piercethevale
Well-known member
Please note: I apologize for having deleted most of this thread as it was in original form. At the time I did so I was determined to leave this forum and to never return and there were, at the time, too many trolls and as I no longer wanted to post at this forum and felt my energies would be better served elsewhere I wasn't going to return here solely to deal with them, thanks...piercethevale, aka Dave Mastry, aka Devananda
.
March 8, 2024 Greetings, after a number of years of trying to get the admin here to restore the missing natal chart that disappeared after the new format was introduced which, by the way, has a much smaller limitation on characters used in the text, that doesn't allow me to change anything in this initial post as it is about threee times the length allowed, thus I've broken up this initial post into four posts. After you've read this one, jump to posts #442 and #443 and, finally #444.
This first post, the first fourth of the original post, now has the original birth chart restored.
_____________________________________________________________
Greetings.
Below is an image of a copy of the natal chart that I contend is that of Yeshu'a ben David aka Jesus of Nazareth.
It is by the date that Edgar Cayce gave as the date of birth and is the only date that Edgar Cayce ever gave as the date of birth. I've argued with at least 4 dozen of more challenges to that fact in the last ten years and if you wish to contest that He gave some other date I suggest that you reread the source material, i.e the specific reading that Edgar gave in which you believe he gave a different date, or another date in addition to the one I have used, because Edgar didn't. Reread it a third time a fourth time, whatever.... it doesn't change a thing. You are misunderstanding what Edgar stated and most likely are having a hard time understanding the stilted manner of speaking he had used when in trance.
Edgar was once asked, while He was in a trance if He could speak in a more colloquial manner so as to be better understood. Edgar's reply was "Better ye thy understanding."
Now, do you understand what I'm getting at here?
I will be in the process of revising this thread and restoring an original introduction here in this first post... as it once had but I stupidly deleted without thinking the whole thing through.
The chart below is exactly as like the original chart. It is dated November 23, 2009, but it is true to the original first chart ever produced on November 7, 2004.
Sometime not long after I made this chart below, at astrodienst, they started changing the computer program on a continuous basis. It was only noticeable for dates very distant in the past. ... particularly the date I produced the chart for, i.e. April 2 in the year 3 A.D. Gregorian calendar. Edgar's actual words were "He was born on the nineteenth day of March. By the Julian Calendar, it was in the year Four. From the Hebrew (or Mosaic) Calendar, it was in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-nine." reading # 587
So why am I using the year 3? Because there were two ways of reckoning what the first year was. Some said (and still do) it to be the first full year after his birth beginning on New Years Day, which to them was January 1st (as most everyone took the Church's word for it that December 25th was the correct day of birth at that time) others claim that the first year is the year He was born in regardless of how late in the year it was.
But the real trick here is knowing that in those days most all of the Roman citizenry, and the Roman officials, considered April 1st as the first day of a New Year. The gov't calendar used a fiscal year and that held that New Years Day was January 1st, I believe..or it may have been a different date in Jan., the point is that the one day all the people, in general, observed and held their New Years festivities by ...and so did all the politicians of Rome, as no one wants to be left out of a good party... was April 1st.
So because the Gregorian Calendar must add a day every new century that is divisible by 4, When Pope Gregory started his Calendar it was 1582 and at the time of the Popes' action March 19th, in the year 3 A.D., was then progressed to March 31, 3 A.D.
In the year 1600 another day was added making it April 1st and by the common Roman Julian Calendar that observed April 1st as the first day of a New Year, His birth could, from that day forward, be said to have actually occurred in the 4th year by the Julian Calendar as it was commonly observed among the peoples of Rome.
When I first began this project, in 2001, I was unaware of these facts and also ignorant of the fact that another day had to be added as of the year 2000, and that March 19th by the Julian Calendar was from then on April 2nd. It wasn't until 2003 that I became aware of these facts. In the Year 2400 the date will change to April 3rd.
Astrodienst has "adjusted'' something numerous times now since 2004. I have printed charts from as far back as 2004 and 2005 and the oldest that remains in my computer files is from November 2009. Sometime in 2012 astrodienst had tweaked the figures a little bit as to where the Sun, Merc. and Venus had added 02", the Moon 21", Mars 11" and Jupiter 01" and Uranus, Neptune and Pluto remained the same. I have a chart from July 2012 that shows all that... but it never effected anything that which had given me cause to claim it to be the natal birth chart of Yeshu'a. They had been using a program they got from JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena California) which is so highly accurate that one can calculate exactly where a satellite must be in ten years and so many months, days and right down to the moment it needs to be withing "X" amount of miles from the surface of one of Neptune's Moons. Although the creator of the program did allow a certain amount of "fudge factor " for the adjustment of some of the planets and the luminaries and as for Pluto it was given the biggest allowance and I figure that was for the reason it still hadn't been observed long enough by 1992, when the program was created (I believe that is the correct year...it could be give or take a year or two. That specific info is available on the internet if you are that interested in precise facts regarding that issue. I'm trying to expedite this process of restoring a workable and informative intro to the thread and it isn't that important to spend the half hour or so it would take to retrieve it.) The allowance Pluto was given as to adding as much as up to, or as much as less than, but no more or less than, was given as 00* 01' 59".
