• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus was born on 9/11 (1 Tishri 3 BC)

penxv

Member
Here are a couple of things I noticed that this article got wrong.

Firstly, the first month is not Tishrei. It is Nisan, the month of the Exodus from Egypt. That is in the Spring.
Rosh Hashana is on the first of Tishrei, the seventh month. That is in the fall.

Also, Rosh Hashana is believed, by Jewish tradition, to commemorate the 6th day of creation. The creation of Adam (Man). Not the 1st day of creation.

Also, Jews believe that Moshiach will be born on Tisha B'Av (the 9th of Av... in the Summer).

These three points make this article you posted very difficult to take seriously.

The parts that I find compelling are that he came up with that date before it was politically significant and that "the last trump" is an ironic coincidence when reading it today. I don't really know a tremendous amount about the other stuff.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
That is the claim that was made by Ernest Martin in 1978 in The Birth of Christ Recalculated.

If true, it adds an element of childish taunting to the satanic ritual that was used to instigate WW3.

I don't believe there is any truth to it.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I thought Jesus was a Capricorn. Having his birthday on 9/11 would make him a Virgo.

And in 3 B.C.? How could Christ be born three years Before Christ?

I believe a Capricorn man is: A man of sorrow and acquainted with grief, like Richard Nixon. Also a man of prominence.

I believe the Bible says He was 29 in 29AD. That seems more authoritative to me.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I will bite: I believe you should show your cards and tell us which Biblical accounts. I haven't seen any that say that.

The timing for the tax collection and any census? (no known census until 6 AD, Herod the Great died in 4 BCE) was in the spring after the new born lambs and other farm animals were born. Travel would not be practical in winter.

The flocks were in the fields in the spring and summer not in the winter,

There numerous conflicts and contradictions in the gospels as to when Jesus was born, The authors particularly Luke were not knowledgeable concerning the history of Judea in the years Jesus was born,

See: When Was Jesus Born

"In summation, then, it may be explicitly stated that both Matthew's and Luke's nativity stories were theologically derived, rather than historically based. Just as there is not a single reference in either Christian or non-Christian sources to Herod's slaughter of innocent children, other than that by Matthew, so also is there no mention of a Roman census that would have involved Jesus' family, other than that by Luke. In other words, not a single piece of credible historical evidence exists that connects Jesus' birth to either of these purported events. In addition, both "events," as they are described in the two gospels, contain elements that are clearly illogical. Both "events" merely served as props upon which Matthew and Luke constructed their respective nativity stories. They were used to provide the stories with verisimilitude by investing them with an air of historicity. The census story was introduced by Luke as a literary device to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, while the slaughter of innocents story was created by Matthew as a vehicle to link Jesus' life to that of Moses. Each author chose their respective settings for Jesus' birth in order to create a dramatic context that would enhance their particular theology. For Matthew, Jesus' escape from Herod's "Slaughter of the Innocents" was a replay of Moses' escape from the Pharaoh's killing of the first born in Exodus (1:16-22) and of the Israelites escape from Yahweh's genocidal slaughter of Egyptian children (see Exodus 11-12) in the Hebrew Bible. Luke, on the other hand, was not as concerned with explicitly linking Jesus to Moses, as was Matthew; he was more concerned with placing Jesus' birth in the context of the Gentile Roman world for which he wrote. So, Luke situated Jesus' birth during the Roman census of Judea. However, Luke made extensive use of Old Testament birth narratives, in particular those describing the births of Isaac, Samuel and Samson, in creating his birth story.34 The Old Testament, therefore, served as an important source for both Matthew and Luke.

The two infancy narratives depended not only on canonical readings of Old Testament stories, but also upon popular versions of the same stories. Winter (1958: 263) summarizes the situation quite well.

[W]e should not overlook the fact that the O.T. circulated not only in literary form among the learned, but also in midrashic form for the edification of the unlearned, and that in its oral tradition it was often embellished and enlarged by popular motifs. The stories of the birth of Isaac, of Moses, of Samson, of Samuel, and other O.T. heroes were passed on from mouth to mouth and thus came to be assimilated to each other in current narratives. Traits from one story were combined with traits from another. Circumstantial details were added. From time to time these stories were committed to writing, and all the amplifications that had accumulated around the canonical accounts were included in popular new versions. The recently discovered Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran, the Book of Jubilees, the Liber Antiquitatum by PseudoPhilo, and later Midrashim bear witness to a development of this kind. It is the way in which popular narratives come to grow together. The same phenomenon can be observed in our own time, with regard to New Testament stories. There are children's books retelling the Story of Jesus, features from Mark and John and Luke and Matthew being all woven together into one fabric of many colours. Similarly the stories from the Old Testament about the birth of prominent men were legendarily enlarged so as to produce folklore for the edification of a Jewish public in ancient Israel. These legends provided most of the subject matter for the description of Jesus' birth both in Matthew and Luke. Whilst in Matthew chiefly legends about the birth of Moses served as the prototype, or model, for describing the birth of the New Moses, in Luke it is a popular narration of Samson's birth which was utilized firstly in a description of the birth of John the Baptist and later after being adapted by a Judeo-Christian redactor came into the hands of the Third Evangelist. He finally employed it without any significant changes on his part, in the first two chapters of his gospel.

