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).
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!
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.