In the chart below you will notice that Pluto was given to be at 00* Libra 58' 52". Astrodienst claims it started using an entirely new computer ephemeris sometime in either late 2012 or in 2013, I forget exactly when, and that this new program is based on a more recent JPL computer program and, also, that Pluto is still allowed the exact same amount of adjustment.
Well, astrodienst did adjust Pluto, they added the maximum allowance of 00* 01' 59" to it's position and now list it at 01* Libra 00' 51" which messes with my explanation as it is essential that Pluto was in the 1st degree of Libra and not the 2nd as they presently have it. One might think that a planet moved a mere 00* 01 59" isn't really very much but considering how far Pluto is from the Sun and the full length of one complete orbit of Pluto around the Sun it amounts to (and I had the exact figures ...or as close as I could calculate that distance, but can't find them right at this moment... let me just say that it was in the tens of millions of miles and may have in fact been in the hundreds of millions of miles... I'll get that exact, or as close as I can possibly be to exact, figure here at a later date.) an enormous amount of miles... so much in a distance that if the Earth were moved as much toward the Sun this planet would be a ball of charcoal. Edit: July 18, 2020/ I have those figures for as to how far astrodienst effectively moved Pluto in miles when they altered its position by 00* 01' 59". Going by the est. average speed of Pluto in it s orbit, 4.743 km/s and the estimated orbit period of 247.94 years [but they also give 247.68 and one is in Julian years the other I believe is in Gregorian ...and there is a difference. Astronomers use Julian, but it is a variable from century to century. So I used the former.] That distance in miles comes to, approximately, 2,120,194.71 miles. While it isn't as much as I thought I had remembered and wouldn't turn the Earth into a lump of charcoal if moved so much towards the Sun... [For a comparison, Venus is about 68 million miles away from Earth at its closest.] it is substantial and considering that NASA used the same original program that astrodienst saw reason to change, when NASA launched its New Horizons space probe to Pluto in 2006, and that it came within 7,750 miles to Pluto, they would've been a long way off had they adjusted Pluto's positions as astrodienst has done.
The Birth Chart of Yeshu'a ben David aka Jesus of Nazareth
.
March 8, 2024 Greetings, after a number of years of trying to get the admin here to restore the missing natal chart that disappeared after the new format was introduced which, by the way, has a much smaller limitation on characters used in the text, that doesn't allow me to change anything in this initial post as it is about threee times the length allowed, thus I've broken up this initial post into four posts. After you've read this one, jump to posts #442 and #443 and, finally #444.
This first post, the first fourth of the original post, now has the original birth chart restored.
_____________________________________________________________
Greetings.
Below is an image of a copy of the natal chart that I contend is that of Yeshu'a ben David aka Jesus of Nazareth.
It is by the date that Edgar Cayce gave as the date of birth and is the only date that Edgar Cayce ever gave as the date of birth. I've argued with at least 4 dozen of more challenges to that fact in the last ten years and if you wish to contest that He gave some other date I suggest that you reread the source material, i.e the specific reading that Edgar gave in which you believe he gave a different date, or another date in addition to the one I have used, because Edgar didn't. Reread it a third time a fourth time, whatever.... it doesn't change a thing. You are misunderstanding what Edgar stated and most likely are having a hard time understanding the stilted manner of speaking he had used when in trance.
Edgar was once asked, while He was in a trance if He could speak in a more colloquial manner so as to be better understood. Edgar's reply was "Better ye thy understanding."
Now, do you understand what I'm getting at here?
I will be in the process of revising this thread and restoring an original introduction here in this first post... as it once had but I stupidly deleted without thinking the whole thing through.
The chart below is exactly as like the original chart. It is dated November 23, 2009, but it is true to the original first chart ever produced on November 7, 2004.
Sometime not long after I made this chart below, at astrodienst, they started changing the computer program on a continuous basis. It was only noticeable for dates very distant in the past. ... particularly the date I produced the chart for, i.e. April 2 in the year 3 A.D. Gregorian calendar. Edgar's actual words were "He was born on the nineteenth day of March. By the Julian Calendar, it was in the year Four. From the Hebrew (or Mosaic) Calendar, it was in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-nine." reading # 587
So why am I using the year 3? Because there were two ways of reckoning what the first year was. Some said (and still do) it to be the first full year after his birth beginning on New Years Day, which to them was January 1st (as most everyone took the Church's word for it that December 25th was the correct day of birth at that time) others claim that the first year is the year He was born in regardless of how late in the year it was.
