Jesus' Birth Chart

Astrologers' Community

Help Support Astrologers' Community:

-----
This is very interesting and agrees with Edgar Cayce's statements in his readings about the Life of Jesus Christ. He said that time—as it is counted today—would make Jesus' birthday January

This is very interesting and agrees with Edgar Cayce's statements in his readings about the Life of Jesus Christ. He said that time—as it is counted today—would make Jesus' birthday January 6.
Not this **** again? I've gone over this so many times, in so many posts that I can't even begin to recall as to how many, that...
No, Edgar didn't say that. I suggest that you re-read that passage and then let it sink in, run it through your mind a number of times, as many as it takes, until you come to the realization of what He actually said. Please keep in mind that Edgar often spoke in a rather, stilted, sometimes archaic, manner of speaking. The vast volume of books and other material, I have on Edgar is not at my immediate disposal at present, otherwise I would gladly walk you through it, word by word if necessary.
...and what's up Bjorkstand? Are you just "testing the waters" to see if I've made good on my declaration of moving on and leaving this forum?
I'll make the formal announcement when I do, or check the list of members that have been banned, as that might be the means by which to satisfy your curiosity?
 
I bet Jesus had Neptune either rising or culminating. He got strong Pisces vibes. Hard for me to believe that he was actually a Capricorn.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", is wise Capricornian advice, with Caesar being representative of Saturn.

"Turn the other cheek" is Piscean advice - the power of passive resistance.
 
-----



Not this **** again? I've gone over this so many times, in so many posts that I can't even begin to recall as to how many, that...
No, Edgar didn't say that. I suggest that you re-read that passage and then let it sink in, run it through your mind a number of times, as many as it takes, until you come to the realization of what He actually said. Please keep in mind that Edgar often spoke in a rather, stilted, sometimes archaic, manner of speaking. The vast volume of books and other material, I have on Edgar is not at my immediate disposal at present, otherwise I would gladly walk you through it, word by word if necessary.
...and what's up Bjorkstand? Are you just "testing the waters" to see if I've made good on my declaration of moving on and leaving this forum?
I'll make the formal announcement when I do, or check the list of members that have been banned, as that might be the means by which to satisfy your curiosity?
I signed on to your birthdate for Jesus. Mind repeating it for those who are unaware?
 
2028 will be the anniversary of jesus rising from the dead 2 may 28AD.

Just an interesting coincidence is the ark of covenant was opened up in 6 jan 1982 2 pm by Ron wyatt
The ark is right underneath where Jesus was crucified.

Oh!!!! I was the one who got the Buddha chart.
 
-----



Not this **** again? I've gone over this so many times, in so many posts that I can't even begin to recall as to how many, that...
No, Edgar didn't say that. I suggest that you re-read that passage and then let it sink in, run it through your mind a number of times, as many as it takes, until you come to the realization of what He actually said. Please keep in mind that Edgar often spoke in a rather, stilted, sometimes archaic, manner of speaking. The vast volume of books and other material, I have on Edgar is not at my immediate disposal at present, otherwise I would gladly walk you through it, word by word if necessary.
...and what's up Bjorkstand? Are you just "testing the waters" to see if I've made good on my declaration of moving on and leaving this forum?
I'll make the formal announcement when I do, or check the list of members that have been banned, as that might be the means by which to satisfy your curiosity?
piercethevale,

I don't know who the hell you think you're talking to, but one thing you ARE NOT going to do is throw insults at, chastise, or TRY to demean me or my comprehension skills. I am not a Godd**n child and damn sure am not going to allow you (or anyone else) to speak to me like one! GOT IT?!?

WATCH THE WAY YOU SPEAK TO PEOPLE!!!

I UNDERSTAND THE CAYCE READINGS, FORWARDS & BACKWARDS (archaic language and all), READ WHAT HE SAID, AND AM CERTAIN THAT HE SAID IT.

HE SAID WHAT HE SAID, WHICH WAS JANUARY 6 AS THE BIRTHDATE OF JESUS CHRIST!

There is no "coming to a realization" of what he "actually said" because THAT IS WHAT HE SAID!!!

