JFK Assassination Forum
Off Topic => News - Off Topic - Weird & Wacky => Topic started by: Dan DAlimonte on June 14, 2019, 12:22:00 AM
-
Insertion - August, 26/19. Too long to read? Please go to Page 3. Same date.
I just put three vids on YouTube on the subject,
I am about to present a theory as it connects to a comment Jesus made when the Pharisees asked for a sign
to verify who He was.
An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign but no sign will be given them - but one.
Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so to will the son of man
be in the belly of the earth for three days and three nights.
The above has been known from then on in as the, Sign of Jonah. Could I have found it?
Well, if I did, I can't prove Jack ... without one of the people mentioned in my title since they have the expertise
needed and I don't. So, with that being said and given their scientific mindset, I will be presenting and note the word
- academic - evidence first, which could support my conjectures. After that is done, I will be providing Biblical support
and even support from my old buddy Nostradamus, should you be interested but now ... I have to provide two lead ins.
Trust me, you'll see why both are needed.
1. So, Dan ... how did you come up with the theory to begin with? Glad you asked.
Since I couldn't do what I wanted to do after graduating high school I decided to try my hand at
writing with the hope of getting a book of poetry published. Naive as I was, I honestly thought one could earn a
living doing that. Yeah, right. Anyway, after God knows what manuscript was rejected, I decided to get one poem published
in one literary magazine so at the very least, I could now say I was a published author. I then went to my desk, pulled out an
essay I wrote in high school on a Canadian poet (Raymond Souster) and look for a poem to which I could extend the theme.
The poem below caught my eye.
A Christ On Yonge Street
The same long hair
same beard
same gentle eyes
He is smashing his fists
against a wall
but not hard enough
to draw blood
so, of course,
no one notices.
Well, I don't know about you but I liked it then and still like it now. So what could have happened regarding Jesus
which could have passed unnoticed? Well, it couldn't have been in His lifetime because (albeit it is jumbled up) it
is in the New Testament. So, what was left but when He was in the tomb and I no sooner had that thought when who
pops into my mind but Buddah? What the ...? I wanted to write a poem about Jesus and he pops into my mind? And, what was
Buddah doing but sitting in a lotus position and holding the stem of a planted flower in his hand and by doing so, he held
the earth still. I then happened to look at the TV which was on and what appears but a Universal Film from the '30's and its opening
logo was a rotating globe. As if this wasn't enough, the opening scene of the film showed the earth rotating on its axis. The earth
stood still but kept rotating on its axis? Well, if was a miracle it could happen but why? Wait a minute what if an asteroid
was heading towards the earth and Jesus saved all life on this planet because the days were held back ... but nobody noticed.
This was great. So, I started to write a poem about that. And?
Needless to say the writing didn't last very long. What if it really happened? I then went to my nearest Bible and looking
for anything where the days could have been held back and I didn't have very far to look. In Mark - And unless the Lord
had shortened the days no living creature would be saved but for the sake of the elect whom He has chosen, He has shortened
the days. Now, let's put the horse in front of the cart. If an asteroid was or will be that large to cause such a catastrophe was a
moot point for me. Could the earth have been affected in the manner I was imagining and more importantly - since we don't know
exactly the year when Jesus was crucified, - could it have happened sometime during Pontius Pilate's reign as Curator of Judea
from, 26 AD - 36 AD?. And, do I believe that happened? Yes, I do.
I, not only believe that happened when Christ was in the tomb for three days and three nights, I also believe it happened
on the day when He was born. Remember the story of the Nativity Star or the Star of Bethlehem and how it stood still over
the place where the child lay? Well, some people like, Dr. David Hughes, believed the - star - was in actuality a few very
rare, Jupiter and Saturn conjunctions within a month which had strong astrologically implications. Thus signifying a King would
be born to the Jews. Just Google his theory If that happened and given the distances involved, let alone if they were in a
retrograde motion at the time ... wouldn't they looked like they stood still if in fact, the earth stood still but kept rotating upon
its axis? Btw ... modern scholarship tends to believe Jesus was born anytime between, 8 - 6 BC. Now, my apologies but there
has to be another lead in because it will come up constantly.
I don't know if you ever heard of the philosophical principle known as, Occam's Razor, but it goes like this.
Let's just say you have a mystery of sorts and there are many theories to explain it but no theory carries anymore
weight than another. If this happens then it should be the simplest explanation which should be given the most credence.
Google Flight 19 or the Lost Patrol. What caused those planes to disappear over the Bermuda Triangle? Alien abduction?
Time warps? Methane gas? Whatever. Simplest explanation? Since the squadron was led by a gentleman named, Taylor,
and he was new to the Fort Lauderdale area he most likely got lost, they were running out of gas so he ordered they
all ditch their planes into the ocean. Is this what happened? Who knows given there was no trace of anything. But ...
it is the simplest explanation. Now, let's list the academic reasons why this theory of mine should be investigated.
If I'm right, great. If I'm wrong then, at the very least, I do have an answer.
1. The early Christians used to celebrate - and please note the word - BOTH - the crucifixion of Christ and the day
of the Resurrection as taking place on the first day of spring which according to the Julian calendar would have been.
