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.
.