The evidence? Here:


TEXT OF READING 5749-15


This Psychic Reading given by Edgar Cayce at the office of the Association, Arctic Crescent, Virginia Beach, Va., this 22nd day of June, 1941, at the Tenth Annual Congress of the Ass''n for Research & Enlightenment, Inc.

P R E S E N T

Edgar Cayce; Gertrude Cayce, Conductor; Gladys Davis, Steno. Gladys & Charles Dillman, Fannie L. & J. Floyd Leonard, Malcolm Allen, Florence Edmonds, Minnie & C. A. Barrett, Beatrice & Richmond Seay, Gladys Hardin, Frances Y. Morrow, Hannah & Noah Miller, Mignon Helms, Shea Hurley, Sallie Jones, Alberta Burmeister, Henrietta McClelland, Kathryn Patterson, Willie L. & Katherine McAllister, Sally Taylor, Marion Wolfe, Marsden Godfrey, Helen Storey, Esther Wynne, Jane Williams, Ruth & Jeanne LeNoir, Burt Davis, Mae Verhoeven, Riley Simmons, Doris House, Ethel & Edgar Parry, Rosa & Joshua Manning, Ruth Denney, Lucille, David, S. David & Richard Kahn, Thomas Sugrue, Hugh Lynn Cayce and others.

R E A D I N G

Time of Reading 3:40 to 4:35 P. M. Eastern Standard Time.

1. GC: You will have before you the enquiring mind of the entity Thomas Sugrue, present in this room, who seeks a continuation of information given on the life of the Master and its history in the material world, given in Readings of June 27, 1937 [5749-7 and 5749-8]. Because of the purpose for which this information is to be used, he asks at this time for a description of a literary nature of certain events in the life of the Master which are known to us in outline but not in detail. You will give these as presented, - first the birth of the Master at Bethlehem beginning with the arrival of Mary and Joseph at the Inn. You will include such details as weather, time, conversation with Inn Keeper, number of people at the Inn, types they represented, recreations and occupations engaged in during the evening, what was being eaten and drunk, whether the guests knew the Child was being born, actual time of birth, etc.

2. EC: Yes, we have the information that has been indicated respecting some of the events surrounding the birth of Jesus, the son of Mary, in Bethlehem of Judea.

3. The purposes are well known, for which the journey was made in the period. The activities of Joseph are well known. The variation or difference in their ages is not so oft dealt upon. Neither is there much indicated in sacred or profane history as to the preparation of the mother for that channel through which immaculate conception might take place. And this, the immaculate conception, is a stumblingstone to many worldly-wise.

4. The arrival was in the evening, - not as counted from the Roman time, nor that declared to Moses by God when the second passover was to be kept, nor that same time which was in common usage even in that land, but what would NOW represent January sixth.

5. The weather was cool, and there were crowds on the way. For, it was only a sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem. There were great crowds of people on the way from the hills of Judea.

6. The people were active in the occupations of the varied natures in that unusual land. Some were carpenters, - as those of the house of Joseph, who had been delayed, even on the journey, by the condition of the Mother. Some in the group were helpers to Joseph, - carpenters' helpers. Then there were shepherds, husbandmen, and the varied groups that had their small surroundings as necessitated by the conditions of the fields about Nazareth.

7. In the evening then, or at twilight, Joseph approached the Inn, that was filled with those who had also journeyed there on their way to be polled for the tax as imposed by the Romans upon the people of the land. For, those had been sent out who were to judge the abilities of the varied groups to be taxed. And each individual was required by the Roman law to be polled in the city of his birth.

8. Both Joseph and Mary were members of the sect called the Essenes; and thus they were questioned by those not only in the political but in the religious authority in the cities.

9. Then there was the answer by the inn keeper, "No room in the inn," especially for such an occasion. Laughter and jeers followed, at the sight of the elderly man with the beautiful girl, his wife, heavy with child.

10. Disappointments were written upon not only the face of Joseph but the inn keeper's daughter, as well as those of certain groups about the inn. For, many saw the possibilities of an unusual story that might be gained if the birth were to take place in the inn. Also there was consternation outside, among those who had heard that Joseph and Mary had arrived and were not given a room. They began to seek some place, some shelter.