March 25. The simplest explanation? They did this to lure pagan converts. While the early Church did do that, like making
the birth of Christ to coincide with the Roman Saturnalia, I highly doubt the early Christians did that At the very most
in the early days they had formed a brotherhood of sorts waiting for Jesus to return. Do I believe the crucifixion did take place
on the first day of spring or the spring equinox? Yes. Due to agricultural a/o religious reasons, it was a watched event
throughout the world by many cultures. You know, it would have been world stage if something did happen in regards to Jesus,
that is ... if it was detected or, was it? Btw ... the summer and winter solstice were big occurrences, as well, like the following.l
2. If there was a pre-Christian astronomical monument like, Stonehenge, with a Heel Stone, located some distance away
from Stonehenge and the purpose of that, Stone, was to keep track of the solstice then ... if I'm correct, the solstice
should be four days off from the way it appeared in ancient times. You know, one day for Christ's birth and three days off when
He was in the tomb and ... that's exactly what happened. The simplest explanation? The, Heel Stone, sank. Okay, it sank.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but had it sunk in a straight line then, the solstice would have appeared in a normal fashion.
So therefore - and the, Heel Stone, weighs about 35 tons - it must have sank and, at the same time,it had to sink to one side
to explain the discrepancy. Is this what happened? Were there any other pre-Christian observatories, if you will, with a Heel Stone
of its own and what do they show? Was there a global sinking? Was there any myths or folklore during the time in questions which
possibly shows the moving of the Sun, so to speak? Were any Heel Stones moved or adjusted and if so, when? Were there
any historical observations like the one I'm going to mention which could have documented there was something wrong?
Yeah, I'm not kidding. Please read on.
3. After Rome conquered Egypt one of the spoils which Augustus brought to Rome was an obelisk and this was
around the year, 20 BC. Once there the Romans fashioned a sister obelisk to the first one and both were erected
in the Maritus Field, either in, 10 or 9 BC. The sole purpose of these two monuments which were called, Solarium Augusti and
Horologium Augustus, was to keep the calendar in check. It was actually dedicated to Julius Caesar for his accomplishment
of implementing a new calendar with far less problems than the former one. Well, someone noticed in Pliny's, Natural History,
(the first ever encyclopedia in history, if you're interested) the following lines ...it (the obelisk) has been shown for nearly
30 years ... not to agree. The simplest explanation? It sank? Just kidding, the Romans must have failed to factor in the change
of latitude from Egypt to Rome. Was this correct? Apparently not Check out the following from, A Short History Of Scientific Ideas
to 1900. ... the difference in the length of day was well known to the Romans. From the fact that the longest day in Alexandria
was 14 hours, in Italy 11 and in England 17. Pliny (notice who) deduces that the land close to the poles must have a 24 hour day
and a 24 hour night in winter.
Now, so I don't have to do things twice, I'm only going to focus on Pliny's comments regarding what happened in this section
and in the next the obelisks will be mentioned again.. Notice what his explanations are for the obelisk(s) showing
the wrong time, so to speak. Here's his quote. ... whether it is that the sun has changed its course in consequence
of some derangement of the heavenly system or whether the whole earth has been to some degree displaced from
the center or whether that some earthquake confined to this city alone has wrenched the dial (obelisk) from its
original position ... or whether it is in some consequence of the Tiber, the foundation of the mass has subsided.
Really? Wouldn't you agree something major must have happened to warrant these types of explanations?
... some derangement in the heavenly system ... the sun to change it course ... the earth being
displaced from the center. Let's continue and believe me I'm dreading this section most of all because
I have to provide a history of the Julian calendar. Anyway ...
4. Sosigenes of Alexandria must have made an error of 24 hours in his determination of the vernal equinox
when he formulated the Julian calendar. The simplest explanation? Well, this time it is the simplest explanation
and I don't agree with it. For those of you who don't know, when Julius Caesar wanted to reform the calendar his main
guy to do it was, Sosigenes and I think he did a good job ,.. considering. He set the first day of spring to be, March 25.
He figured out a year of 365. 25 days. He then thought of rounding off that number to 365 and when every
fourth year came about, he would add a leap day. Now, there's two things Sosigenes didn't expect that would cause
problems for the said calendar and I'll speak about it, one at a time.
He did tell Caesar that a leap day had to be inserted every fourth year but the knuckle ... I mean, the pontifeces
who were in charge of monitoring the calendar started inserting them every three years. Now, there are two different
view points which, believe it or not, came to the same result. Whether it was 11 days inserted when there should have
8, or 12 inserted when there should have been 9, the result is the same 3. Now, do you remember the obelisks which were
dedicated to Julius that was erected in either 10 or 9 BC (most likely the latter) Well, that's how they found the problem.
To bring it back to some kind of normal, Augustus decreed that no leap years should be inserted from 8 BC to 7 AD, inclusively.
Well, I don't know about you but if Augustus had to drop interclary days to adjust the calendar, doesn't it look
like he had to drop 4 days when only 3 were needed? Seriously, one day dropped at 8 BC, another in, 4 BC,
another in 0 and because there was no 0, in 1 AD and still another in, 5 AD. before 1 was to be added in 9 AD.
Well, there could have been two reasons so far as to why an extra day had to be dropped but, let's add a third.
One of the things Sosigenes either didn't know or didn't know how to factor in was the following. The year he projected
was 11 minutes and 14 seconds too short. If this problem wasn't addressed it would cause big time problems down the road.
And, that's exactly what happened.
This lag accumulated so much that by the time Pope Gregory was in office in the late 1500 's
the first day of spring was registered on March 11, when it should have been around the 21st or 22nd.
He commissioned Christopher Clavis to solve the problem and he did. 10 days were dropped so the equinox
would line up on the same day when the, Council of Nicea, met and they registered the equinox as taking
place on March 21st. Now there are 3 different formulas as to how the years would have caused us to lose a day.
