 1340 years because we achieved the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and add 10 movements - Equinox March 12 -1698 AD.
This overshoots Pope Gregory's adjustment - Minus 134 from 1698 = 1562, Equinox, March 13.
Couldn't have happened, Pope Gregory was dealing with a March 11, Equinox.  Next.

Second Chart - assuming, Sosigenes, did make a mistake which was not corrected by, Augustus.
45 or 44 BC - First day of spring - March 24.
134 years later - around 89 AD - Equinox, March 23
134 years later -224 AD - Equinox, March 22
134 years later - 358 AD - Equinox - March 21
This does line up the Councils findings but let's go further.
Add 1340 years to 358 = 1698.  Equinox, March 11.  Minus 134 from 1698 = 1562.  Equinox on March 12.
Again, Pope Gregory's Equinox was taking place on March 11.
Couldn't have happened.   Next.

Third Chart.  Augustus adjusted the calendar around 3-5 AD, let's make it 5 AD.
March 25, first day of spring, in 5 AD.  No miracles to come.
Add 134 years to 5 AD.  139 AD - Equinox, March 24.
Again -  273 AD, March 23, Equinox.
Again - 407 AD - March 22, Equinox
Add 1340 to 407 = 1747
Equinox - Fuget about it.  No possible way to line up with Pope Gregory.
Now, as Ol' Blues Eyes, said, let's look at it, My Way.

Fourth Chart.  Augustus adjusted the calendar around 5 AD to have a March 25th, first day of spring.
This is the way, Sosigenes, already did or intended.
In the early 30's, let's say 33 AD, Christ was crucified.  If, I'm right about my, Sign of Jonah, theory,
it did happen.  The following equinox or solstice should have showed a three day discrepancy.
The next spring equinox would have showed an equinox taking place on, March 22.
Add 134 years to March 22 in 34 AD. = An Equinox taking place on March 21st, in 168 AD.
Do it again and in, 302 AD the equinox would have been on, March 20th. 
This could very well have happened as documented by the Council in, 325 AD. 
Add 1340 years to 302 AD = 1642 AD.  Equinox took place, March 10th.
Take away 134 years from 1642 to bring it to Pope Gregory's time and you'd get a, March 11th, first day of spring in 1508.
This is exactly what Pope Gregory was dealing with when he implemented his change to the calendar. 
And, in 1582, he dropped 10 days from the calendar and ...  Well, we've already been through that.

Btw ... With or without, Frank Sinatra, you do notice that, My Way, does line up with - two - historical observations.
Pope Gregory was dealing with, a March, 11th day of spring, which had to be adjusted.  And?
If you go back a page, you will note, that if you started with a March 22nd equinox which the calculations showed would have
appeared in 108 AD and then, went forward to the closest day of spring before the Council met, that would have been in
242 AD with an equinox taking place on March 21st.  However - that would have been a full 83 years away from the Council.
Yes, it would have been a March 21st equinox but it was ever increasing towards the, 20th.  Meaning?  Both my calculations
would be correct.  It was on the 21st, but very close to the 20th and the other way, shows that it had been documented as taking
place on the, 20th. Yes?  Therefore, both Pope Gregory's documentation, in my Chart, does appear to be correct as does the findings
noted at Nicea in 325.     

[Dan DAlimonte]

And, getting back to Pliny's observation regarding the obelisks ...

It's ironic Denis, mentioned, Immanuel Velikovsky, because the first time I ever heard of Pliny, the obelisks and
a discrepancy, was in his book, Worlds in Collision, and I presented the passage here except ... I came to find
it was shortened in one of his possible reasons to explain the discrepancy.  You know,  ... or, whether it was this ... or, whether
it was that.   Here's the opening line

... or whether that the whole earth in some degree has been displaced from its center. 
                                  (so what line follows?) 
a thing that I heard say had been remarked in other places, as well.


So, what is Pliny saying here?  Is he saying that nearly 30 years before, there were other places, other than, Rome,
which noticed an event, that made it look like the whole earth had been displaced from its center?
Or ... there was another event at another time when it appeared that way, and he heard about it taking place in differing locations?

Well, you know my point of view.  I think it was the first scenario and, you really can't blame him for not remembering
the places, given, it was ... nearly 30 years before.  Now, let's look at this again.
 
If both lines were meant to be viewed together then ... like Pliny stated ... it would have been an event which involved
the whole earth, would it not?  Maybe, it was a Sign of some sort?

[Dan DAlimonte]

Could the crucifixion really have taken place on March 25th?

If you look back, I began my support that I could have been right re my theory with the early Christians
viewpoint, if you will, that both, the day of the Crucifixion and the day of Christ's resurrection took place on the first day of spring.
I also explained how Occam's Razor would dictate that the simplest explanation would have been - they did that to convert
pagans to their own beliefs.  I countered that with - certainly the early Church would have done that but the early Christians,
at most, had formed a brotherhood of sorts and their main concern was to wait for Christ's return which they thought was at hand.

Please check out the link provided for members and if you are a guest check out the following on YT entitled - March 25, God's chosen day.

Here you will notice the early Church did accept March 25 - and it did seem to be the first day of spring - as the Crucifixion day, but
they coupled it with the Annunciation or the day Mother Mary conceived Jesus and NOT the day of the Resurrection.  Why? 
Well, I think the early Church thought the first two events coupled together on the same day would be impossible. 
Unless, of course, if my theory re the Sign of Jonah was right.   And?  Well, I've been through all that.  A first day of spring
happening on March 25 after Augustus made his adjustments would have been extremely possible,

[Dan DAlimonte]

Regarding the Insertion from the top of Page 1.

August 26/19.  Three vids on YouTube concerning the subject matter.
Guests.  justoneguy - Jesus and the Sign of Jonah ...

Part 1 - Academic support.

Part 2 - Biblical support.
Part 3 - Loose ends and a final wrap up.