11. For, remember, many of those - too - were of that questioned group; who had heard of that girl, that lovely wife of Joseph who had been chosen by the angels on the stair; who had heard of what had taken place in the hills where Elizabeth had gone, when there was the visit from the cousin - and as to those things which had also come to pass in her experience. Such stories were whispered from one to another.

12. Thus many joined in the search for some place. Necessity demanded that some place be sought - quickly. Then it was found, under the hill, in the stable - above which the shepherds were gathering their flocks into the fold.

13. There the Savior, the Child was born
; who, through the will and the life manifested, became the Savior of the world - that channel through which those of old had been told that the promise would be fulfilled that was made to EVE; the arising again of another like unto Moses; and as given to David, the promise was not to depart from that channel. But lower and lower man's concept of needs had fallen.



Rather than coming into a discussion with your RUDE A** and telling everyone else they are wrong, didn't read things properly, and need to re-read and let it “sink in”, perhaps YOU ought to re-read, triple read, quadruple read, infinitely read (whether that be with a binocular, a telescope, or microscope—your choice!) and let the words SINK IN and MARINATE in YOUR mind...AS MANY TIMES AT IT TAKES...until YOU REALIZE what he ACTUALLY SAID!!!
 
Let's not forget Jesus was always being tempted by the Devil. Let's not forget the Devil masquerades around as him.

21sn95.jpg

astro-2gw-jesus-51307-3542858.png
astro-2gw-the-satanic-bible-51332-3542858.png
 
piercethevale,

I don't know who the hell you think you're talking to, but one thing you ARE NOT going to do is throw insults at, chastise, or TRY to demean me or my comprehension skills. I am not a Godd**n child and **** sure am not going to allow you (or anyone else) to speak to me like one! GOT IT?!?

WATCH THE WAY YOU SPEAK TO PEOPLE!!!

I UNDERSTAND THE CAYCE READINGS, FORWARDS & BACKWARDS (archaic language and all), READ WHAT HE SAID, AND AM CERTAIN THAT HE SAID IT.

HE SAID WHAT HE SAID, WHICH WAS JANUARY 6 AS THE BIRTHDATE OF JESUS CHRIST!

There is no "coming to a realization" of what he "actually said" because THAT IS WHAT HE SAID!!!
.
You just don't get it. He was employing an odd usage of syntax, Look at this part of the passage; "nor that same time which was in common usage even in that land, but what would NOW represent January sixth."
What Cayce was saying is that it is not that same time [as that of the true birth time], that would now represent January sixth, because back then they were using the Julian calendar and presently we're using the Gregorian calendar. In other words, whether it be given as the Julian date or the Gregorian date, it is still not the correct "time".
It was revealed in a reading given just for the admin of the ARE in 1932 that all information given by Cayce, other than answers to health relate questions, that He was channeling, [you'll find this in the appendix of Jeffrey Furst's book, "Edgar Cayce's Story of Jesus"] and that he channeled "None but the messengers from the Throne of Grace itself." That was subsequently revealed to be either the angelic or one of the members of the Great White Brotherhood, aka the White Lodge, aka the Ascended Masters, and also revealed that at times, when needed, it was St. Germain that spoke through him.
Those entities don't contradict themselves. They are of one consciousness. Cayce was sometimes deliberately speaking enigmatically and this is one example of that.
He gave the true birth date in one reading. I have the exact quote and reading number posted in my thread on the subject in the degree symbolism sub-forum. Or, perhaps you have it yourself somewhere? He said it was March 19th, by the Julian calendar, and as to the year, that's another enigmatic masterpiece given by the channeled source, and I have written in length about that many times... but it is the year 3 A.D*. Put it all together, change it to the Gregorian calendar, and what you get is April 2, 3 A.D. or C.E. for those that prefer. Prior to the year 2000, that date was April 1, 3 A.D. and was the case all the way back to 1600 A.D. as prior to that it was March 31st and was since Pope Gregory created the calendar and the "leap year" in 1582.
Thank you for providing the text and reading number. That's the obligatory and correct means of providing citation.