I'll put all of then down. 1 day lost every 128 years. 1 day lost every 129 years and 1 every 130 years.
Now, let's times them by 10 and see where they line up if we go backwards from 1582 the time of the adjustments
to the Council in 325. Every, 128 years., March 21st in 302 AD. Fits the Council 129 years, March 21, 292. Fits the
Council. 130 years, March 21st in 282. Fits. The problem? No problem here. It's when you keep going back
to the March 23rd, equinox where there's a problem. 128 years, first day of spring in 46 AD. 129 years, March 23 in 34 AD.
130 years, March 21st in, 22 AD. Uh huh. Now, look at what follows.
a) Augustus had completed his adjustments as early as, let's say, 3-5 AD to compensate for the year 0.
So from there on in, nothing from him or any Emperor of Rome tampered with the calendar.
b) Do you remember the names of the two obelisks used to keep the calendar in check.
One, was Solarium Augusti and the other, Horologium Augustus. Well, they both have sites on the net
but the second stated that after the adjustments of Augustus were completed, the obelisks were working
correctly ... for a while. I'm sorry, both obelisks were working correctly for a while? Doesn't that mean, it had
a March 25th, as the first day of spring as early as, 3 to 5 AD? And, the significance is ....?
Well, whatever was thrown at the Julian calendar was addressed, one way or another, by Augustus.
The interclary days and, whether it was 3 or actually 4, wouldn't matter. Why?. Because it was adjusted.
The change of latitude? It showed the right time. Sosigenes, made an error of 24 hours (and I still don't think he did)
it was adjusted. My theory re the birth of Jesus sometime between, 8 - 6 BC, and what may have happened. Adjusted.
The lag? Well, if it wasn't adjusted, then the first day of spring on March 24 would have taken place in the early 70's AD?
What's my point? What could have happened around 3 to 5 AD with a high probability for a March 25 first day of spring
to cause it to drift to a, March 23rd day of spring as early as ... Well, take your pick. 22 AD? 34 AD or, 46 AD?
Isn't the crucifixion of Christ within those years?
What could have happened which would look like a ... derangement of the heavens ... to look like the sun had changed
its course ... to cause the earth to appear like it lost its mass
And, speaking of the above, excuse the pun. I do know the premise of Pliny's statement about
the obelisks is that, - they were not working correctly and it was nearly 30 years later when he became aware of it,
but had it been the other way (or, both ways around, for that matter) my theory would have been supported
tremendously. How's that? Well, if they had been working correctly from, 3-5 AD and then, nearly 30 years later,
they didn't. Wouldn't that bring us to the early 30's AD, which would be right at the time when most scholars believe
Jesus was crucified? That is correct, is it not? So, hopefully the 30/30 principle will apply ... that is, if an investigation
in this matter does happen and I'm proved correct.
And speaking of the obelisks and the Romans again. Did anyone ever wonder why they fixed the calendar once
when they discovered the mistake with the interclary days and then ... did nothing to adjust it when they found
another discrepancy as stated by, Pliny? Well, 2 + 2 = 4, does it not? Do you think they would have advertised it?
Think about it and while you're doing that consider the following. Pliny's own words suggest that the obelisks must have
showed the right time for a while, and ... nearly 30 years .... from what? ... it didn't? Well, let's take a brief look at his life.
Born in 23 or 24 AD in a province in Gaul, now Italy. Moved to Rome to receive an education. Joined the army in 46.
Served with distinction as some kind of officer and in 59 AD moved to Rome for a prolonged period of time. Politely put,
he was a maniacal writer who accumulated a great deal of information because he had a maniacal interest in .... well, everything
Hence his work to come, Natural History. So, is it possible he could have become aware of the discrepancy re the obelisk as early
as 59 AD or shortly thereafter, which would have lined up - nearly 30 years before- with the traditional years when Christ could
have been crucified? Yes. And - unless, I can come up with any other academic support or I remember something pertinent ...
That's it. Except for a brief recap. My Biblical support a/o support from Nostradamus will follow that recap.
Continued on the next page but before I do that, I'm going state a few little mistakes.
1. The lag of 11 minutes and 14 seconds ... too long or too short? I've read both from scholarly sites.
To me it doesn't matter. We would lose a day every ... Well, I listed the numbers.
2. From what I gather now, he Solarium of Augustus and the Horologium of Augustus may be one and the same.
It's my understanding that a duplicate structure was built to mark the calendar. My main concern is that, it or they,
did show the right time for a while ... and when and what happened to cause it to go askew.
Gees.
.
-
The Recap re my academic reasons why my theory should be checked out.
Yeah, I know it's a long shot I could be right but I used to bet them when I went to
the racetrack and every now and then - Well, ask the owners of, Country House.
1. The early Christians used to celebrate - BOTH - the crucifixion and the Resurrection on the first day of spring.
Well, I think that was an observation because if I am right, that's exactly what happened.
2. I do believe it was on an equinox day at the time and I explained why. Also, from a modern standard
it would be easier to backtrack celestial events like the equinox or the solstice if I have any chance for being right.
3. The Heel Stone at Stonehenge is four days off from the way the solstice used to appear in ancient times.
It sank? Did it? Any other pre-Christian observatories with a Heel Stone, of their own which would counter that?
Also, I forgot to mention this, any anticipated eclipses show up too early or too late during the time in question?
Any eclipses show up which doesn't match a pattern? Any movements of a spring festival? Etc ...