But the real trick here is knowing that in those days most all of the Roman citizenry, and the Roman officials, considered April 1st as the first day of a New Year. The gov't calendar used a fiscal year and that held that New Years Day was January 1st, I believe..or it may have been a different date in Jan., the point is that the one day all the people, in general, observed and held their New Years festivities by ...and so did all the politicians of Rome, as no one wants to be left out of a good party... was April 1st.
So because the Gregorian Calendar must add a day every new century that is divisible by 4, When Pope Gregory started his Calendar it was 1582 and at the time of the Popes' action March 19th, in the year 3 A.D., was then progressed to March 31, 3 A.D.
In the year 1600 another day was added making it April 1st and by the common Roman Julian Calendar that observed April 1st as the first day of a New Year, His birth could, from that day forward, be said to have actually occurred in the 4th year by the Julian Calendar as it was commonly observed among the peoples of Rome.
When I first began this project, in 2001, I was unaware of these facts and also ignorant of the fact that another day had to be added as of the year 2000, and that March 19th by the Julian Calendar was from then on April 2nd. It wasn't until 2003 that I became aware of these facts. In the Year 2400 the date will change to April 3rd.
Astrodienst has "adjusted'' something numerous times now since 2004. I have printed charts from as far back as 2004 and 2005 and the oldest that remains in my computer files is from November 2009. Sometime in 2012 astrodienst had tweaked the figures a little bit as to where the Sun, Merc. and Venus had added 02", the Moon 21", Mars 11" and Jupiter 01" and Uranus, Neptune and Pluto remained the same. I have a chart from July 2012 that shows all that... but it never effected anything that which had given me cause to claim it to be the natal birth chart of Yeshu'a. They had been using a program they got from JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena California) which is so highly accurate that one can calculate exactly where a satellite must be in ten years and so many months, days and right down to the moment it needs to be withing "X" amount of miles from the surface of one of Neptune's Moons. Although the creator of the program did allow a certain amount of "fudge factor " for the adjustment of some of the planets and the luminaries and as for Pluto it was given the biggest allowance and I figure that was for the reason it still hadn't been observed long enough by 1992, when the program was created (I believe that is the correct year...it could be give or take a year or two. That specific info is available on the internet if you are that interested in precise facts regarding that issue. I'm trying to expedite this process of restoring a workable and informative intro to the thread and it isn't that important to spend the half hour or so it would take to retrieve it.) The allowance Pluto was given as to adding as much as up to, or as much as less than, but no more or less than, was given as 00* 01' 59".
In the chart below you will notice that Pluto was given to be at 00* Libra 58' 52". Astrodienst claims it started using an entirely new computer ephemeris sometime in either late 2012 or in 2013, I forget exactly when, and that this new program is based on a more recent JPL computer program and, also, that Pluto is still allowed the exact same amount of adjustment.
Well, astrodienst did adjust Pluto, they added the maximum allowance of 00* 01' 59" to it's position and now list it at 01* Libra 00' 51" which messes with my explanation as it is essential that Pluto was in the 1st degree of Libra and not the 2nd as they presently have it. One might think that a planet moved a mere 00* 01 59" isn't really very much but considering how far Pluto is from the Sun and the full length of one complete orbit of Pluto around the Sun it amounts to (and I had the exact figures ...or as close as I could calculate that distance, but can't find them right at this moment... let me just say that it was in the tens of millions of miles and may have in fact been in the hundreds of millions of miles... I'll get that exact, or as close as I can possibly be to exact, figure here at a later date.) an enormous amount of miles... so much in a distance that if the Earth were moved as much toward the Sun this planet would be a ball of charcoal. Edit: July 18, 2020/ I have those figures for as to how far astrodienst effectively moved Pluto in miles when they altered its position by 00* 01' 59". Going by the est. average speed of Pluto in it s orbit, 4.743 km/s and the estimated orbit period of 247.94 years [but they also give 247.68 and one is in Julian years the other I believe is in Gregorian ...and there is a difference. Astronomers use Julian, but it is a variable from century to century. So I used the former.] That distance in miles comes to, approximately, 2,120,194.71 miles. While it isn't as much as I thought I had remembered and wouldn't turn the Earth into a lump of charcoal if moved so much towards the Sun... [For a comparison, Venus is about 68 million miles away from Earth at its closest.] it is substantial and considering that NASA used the same original program that astrodienst saw reason to change, when NASA launched its New Horizons space probe to Pluto in 2006, and that it came within 7,750 miles to Pluto, they would've been a long way off had they adjusted Pluto's positions as astrodienst has done.
The Birth Chart of Yeshu'a ben David aka Jesus of Nazareth
Last edited:
.