*In the times of Julius Caesar New Years day was April 1st.
It was Pope Gregory that moved the observation of the New Year from April 1 to January 1, an the Vatican began the "April Fools" idea. i.e. That you were an "April Fool" to believe that New Years day was still April 1st.
That is a clue to understanding exactly what year Cayce was referring to in the reading that says March 19th.
I apologize for not providing the exact quote an reading number, as I am currently in transient conditions. Living in a Reno hotel, moving back to Calif. this weekend [hopefully, weather permitting] and am using a partially functional old laptop running windows 7. All my books, notebooks, research, etc. is in boxes and bins, The room I'm renting is the size of a large matchbox and everything I own is squeezed into it. Once I get resettled next week, I'll have everything at my immediate disposal again.
Thank you for your patience.
ptv
 
Last edited:
You just don't get it. He was employing an odd usage of syntax, Look at this part of the passage; "nor that same time which was in common usage even in that land, but what would NOW represent January sixth."
What Cayce was saying is that it is not that same time [as that of the true birth time], that would now represent January sixth, because back then they were using the Julian calendar and presently we're using the Gregorian calendar. In other words, whether it be given as the Julian date or the Gregorian date, it is still not the correct "time".
It was revealed in a reading given just for the admin of the ARE in 1932 that all information given by Cayce, other than answers to health relate questions, that He was channeling, [you'll find this in the appendix of Jeffrey Furst's book, "Edgar Cayce's Story of Jesus"] and that he channeled "None but the messengers from the Throne of Grace itself." That was subsequently revealed to be either the angelic or one of the members of the Great White Brotherhood, aka the White Lodge, aka the Ascended Masters, and also revealed that at times, when needed, it was St. Germain that spoke through him.
Those entities don't contradict themselves. They are of one consciousness. Cayce was sometimes deliberately speaking enigmatically and this is one example of that.
He gave the true birth date in one reading. I have the exact quote and reading number posted in my thread on the subject in the degree symbolism sub-forum. Or, perhaps you have it yourself somewhere? He said it was March 19th, by the Julian calendar as to the year, that's another enigmatic masterpiece given by the channeled source and I have written in length about that many times... but it is the year 3 A.D*. Put it all together, change it to the Gregorian calendar, and what you get is April 2, 3 A.D. or C.E. for those that prefer. Prior to the year 2000, that date was April 1, 3 A.D. and was the case all the way back to 1600 A.D. as prior to that it was March 31st and was since Pope Gregory created the calendar and the "leap year" in 1582.
Thank you for providing the text and reading number. That's the obligatory and correct means of providing citation.

*In the times of Julius Caesar New Years day was April 1st.
It was Pope Gregory that moved the observation of the New Year from April 1 to January 1, an the Vatican began the "April Fools" idea. i.e. That you were an "April Fool" to believe that New Years day was still April 1st.
That is a clue to understanding exactly what year Cayce was referring to in the reading that says March 19th.
I apologize for not providing the exact quote an reading number, as I am currently in transient conditions. Living in a Reno hotel, moving back to Calif. this weekend [hopefully, weather permitting] and am using a partially functional old laptop running windows 7. All my books, notebooks, research, etc. is in boxes and bins, The room I'm renting is the size of a large matchbox and everything I own is squeezed into it. Once I get resettled next week, I'll have everything at my immediate disposal again.
Thank you for your patience.
ptv
March 19fh is the Catholic St.Joseph's Day.
 
People hear and read what they want to hear and read. Most often, I have found, they don't want to hear your opinion, they want to hear your opinion agree with theirs.
The above example of misunderstanding of that particular passage by Cayce comes up quite often. In fact I know that I have addressed the very same misconception in this forum and possibly in this very same thread. This thread is over 18 years old and contains over 250 posts. It's older than I've been a member by about 14 months. Most people don't want to read through two decades of posts as they've already got their mind made up, or someone made it up for them, or they're just lazy.
If you are going to join in the discussion in an older thread, please be thorough and read through it all before doing so. Or else start your own thread.
 