4. Anyway you look at it, if you go from Pope Gregory's adjustments down to a March 23rd day of spring and if Augustus
did correct the calendar for a March 25 day of spring early in that millennium ... what would have caused a shift like that?
5. I do believe Pliny made a historical observation of the event in question regarding the obelisks. I guess Occam's Razor
deems it was an earthquake so wouldn't he have said it was most likely an earthquake. I mean how much research would he
have to do, to discover an earthquake took place in that period? Do you think he would have said ... whether this ...
or whether that ... or whether it was this? And? ... Well, if it was an earthquake or the flood from the Tiber.
The Romans did nothing at all to to fix the problem? Maybe, it was the lag? Well, from what I gather the ancients knew
about that even before Sosigenes came into the picture. Plus, that would have a small effect and year after year after year
the Romans surely would have caught on.
more to come ...
more to come ...
-
Q: What were Jesus's last words on the cross?
A: 'Hey, Paul... I can see your house from up here!
Well the actual last words were 'It is accomplished'
-
Hi Dan, excellent post, obviously a lot of work went into that..so you possibly won't appreciate me saying I have a great many problems with most of it. Just two for now if I may. The first is an obvious one, I'm sure you'll have an explanation for it; Jesus wasn't in the tomb for three days and three nights, He was only barely there for one and half days.
The second problem I have is the passage from Mark; Mark - "And unless the Lord had shortened the days no living creature would be saved but for the sake of the elect whom He has chosen, He has shortened the days"
Dan, although Mark talks in the past tense that's not how the passage should be read. Mark is making reference to a future event, The End of Times. Can you reconcile these two points for me?
-
Hi Dan, excellent post, obviously a lot of work went into that..so you possibly won't appreciate me saying I have a great many problems with most of it. Just two for now if I may. The first is an obvious one, I'm sure you'll have an explanation for it; Jesus wasn't in the tomb for three days and three nights, He was only barely there for one and half days.
The second problem I have is the passage from Mark; Mark - "And unless the Lord had shortened the days no living creature would be saved but for the sake of the elect whom He has chosen, He has shortened the days"
Dan, although Mark talks in the past tense that's not how the passage should be read. Mark is making reference to a future event, The End of Times. Can you reconcile these two points for me?
Hey Dennis. Believe it or not, I want any challenges you have because, if I could, I do want this investigated.
Thanks for responding. Like I said, if I'm right, great but if I'm wrong. At least I have a definitive answer.
Your first point - Yes I realize that there are two possibilities concerning the time Christ was in the tomb and, believe it
or not, that is a moot point. I could live with either, if the event I'm predicting did happen. In fact, I was going to mention
exactly that on the second page, but there was so many things I had to address. Pliny, adjustments made by Augustus and so on.
I quoted the - three days and three nights - as stated. It fits the Heel Stone problem at Stonehenge perfectly. It would also be
more dramatic and significant if a discrepancy was found that was that big and it went unnoticed. As for the shortening of days.
Many scholars believe this is meant for the real end of days ... Revelation And, yes you were right Mark meant for a future re event
but it could also be meant for a future event for Jesus If I am proved correct, we would now have to go back and see if there was
a cataclysmic threat from space which passed by because .... Well, the days were shortened.
Btw ... I have yet to present my Biblical support, if you will, and three complete days could fit Right now I'm trying to present
academic reasons. One thing I learned when you're dealing with a, Phd. You can't prove an event from the Bible with the Bible.
They just discount it right away.
-
Dan, unfortunately, Stonehenge is so enigmatic it can and indeed has, been used to fit almost any theory, solve any problem. I'm afraid Stonehenge, along with the Knights Templar and the pyramids, is an instant 'warning light' to me for anything esoteric. I would really like to read more of your theory if you have the time to post but I must warn you, I have very little confidence in anything written in the bible. Not on religious grounds but based on the fact there are so many provable mistakes in it, geographic locations, Roman history, Jewish traditions to name just a few examples. The biggest problem, of course, being how the four Canon Gospels were 'selected' by Pope Leo? (not sure). Using the Gospel's to prove a theory isn't going to be easy. Dan, can I suggest you take a look at the works of Emanual Velikovsky if you haven't done so already, I know the guy was ridiculed at the time but a lot his work is now being reevaluated. I think there's some stuff in his books that may help you develop your theory. Please post more, it's totally fascinating.
PS Sorry Dan, your last paragraph wasn't there when I originally posted.
-
Dan, unfortunately, Stonehenge is so enigmatic it can and indeed has, been used to fit almost any theory, solve any problem. I'm afraid Stonehenge, along with the Knights Templar and the pyramids, is an instant 'warning light' to me for anything esoteric. I would really like to read more of your theory if you have the time to post but I must warn you, I have very little confidence in anything written in the bible. Not on religious grounds but based on the fact there are so many provable mistakes in it, geographic locations, Roman history, Jewish traditions to name just a few examples. The biggest problem, of course, being how the four Canon Gospels were 'selected' by Pope Leo? (not sure). Using the Gospel's to prove a theory isn't going to be easy. Dan, can I suggest you take a look at the works of Emanual Velikovsky if you haven't done so already, I know the guy was ridiculed at the time but a lot his work is now being reevaluated. I think there's some stuff in his books that may help you develop your theory. Please post more, it's totally fascinating.
PS Sorry Dan, your last paragraph wasn't there when I originally posted.
Hey, Dennis. I agree with you the Bible is not the most reliable book a person can count on but I was only going to use it
to support me not to prove anything. I said at the onset I can't prove Jack ... unless one of those people in the title confirms it.