Thus, neither Matthew's nor Luke's birth story can be accepted as a historically reliable description of Jesus' birth or, by extension, a plausible basis for dating that birth. In the end, no credible evidence exists that can be used to determine which year Jesus was actually born. His birth year, therefore, remains a mystery."
 
Last edited:

Sanzbir

Well-Known Member
If true, it adds an element of childish taunting to the satanic ritual that was used to instigate WW3.

If it truly adds "an element of childish taunting", as you say... that would mean al-Qaeda knew what Jesus' real birthday was.

So that raises two questions to me.

Why did al-Qaeda accurately know the day of Jesus' birthday when most of the world, including almost all of the Christian world, did not know??

Why didn't al-Qaeda attack on 12/25 instead?? Wouldn't attacking on the day the Christians believe is the birthday of Jesus, rather than the "real" birthday, which almost every Christian wouldn't have understood the significance of??
 

penxv

Member
If it truly adds "an element of childish taunting", as you say... that would mean al-Qaeda knew what Jesus' real birthday was.

So that raises two questions to me.

Why did al-Qaeda accurately know the day of Jesus' birthday when most of the world, including almost all of the Christian world, did not know??

Why didn't al-Qaeda attack on 12/25 instead?? Wouldn't attacking on the day the Christians believe is the birthday of Jesus, rather than the "real" birthday, which almost every Christian wouldn't have understood the significance of??

It would mean that the conspirators behind 9/11 knew that it was Jesus's birthday. Al-qaeda doesn't ring a bell. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that is just made up jibberish like everything else on television.
 

penxv

Member
Did he exist to be born in the first place?

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,"
 

Magus

Active Member
chrestos.jpg


The photograph reveals that the word purportedly used by Tacitus in Annals 15.44, chrestianos ("the good"), has been overwritten as christianos ("the Christians") by a later hand, a deceit which explains the excessive space between the letters and the exaggerated "dot" (dash) above the new "i". The entire "torched Christians" passage of Tacitus is not only fake, it has been repeatedly "worked over" by fraudsters to improve its value as evidence for the Jesus myth.
 

penxv

Member
There are other Roman accounts of the crucifixion... but the Tacitus one is in a description of a false flag event, which is topical.
 

Magus

Active Member
There are other Roman accounts of the crucifixion... but the Tacitus one is in a description of a false flag event, which is topical.

They are no Roman accounts of crucifixion , the Romans didn't put criminals on wooden crosses either, How do you get a cross-shape from 'σταυρός ?
 

penxv

Member
And really, the big thing JC is known for (outside of healing people and being a saint), is a reiteration of an older prophecy from Daniel, who was a Jew and is recognized by Christians and not by Jews. He was an advisor and a slave in the Babylonian court of Nebuchadnezzar, who oversaw the destruction of the first temple. His Abomination of Desolation end times idea was repeated by Jesus during the Olivet Discourse along with a warning to Jews that the global currency and rebuilt temple will be associated with terrible persecution.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
The parts that I find compelling are that he came up with that date before it was politically significant
A Hebrew Calendar date converter I found online suggests that in 3 BCE, Rosh Hashana was on September 20th. It suggests that the only September 11th Rosh Hashana around that period was 5 BCE... but the author of the book you're talking about insists we're dealing with 3 BCE...

Really, there is nothing compelling here. It's gibberish. Claims of seeing the virgin mary on the face of a grilled cheese sandwich seem more compelling than this "last trump" september 11th gibberish.
I don't really know a tremendous amount about the other stuff.
Obviously. They just happen to be basic points that demonstrate your author doesn't know what he's talking about.
 

penxv

Member
A Hebrew Calendar date converter I found online suggests that in 3 BCE, Rosh Hashana was on September 20th. It suggests that the only September 11th Rosh Hashana around that period was 5 BCE... but the author of the book you're talking about insists we're dealing with 3 BCE...

Really, there is nothing compelling here. It's gibberish. Claims of seeing the virgin mary on the face of a grilled cheese sandwich seem more compelling than this "last trump" september 11th gibberish.

Obviously. They just happen to be basic points that demonstrate your author doesn't know what he's talking about.

Still a pretty ironic guess, though.
 
Top