Geetings; I've started a thread over in the Sabian forum on my proposed birth chart for Jesus and invite all to any discussion there.
I've done three radio programs on this discovery/proposal, two of them aired and one on the internet which is archived and can still be heard via the internet. I also have a book published on this subject. all info can be found at the above mentioned thread.
The date utilized is one provided by the re-knowed 20th century clairvoyant Edgar Cayce whom said that Jesus was born March 19th by the Julian calendar in what is now [As of the time of the reading in the early half of the 20th century] considered HIS fourth year of existence...that corresponds to [April 2, 0003 A.D.]
It also satisfies Dane Rudhyars prediction of what the chart axis of the natal chart of Jesus would entail, i.e. the four axis points would be the 1st degrees of the Cardinal signs. This was proposed and explained by Rudhyar in his book "An Astrological Mandalla. The Sabian Symbols." in the chapter titiled "The Cross and the Star."
I invite all who would like to join me in discussing, proving, dis-proving or analyzing said chart over at the Sabian Forum.
I'll post my proposed chart here also to entice you.
Thanks, ptv.:)
April 2nd, 3 A.D.

"The Lamb of God"

(Tropical) Sun-sign :aries:.
 
Last edited:
thanx - skippy sanchez, dave mastry, edgar cayce

8238490a606f302dd.gif


many interesting stars

rising - epsilon BOOTES, izar "the loincloth"
culminating - alpha monoceros
setting - alphs pisces, alrisha "the knot"
nodal axis - alderbaran and antares

i like the poleaxe neptune on RAS ALHAGUE
Well, I checked back to see if I had indeed addressed this misunderstanding of what Cayce said before in this very same thread. I got to post #58 which was by the moderator Wilson informing all that he moved off topic comments to a new thread. I don't have any posts prior to Wilson's announcement nor at the "new' thread he moved off topic comments to. Then post #59, on October 30, 2008 is what I have included with this post of mine. My real name is Dave Mastry and I have used the moniker "Skippy Sanchez" at various websites around the internet in the past. It was the very first identity I had on facebook but I didn't join facebook until sometime in late 2009 - early 2010. Although I had already joined AW forum in 2007 there were no means by which to connect "piercethevale" with "Skippy Sanchez" or Dave Mastry. [I borrowed the name. "Skippy Sanchez" from an old tune by the band, Dan Hicks and his Hot Licks.]
I didn't post my own thread on the birthchart, here at AW forum, until Dec. 8th, 2008
Which mans that, member, eimasai got his chart, that was apparently posted but is no longer viewable, from a thread at either astrodienst's forum or the forum at Skyscript. I was run off from both of those forums. Why is the chart eimasai posted no longer visible.?
That's been an recurring issue here at AW forum for years as the chart I posted in my own initiated thread titled, "Birth Chart of Jesus?", has repeatedly disappeared numerous times over the years. Now that older posts can no longer be edited hopefully that means that the natal chart will no longer periodically disappear either.
I will continue on through this thread to see for certain if I did already address this issue about the date Cayce gave, and didn't give, for the birth of the Nazarene. While I think that I did, it is possible that I didn't in this particular thread and if that be the case then I suppose I do owe Astro Intuitive a bit of an apology.
It would be wonderful if a "sticky" could be posted that establishes just what Cayce said about the true birth date, but I have run into people that still insisted that Cayce said He was born Jan. 6th even after I explained it to them. Some people are seriously challenged by verbal comprehension.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to argue here, but I'd like to know what others think about the Census. There seems to be a lot of conversation these days about Luke's gospel concerning the Census being taken which requires people to travel to their ancestral home i.e. Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem Judea for example approximately 90 miles by camel. This was an Agrarian society and families not only had crops but animals to tend to. Who would have cared for the animals? It was known that the Romans did not require you to travel for a census in other census,so why this one?

Any ideas on the Census claptrap going on?
 
As for Jesus birthdate, I use the same - March 19th, 4BC (-3Greg) with Spica (Arcturus) on the MC. Cayce said he came back here - through Arcturus.
 