Funny you should mention Velikovsky ... that's where I first came across Pliny's comment in his book, Worlds in Collision,
re the obelisk. As for Stonehenge, to me, it is the marking of the Solstice and why it appears four days off kilter than the way
it did appear in ancient times. What I wanted to know is if any other pre-Christian observatories, displayed the same thing.
A cross reference, if you will. And as for me not mentioning the Biblical support ... I spent a lot of time typing the first page
but it was definitely mentioned it on the second page maybe in an edit, I can't remember..
-
The only important person you have to prove it to..is you. I've got a fascinating story about Stonehenge, it's more than a little weird so now's probably not the time, remind me someday. Thumb1:
-
Biblical support for my theory plus support from my old buddy, Nostradamus
If you look at the life of Christ in the New Testament you will find that the word sign and Jesus is first
mentioned together when Mother Mary and Joseph presented the newly born Jesus in the Temple.
In other words, every male after 8 days old had to be brought to the Temple for the presentation before God.
After Mother Mary cleansed herself with a bath - all ladies who gave birth were considered unclean until they
took that ritual bath. After the Holy Family entered the Temple, they were met by two people, one was, Anna, a prophetess
and the other was an elderly gentleman named, Simeon, who spent a great deal of time there because he was hoping to see the
Chosen One before he died. Well, as soon as he and Anna saw Jesus both rejoiced. This was the guy. After that, Simeon,
made several prophecies one of which was ... and for a sign that shall be contradicted. Now, before I continue I have
to tell you a story.
About twenty years ago, I tried again to get my theory investigated by an Academic with a Phd so I took a
correspondence course, entitled, Science From A Christian Perspective. The guy running the course had a Doctorate.
I completed about three classes and then asked him politely if he would comment on a theory of mine, in the hopes he
would help me investigate it. He said, Yes, so I mailed him a letter which presented all my academic reasons why my theory
should be investigated with a lead in being the statement by Simeon. No more than five days later I got the letter back.
In it he stated that I spelled Isreal wrong ... Well, I saw it spelled both ways. As stated and, Israel. But, what really bothered him
was that I misquoted, Simeon. It does NOT say - contradicted - it states - spoken against or opposed. So, he sent the letter
back to me saying it was basically unread. What the .... heck was he talking about? I went to my Bible and it said - contradicted.
I went to a New Testament book and it said - contradicted. I then went to the computer and it was stated the way he put it.
Spoken against or opposed. Now, what?
You see I came to find that most Christians dislike that word because they are convinced that the Sign was the Resurrection
and contradicted differs greatly from spoken against or opposed. Contradicted could mean ... Well, put it this way, using
an event that took place a while back. If I stated Al Gore should have been President in 2000 but it was contradicted.
You do know what it means. Now, I'll be getting back to this in a minute. Let's look again as far as Jesus is concerned.
If you look in the New Testament there is an event when Jesus first met John the Baptist to be baptized
and, as the process was about to begin or had begun, a dove alighted over the head of Jesus and please
note the word to - signify - who He was. God spoke after that acknowledging who Jesus was. Okay. Let's move on.
I began this whole post with the quote re The Sign of Jonah. How Jesus stated an evil and adulterous generation asks
for a sign but no sign shall be given - but one, just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days
and three nights, so too will the Son of Man be in the belly of the earth for three days and three nights. Uh huh,
but did you ever read what was written in Mark regarding a sign. He sighed deeply and said, Why does this generation
ask for a sign? Truly, I say to you no sign shall be given to it . What's He doing? On the one hand He says - one sign
shall be given and He also said - no sign - will be given to that generation. Gees, if I didn't know any better, it sounds like
Jesus contradicted Himself. Do you think He was telling us the sign would be contradicted? The Sign of Jonah will be contradicted?
So, let's recap and please remember what I thought was the Sign of Jonah and how the earth was affected. It stood still but kept
rotating on its axis for three days and three nights
Simeon speaks of a sign that shall be - contradicted.
A dove appears over the head of Jesus to signify - a derivative of the word, sign - who He was.
Jesus contradicts Himself when He said no sign shall be given that generation and then - one sign - will be given that generation.
He is saying, The Sign of Jonah, was contradicted.
Anything else? Well, there is my old buddy, Nostradamus
Below, you will be reading a quatrain which was NOT in the Centuries but it was either one of his lost quatrains or it,
appeared in a letter to someone. Either way,, given the style, I do believe it to be authentic.
The three brothers have died
And the evil one controls all
Then is a sign, a dove amidst heaven's stars
And the time for the Son is high.
You know, I'm in need if an Astrophysicist or an Aechaeo- Astronomer to investigate,
my theory re the Sign of Jonah, and he says, Then is a sign amidst heaven's stars. Like a double play
on the word - then. It happened - then - like way back when, and - then - it is revealed, amidst heaven's stars.
And he does seem to be talking about Jesus in the last line - And the time for the Son is high.
Wow ... the only thing I have to do is why he put the word - dove? Really?
If you translate the name, Jonah, from the Hebrew into English it does mean - DOVE
What do you think? Should someone investigate my theory. I think they should.
Oh, yeah, (God, I loved, Columbo) just one more thing. You will note I stated, that the words - sign and Jesus
first appeared when Jesus as a babe, was brought to the Temple and Simeon saw Him and made his statement.
That was in regards to the, Sign of Jonah, that ... shall - or - will be. Technically the first time the words,
sign and Jesus, appear was during the Nativity scene as described by, Luke. This will be a sign to you.
