Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Jesus, and why I need an Astrophysicist a/o an Archaeo-Astronomer regarding Him.  (Read 2053 times)

Online Dan DAlimonte

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
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. 

« Last Edit: November 02, 2019, 04:14:41 AM by Dan DAlimonte »

Online Dan DAlimonte

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
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 ...
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 09:08:22 PM by Dan DAlimonte »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
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'

Offline Denis Pointing

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
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?
 
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 10:18:49 PM by Denis Pointing »

Online Dan DAlimonte

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
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.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 11:44:30 PM by Dan DAlimonte »

Offline Denis Pointing

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
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.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2019, 12:35:24 AM by Denis Pointing »

Online Dan DAlimonte

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
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..   
« Last Edit: June 18, 2019, 01:02:03 AM by Dan DAlimonte »

Offline Denis Pointing

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
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:

Online Dan DAlimonte

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
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?   
« Last Edit: June 21, 2019, 01:03:15 PM by Dan DAlimonte »

Offline Denis Pointing

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
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.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2019, 12:23:58 PM by Denis Pointing »

 

Mobile View