It's only from a belief in the validity, and a thorough understanding, of the Sabian Symbols does one come to realize that there can be no other time and date upon which the Nazarene was born than 5:23 P.M. 3 A.D., as the chart axis, the 12th House cusp, the Part of Fortune, the Part of Catastrophe, an the Part of Increase & Benefits, alone provide odds of finding in any other randomly chosen natal chart of over 352 trillion to one. One more Astrological Part in consideration takes those odds to over 1.9 quadrillion to one... an I actually have more than a dozen more such Astrological Parts that have Sabian Symbols that couldn't possibly be any other.
Of course there are a number of "Astrologers" that haven't accepted the validity of the Sabian Symbols, and there are a number that just flat out refuse to accept them, as they believe that to do so invalidates some of their beliefs and the techniques they employ an will tarnish their reputation.
I, myself, think that it is better to deal with a bit of tarnish than to be left a smoldering ruin. But, that's just in my most humble opinion, of course. :)
In this very thread, in post #65 you all will find the earliest copy of the original version of the chart produced by astrodienst for that date and time. It's an older copy than any I presently still have in my own personal files.. as my first computer was stolen in July 2009, and was never retrieved. I didn't back up my files back then. But the information is the same as the other charts I have posted... those charts produced before the time astrodienst decided it ha to move Pluto 00* 59' 59", thus moving Pluto apprx a bit over 20 million miles from where the original computer program developed by JPL and used by NASA for all spaceflights said that it was at.
I find it to be of little wonder that astrodienst chose to shut own its forum as it must be of a considerable effort to cover all the lies and unexplainable acts it has been guilty of over such a span of time. ...eh?
 
Last edited:
You just don't get it. He was employing an odd usage of syntax, Look at this part of the passage; "nor that same time which was in common usage even in that land, but what would NOW represent January sixth."
What Cayce was saying is that it is not that same time [as that of the true birth time], that would now represent January sixth, because back then they were using the Julian calendar and presently we're using the Gregorian calendar. In other words, whether it be given as the Julian date or the Gregorian date, it is still not the correct "time".
It was revealed in a reading given just for the admin of the ARE in 1932 that all information given by Cayce, other than answers to health relate questions, that He was channeling, [you'll find this in the appendix of Jeffrey Furst's book, "Edgar Cayce's Story of Jesus"] and that he channeled "None but the messengers from the Throne of Grace itself." That was subsequently revealed to be either the angelic or one of the members of the Great White Brotherhood, aka the White Lodge, aka the Ascended Masters, and also revealed that at times, when needed, it was St. Germain that spoke through him.
Those entities don't contradict themselves. They are of one consciousness. Cayce was sometimes deliberately speaking enigmatically and this is one example of that.
He gave the true birth date in one reading. I have the exact quote and reading number posted in my thread on the subject in the degree symbolism sub-forum. Or, perhaps you have it yourself somewhere? He said it was March 19th, by the Julian calendar, and as to the year, that's another enigmatic masterpiece given by the channeled source, and I have written in length about that many times... but it is the year 3 A.D*. Put it all together, change it to the Gregorian calendar, and what you get is April 2, 3 A.D. or C.E. for those that prefer. Prior to the year 2000, that date was April 1, 3 A.D. and was the case all the way back to 1600 A.D. as prior to that it was March 31st and was since Pope Gregory created the calendar and the "leap year" in 1582.
Thank you for providing the text and reading number. That's the obligatory and correct means of providing citation.

*In the times of Julius Caesar New Years day was April 1st.
It was Pope Gregory that moved the observation of the New Year from April 1 to January 1, an the Vatican began the "April Fools" idea. i.e. That you were an "April Fool" to believe that New Years day was still April 1st.
That is a clue to understanding exactly what year Cayce was referring to in the reading that says March 19th.
I apologize for not providing the exact quote an reading number, as I am currently in transient conditions. Living in a Reno hotel, moving back to Calif. this weekend [hopefully, weather permitting] and am using a partially functional old laptop running windows 7. All my books, notebooks, research, etc. is in boxes and bins, The room I'm renting is the size of a large matchbox and everything I own is squeezed into it. Once I get resettled next week, I'll have everything at my immediate disposal again.
Thank you for your patience.
ptv
There you go again—talking about what I (and everyone else) “don't get”/understand.

I am well aware of the syntax the Cayce Readings used. And I am also well aware of the different calendar dates used before the Gregorian calendar. I have excellent comprehension skills as do many others on this forum (who you claim don’t).

Regarding the quoted passage you provided in bolded text, I advise you to re-read it.

Cayce states, as clear as day:

The arrival was in the evening, - not as counted from the Roman time, nor that declared to Moses by God when the second passover was to be kept, nor that same time which was in common usage even in that land, but what would NOW represent January sixth.

That word - BUT (he did not say "or what would NOW represent...") - shifts the context and meaning to say that the birth of Jesus was not according to all of those dates and times (preceding the word "but") BUT [i.e. but rather] according to what is NOW known as January 6!