That sign had been - before Jesus was brought to the Temple. In other words, Simeon, did use the words properly,
in the future tense in regards, to the ,Sign of Jonah. Just thought I'd mention it. And, oh yes, one more thing.
Jesus did contradict Himself re the Sign of Jonah and at the same time was telling the truth.
The sign did take place during the time of that generation but it didn't come to light. If, I'm right
it will be revealed to the most evil and adulteress generation of all time which is ... Now?
-
Dan, you're a good guy and you've worked so hard on this theory which you obviously believe in really strongly. I honestly take no pleasure in saying that, IMHO, most reading your theory would instantly dismiss it. You've fallen into the old cliche of putting the cart before the horse, of approaching the subject from completely the wrong angle. If you'd been reading/studying the bible and came across a passage which interested you or seemed to warrant more study and closer examination, then discovered more passages that appeared connected, then you may well have had the beginnings of a working theory. What you've done, is suddenly had what I call 'a light bulb moment', at least partly inspired by the coincidence of a Universal motion picture logo appearing on the TV at the same time! Developed a theory from it and then went searching, in the most ambiguous book ever written, to try and find references to back your theory up. The problem in using this backward 'method' is that as Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh convincingly proved, using the ambiguous bible as your source you can back up just about any 'theory' you want with this approach. Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh aren't the only ones guilty of this. Many other 'authors' have taken exactly the same liberties with the Bible, as a point of interest, most of them somehow also managed to work Stonehenge into the argument as well.
Dan, please don't think I'm comparing you with these cranks and conmen..I know you're not guilty of being either, but I do wonder/worry if you're not conning yourself. I'm sorry, I really didn't want to write this, I almost didn't. I sincerely hope I'm wrong and I'll see your theory proven in print one day. Good luck, mate. If you believe in it, stay with it.
-
Dan, you're a good guy and you've worked so hard on this theory which you obviously believe in really strongly. I honestly take no pleasure in saying that, IMHO, most reading your theory would instantly dismiss it. You've fallen into the old cliche of putting the cart before the horse, of approaching the subject from completely the wrong angle. If you'd been reading/studying the bible and came across a passage which interested you or seemed to warrant more study and closer examination, then discovered more passages that appeared connected, then you may well have had the beginnings of a working theory. What you've done, is suddenly had what I call 'a light bulb moment', at least partly inspired by the coincidence of a Universal motion picture logo appearing on the TV at the same time! Developed a theory from it and then went searching, in the most ambiguous book ever written, to try and find references to back your theory up. The problem in using this backward 'method' is that as Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh convincingly proved, using the ambiguous bible as your source you can back up just about any 'theory' you want with this approach. Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh aren't the only ones guilty of this. Many other 'authors' have taken exactly the same liberties with the Bible, as a point of interest, most of them somehow also managed to work Stonehenge into the argument as well.
Dan, please don't think I'm comparing you with these cranks and conmen..I know you're not guilty of being either, but I do wonder/worry if you're not conning yourself. I'm sorry, I really didn't want to write this, I almost didn't. I sincerely hope I'm wrong and I'll see your theory proven in print one day. Good luck, mate. If you believe in it, stay with it.
Hey, Denis, I really do appreciate your opinion because it's honest. For nearly 50 years - on and off - I've been trying to get
my theory checked out and no matter what I used to support me, it was discounted esp, like you said using the Bible.
One time, a rep from the U.S Naval Observatory actually responded - which was rare - and he told me the events I'm putting forth
would go against the laws of Physics. I responded back . Well, I'm stating it was a miracle so certainly it would go against the
laws of Physics. He then responded back, even if what I said did take place during the reign of Pontius Pilate, there would be
no firm connection it could be tied to Jesus anyway, because planets on their own have been known to move faster at times or
slower. I countered back but not for a duration as I was proposing. Anyway, he was always polite like you were and he did
respond. I'll never forget that. I even tried Religious groups hoping one of their members had a scientific background.
When they responded. they kept telling me how, JeSUS, died for my sins and how the blood of, JeSUS, washed my sins away
and if I wanted to join their club so that the knowledge of, JeSUS, could be spread throughout the world. If I mentioned
Astrological support (like I will be doing) both sides would cringe. If I mentioned support from Nostradamus, like I did - Oh, God -
both sides would not only cringe, but they would tell their kids to keep the pets indoors in case I wanted to sacrifice a cat to some
Armenian, Moon Goddess or, whatever.
Anyway, I'm going to keep on plugging and I do know I have to be lucky at least 3 times. Lucky to find an individual with the
expertise needed to consider my theory. Lucky enough, for him to do an investigation and lucky enough to be right. I'm rolling
the dice. Hope everything is going well with you.
-
Anyway, I'm going to keep on plugging and I do know I have to be lucky at least 3 times. Lucky to find an individual with the
expertise needed to consider my theory. Lucky for him to do an investigation and lucky enough to be right. I'm rolling the dice.
Hope everything is going well with you.
Good for you Dan. I wish you all the luck in the world. Thank's for not taking offence at my critique. We spoke about Velokovsky, his supporters have their own web site, I'll post a link when I find it. I'm just wondering if one of the academics from there might be more responsive. Just an idea.
Here you go pal; http://www.velikovsky.de/en/velikovsky.html
PS There are actually quite a few Velokovsky sites out there, I didn't realise. Here's a GOOGLE page link; https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=contact+velikovsky%27s+website&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj49o6ozPPiAhUUlFwKHRm8BE4QBQgtKAA&biw=1536&bih=750
-
Thx, Denis. I appreciate that.
-
More Biblical Support
Let's look back
A sign that shall be contradicted - as stated by, Simeon
A contradictory statement from, Jesus, re the Sign of Jonah, No sign. One sign.
No sign from, the Son of God. One sign, from the Son of God.
That sign involved three days and three nights.
And, in case you didn't know, when Jesus was crucified there was a placard over His head
which - mockingly - stated. words to the effect, Jesus, King of the Jews.
Three days later according to the Christian faith, He was Resurrected.
Now, I'm saying the earth was affected as stated during the time Jesus was in the tomb.
Now, look at the following.
There's a story in the Old Testament, about, Hezekiah, the King of the Jews who was dying.
He called for the Prophet, Isaiah, to find out through him, if God could extend his life by 15 years.
Isiah came, looked at, Hezekiah, and told him to get his house in order, no extension will be given to him.
Naturally this depressed the King and he turned his face to the wall.
Isaiah then left the palace and as he was in the courtyard, God told him to go back and tell, Hezekiah
the extension will be given. Well, you can imagine Hezekiah's reaction. What is this? No extension and now an extension?
The King, who now wanted to be absolutely sure which event would occur asked, Isaiah, the following question - What
shall be the sign that I will be healed and that I shall go to the Temple of the Lord on the third day?
To this, Isaiah, gave, Hezekiah, a choice. Either see the shadow on the sundial in the courtyard go forward 10 degrees
or go back the same amount? Old king, Hezzie baby, thought about it and considering it would be harder for God to do
the latter so, he asked for that. And? Well, it was stated that it happened. All of it. He was healed He went to the Temple
and he did live an extra 15 years. Now, look back.
King of the Jews.
No extension. Then, an extension.
No extension from, God. Then, an extension from, God.
A sign.
Three days.
A restoration after three days and ...
Well, could the earth have been affected and if wasn't in reality
could it be projecting that someday it would be happening?
Regarding another, KING?
Btw ... I have my hands full trying to have one theory investigated
let alone another.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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,
-
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.
-
Here again ... see clip. It does seem Augustus adjusted the Julian Calendar back to the way Sosigenes i
intended with a March 25th first day of spring. Also notice how Pliny the Elder factors in. He was born around 23 AD
so the observations presented from 11 AD to 15 AD came from the Pontifeces who were monitoring the calendar. The Obelisk was
working correctly for a while and then ... it didn't.
Btw ... The obelisk or gnomon - shadow clock - was working so correctly you will notice that after the leap year day was added
in 14 AD the position went back to the way it appeared in 11 AD when it was viewed in 15 AD.
For Guests the clip on YT is entitled - The Obelisk Meridian and Ara Pacis.
-
Here again ... see clip. It does seem Augustus adjusted the Julian Calendar back to the way Sosigenes i
intended with a March 25th first day of spring. Also notice how Pliny the Elder factors in. He was born around 23 AD
so the observations presented from 11 AD to 15 AD came from the Pontifeces who were monitoring the calendar. The Obelisk was
working correctly for a while and then ... it didn't.
Btw ... The obelisk or gnomon - shadow clock - was working so correctly you will notice that after the leap year day was added
in 14 AD the position went back to the way it appeared in 11 AD when it was viewed in 15 AD.
For Guests the clip on YT is entitled - The Obelisk Meridian and Ara Pacis.
Ever heard of the precession of the equinoxes?
Ever heard of Hamlet's Mill?
-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy ;)
PS Do you believe we're living in The End Times?
LOL
-
Hey, Tom. Thx for responding. I really don't know how the precession of the equinoxes could help or even hurt my theory.
Let alone, Hamlet's Mill. The reason why I did present the clip was to show it is very possible the spring equinox could have
been March 25 after Augustus made his adjustments on the Julian Calendar. If so, then just look at the simple math re the
11 minutes and 14 lag and go backwards from Pope Gregory's new version of keeping time set in 1582.
1 day lost every 128 years or 129 years or 130 years. Let alone the equation using 133 years. Going backwards you would
get a first day of spring on March 23 at 46 AD, 34 AD or 22 AD. There's no way the lag could have moved that much in such
a short time. 133 years would get you a March 22 day of spring at or around 119 AD. Now factor in Pliny's observation
re the obelisk and how it hasn't showed the proper time for nearly 30 years. If he made that observation around 59 AD
when he returned to Rome then that would line up with one of the traditional years of the Crucifixion.
Btw I'm not expecting an end of anything rather a new beginning.
-
Hey, Tom. Thx for responding. I really don't know how the precession of the equinoxes could help or even hurt my theory.
Let alone, Hamlet's Mill. The reason why I did present the clip was to show it is very possible the spring equinox could have
been March 25 after Augustus made his adjustments on the Julian Calendar. If so, then just look at the simple math re the
11 minutes and 14 lag and go backwards from Pope Gregory's new version of keeping time set in 1582.
1 day lost every 128 years or 129 years or 130 years. Let alone the equation using 133 years. Going backwards you would
get a first day of spring on March 23 at 46 AD, 34 AD or 22 AD. There's no way the lag could have moved that much in such
a short time. 133 years would get you a March 22 day of spring at or around 119 AD. Now factor in Pliny's observation
re the obelisk and how it hasn't showed the proper time for nearly 30 years. If he made that observation around 59 AD
when he returned to Rome then that would line up with one of the traditional years of the Crucifixion.
Btw I'm not expecting an end of anything rather a new beginning.
Dan,
Have you read Hamlet's Mill?