But to give even further context to this reading, Thomas Sugrue requested that this particular reading (5749-15) provide details that the other readings did not—details such as the literary nature of events leading up to the birth of the Master, including details such as the weather, time, conversation with the Inn Keeper, and actual time of birth. It would be a moot point if the Cayce Source would only provide a “generalized” answer and not specific details as to the date, place, and time of birth (both calendar date and time of birth—which Cayce stated was in the evening), etc.

What you are doing (and you seem to be the only one who is) is placing other or alternative meanings and interpretations onto what Cayce actually said—in plain, unmistakable English—and then claiming that anyone else who doesn't agree with you is (somehow) not comprehending correctly! In effect, you're stating (in so many words): "No...He didn't mean what you [i.e., anyone else OTHER than you] read him say...He meant___[fill in the blanks] instead! You are [or Everyone else is] wrong!"

No, everyone else doesn’t have it wrong! And again, you are being condescending by insulting other people’s intelligence by claiming something is wrong with their comprehension skills and only yours is correct when “interpreting” this matter when, in fact, there is nothing that needs to be interpreted. No deep digging is necessary to find a meaning other than what he actually said—quite clearly, at that!

You mentioned Jeffrey Furt's book. I have that book. It contains a collection of various Edgar Cayce readings (re-written and not in their original, unchanged, full & unadulterated form) as well as errors in regard to references. For instance, on page 164 of the book (see image below), via the second question, the questioner is asking if we celebrate Christmas at the right time. Furst gives Reading 5749-7 as the reference. But that question and answer is nowhere in Reading 5749-7; it's actually in Reading 5749-8 (Q/A# 32).

EDGAR CAYCE ON JESUS CHRIST BIRTH DATES.jpg

Another example is in the Reading right after it, which I'm assuming is the source you're talking about regarding March 19 as the birth of Jesus. The querist is asking about contradictions (supposedly given from the Cayce readings) regarding Jesus' birthday, to which Cayce (allegedly) answers "all are correct" according to the "time from which they were reckoned". That answer raises more questions than answers! Anyway, Furst gives Reading 2067 as the source. I searched for 2067-1, -2, -3..., etc., and could not find that question, answer, or quote anywhere!

EDGAR CAYCE ON JESUS CHRIST BIRTH DATES.jpg

But perhaps most important to this discussion we are having is the fact that the A.R.E. - the official website Edgar Cayce - gives the birth date of Jesus Christ as January 6, with the same source/Reading as the one I provided:

A.R.E. - The Birth of Jesus

So are you saying that the A.R.E., - the home, leading research institution, & authority of all the Edgar Cayce Readings, studies, and materials - don't know what they're talking about? That "something is wrong" with THEIR comprehension skills? I THINK NOT!

Lastly, you stated my providing the text and reading number is the “obligatory and correct means of providing citation."

Yes, I know. When I claim to know something for sure, I always provide proofs/receipts.

I'm surprised you haven’t done the same, especially with the vehement way you chastise and say everyone else is wrong regarding what Cayce said about Jesus Christ’s actual birth date.

But I'll wait to see what you provide.

The only proof that’s acceptable to me is firsthand, primary information, that is: the actual full-fledged, unchanged, original, full-text Reading(s) and its/their numbers that I can search for and find myself at the A.R.E.—not anybody's book(s), not what you addressed in the past, etc. - but firsthand documentation & material of what Edgar Cayce said.
 
Last edited:
I repeat
Great men(people) have great charts. Isaac Newton chart proves jesus's chart(6 january)
even kepler figured out jesus had jupiter conjunct saturn
I did the chart back in 1984 using Commondore 64 machine + Erlewine programing.
Happy New Year everybody
God bless one all
Oh and Happy Birthday Jesus on January 6th. Thanks.
 
2028 will be the anniversary of jesus rising from the dead 2 may 28AD.

Just an interesting coincidence is the ark of covenant was opened up in 6 jan 1982 2 pm by Ron wyatt
The ark is right underneath where Jesus was crucified.

Oh!!!! I was the one who got the Buddha chart.
What?, because you said so no doubt!
 
Back
Top