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/hamlets_mill/hamletmill.htm
-- MWT ;)
-
Dan,
Have you read Hamlet's Mill?
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/hamlets_mill/hamletmill.htm
-- MWT ;)
Hey, Tom. No I never read,[ Hamlet's Mill, but after you posted it I did check out opinions on the book and most
were negative. I will look into it though given it is based on myths which I always enjoyed. Incidentally, if the
book was meant as some kind of support towards my theory ... it really wouldn't help me at all. It isn't by accident that
the title of my thread requires an Astrophysicist a/o an Archaeo- Astronomer. Preferably one who is a Christian or, at the
very least, one with an open mind. Those types of people are only interested with academic support, if you will,
Here's two Academic reasons that I wish to present ... again. And? It will probably do no good anyway.
1. The early Christians used to celebrate the first day of spring, March 25, in the Julian Calendar as being BOTH the day
of the Crucifixion and the day of the Resurrection. Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation? They did this to lure Pagan
converts. This was true as far as the early Church was concerned but the early Christians did not do this. They were more
concerned with Christ's imminent return. Now, if my theory was correct that would have happened. Christ could have be
crucified on the first day of spring and if the earth was thus affected as I've been stating then .. the day of the Resurrection
would have been on the first day of spring. No one takes that seriously.
2. If I'm correct and the earth was thus affected by rotating upon it's axis but not revolving around the sun for His birth and
the three days He spent in the tomb then the Heel Stone at Stonehenge which was to mark the solstice should have
been four days off. Please note Stonehenge is indeed a pre-Christian structure. And? It is four days off. Occam's Razor?
Simplest explanation? The Heel Stone sank over the centuries. Btw ... it weighs around 35 tons and if it sank straight down
then nothing would have changed. If it tilted forward or backwards, the solstice would still have happened. So, it just happened
to tip slightly the wrong way. Can an Archaeo- Astronomer tell me if this was a local sinking or could it have been global with
other Stonehenge like astronomical monuments with there own Heel Stones sinking. Was any Heel Stones moved? Was there
an eclipse that happened or didn't happen etc ... And, I do mean etc ....
If I'm wrong then, I'm wrong but I would like to know one way or the other.
-
Hey, Tom. No I never read,[ Hamlet's Mill, but after you posted it I did check out opinions on the book and most
were negative. I will look into it though given it is based on myths which I always enjoyed. Incidentally, if the
book was meant as some kind of support towards my theory ... it really wouldn't help me at all. It isn't by accident that
the title of my thread requires an Astrophysicist a/o an Archaeo- Astronomer. Preferably one who is a Christian or, at the
very least, one with an open mind. Those types of people are only interested with academic support, if you will,
Here's two Academic reasons that I wish to present ... again. And? It will probably do no good anyway.
1. The early Christians used to celebrate the first day of spring, March 25, in the Julian Calendar as being BOTH the day
of the Crucifixion and the day of the Resurrection. Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation? They did this to lure Pagan
converts. This was true as far as the early Church was concerned but the early Christians did not do this. They were more
concerned with Christ's imminent return. Now, if my theory was correct that would have happened. Christ could have be
crucified on the first day of spring and if the earth was thus affected as I've been stating then .. the day of the Resurrection
would have been on the first day of spring. No one takes that seriously.
2. If I'm correct and the earth was thus affected by rotating upon it's axis but not revolving around the sun for His birth and
the three days He spent in the tomb then the Heel Stone at Stonehenge which was to mark the solstice should have
been four days off. Please note Stonehenge is indeed a pre-Christian structure. And? It is four days off. Occam's Razor?
Simplest explanation? The Heel Stone sank over the centuries. Btw ... it weighs around 35 tons and if it sank straight down
then nothing would have changed. If it tilted forward or backwards, the solstice would still have happened. So, it just happened
to tip slightly the wrong way. Can an Archaeo- Astronomer tell me if this was a local sinking or could it have been global with
other Stonehenge like astronomical monuments with there own Heel Stones sinking. Was any Heel Stones moved? Was there
an eclipse that happened or didn't happen etc ... And, I do mean etc ....
If I'm wrong then, I'm wrong but I would like to know one way or the other.
Dan,
You did see the link to Hamlet's Mill I provided you, right?
-- MWT ;)
-
Hey Thomas ... yes I did see the link. I've been reading commentaries on, Hamlet's Mill.
Really interesting, much of the precession of the equinoxes I have heard before. The major cycle
every 26,000 years or so. The myths throughout the world and what they had in common etc
Thanks.
-
I really don't like bumping my own topic but in this instance I will.
First of all, there are only 25 guests here now and three are on my last topic on page 4 and six on this page.
That is 9, so I do know there is a steady number of people who are interested in what i wrote.
1. Just last Christmas you will note that the - quote unquote - Nativity Star - did take place.
This, as stated, originated from the Astronomer, Dr David Hughes from England. I did and will explain again how his
theory supports my own conjectures should you be interested. Just go back and see what I wrote how the passage
from the Bible which stated how the - Star - stood still - over the place where the child lay could have been a historical observation. That is ... if what I stated did take place. Secondly, there is the following.
2 Way back in October I sent a letter to an Archaeo-astronomer in the States. Now given the current pandemic
situation and how snail mail is really snail mail now ... did you get my letter and if so, would you please have a conversation with me.. i did direct you here if you are interested and also my email.
Thank you and if he didn't receive my letter is there an Astrophysicist or Archeao astronomer here
or if one of the Guests knows one who might be interested in investigating this. Thanks.