Birth chart of Jesus?

piercethevale

piercethevale

Well-known member
Mark said:
You know, I can't help but think that if Jesus were "in body" long enough to read this thread, he would laugh his *** off at you two. But at least you're just internet bickering instead of killing each other like so many who came before you. :joyful:
Click to expand...
Good humor was one of Jesus' strong points according to Edgar Cayce. He loved getting together with his posse and having a good time. they played music, sang and drank wine. The miracle of the changing of water to wine was not some pre-ordained miracle that had to be demonstrated. No, it was simply because the boys ran out of wine and Jesus was not a wet blanket.
Actually, I believe He's laughing with me...:lol::innocent:
 
Last edited:
piercethevale

piercethevale

Well-known member
...and really Mark...I get a little annoyed with your attitude that this is some sort of joke to you.
The birth chart of Jesus is a very sacred revelation...not to be taken lightly but to be studied and understood.
Although, in this instance...the joke was on me..as I was obviously replying to a fool who believes the Sabian Symbols are to be taken literally for the symbol itself.
 
Last edited:
Mark

Mark

Well-known member
Does that kind of talk truly honour the Soul, the Man, or His legacy? I find it funny that such competitive name-calling and fault-finding should be involved in a discussion of the birth of Jesus. Besides, if the Master were to choose what we should remember about His final incarnation on Earth, would it really be His birthday? Honour Him with your love and forgiveness, not your well-defended accuracy of knowledge.
 
divine g

divine g

Banned
Listen, for my part, I feel I'm just doing my duty by showing the forum this chart. Any perceived "argument" is to me just healthy intellectual debate, and all are free to disagree.

I admit, I got a bit passionate towards the end of my comments, but it was too late to edit as it had already been copied. Either way, I feel it's pretty presumptuous to think anyone would know what would make Jesus laugh his *** off. But I get the point.

As per the symbols, I am aware of the meaning of the word symbol, and no symbol is literal, by definition. Symbols are pictures that give a general idea of an energy of an event. With that being said, the symbols of my chart just "happen" to keep repeating, over and over, the themes of Christmas and Easter, and the symbol of Jesus himself, the fish and Pisces.

I feel any open-minded astrologer would take that into account. Luckily for me, I didn't expect that on this forum, that's why I felt so comfortable posting it here. It's actually one of the safest places to reveal such powerful info, because no one will be open-minded enough to believe in it. When all's said is done, it will be found by Google or some other search engine someday, and will be recognized as, if not the closest thing to his chart, a chart that has some pretty shocking "coincidences". At the very least, that's what I want others to take from this chart. And astrology is all about realizing there are no coincidences in the universe.
 
Last edited:
S

sdh3

Well-known member
Re: Birth chart of Jesus?/Aries 12

divine g said:
Oh really? Your chart's Jesus Sun is
Aries 12 Sabian Symbol: A flock of white geese in flight overhead.

Well, I know enough about geese to know they have nothing to do with Jesus. I'd be hardpressed to even find geese mentioned once in the Bible or in Jesus' life, or on his 2 major holidays.
Click to expand...

The best practice when using the Sabian Symbols is to consider ALL of the words in the symbol rather than just one. The first step in doing so is to consider the meaning and origin of each word and second to consider the relationships they have to one another. Had you done so, here are a few things about wild geese and flocks thereof that you might have discovered:

The collective noun flock descends from the Old English flocc (a group of persons, company, troop) and is related to the Old Norse flokkr (crowd, troop, band) and the Middle Low German vlocke (crowd, flock, sheep). The word itself means “a group of animals that live, travel, or feed together”, “a group of people under the leadership of one person, especially the members of a church”, and “a large crowd or number.”

The word wild descends from the Indo-European root welt- which means “woods, wild.” Other derivatives include weald (an area of open or forested country), wold (an unforested rolling plain), vole (a rodent), weld (the yellow dye obtained from dyer's rocket), wilderness, and wildebeest (African antelopes).

The word geese descends from the Indo-European root ghans- which means “goose” and from which are derived gander, goshawk, gunsel (a hoodlum or other criminal), and gonzo (an exaggerated, highly subjective style; bizarre, unconventional).

The most obvious unifying theme here involves animals—both wild and domesticated. Specifically, the paronyms of flock refer to animals in general and sheep in particular. The paronyms of wild include vole (rodents resembling rats or mice) and wildebeest (African antelopes). Finally, the paronyms of geese include goose, gander (a male goose), and goshawk.

A second unifying theme concerns wildness as an attribute of human beings. The keyword wild has many definitions including “uncivilized or barbarous; savage”, “lacking supervision or restraint”, “disorderly; unruly”, “full of, marked by, or suggestive of strong, uncontrolled emotion”, and “risky; imprudent.” Among the paronyms of geese is gonzo which means “using an exaggerated, highly subjective style” and “bizarre; unconventional.” According to Roget’s 21st Century Thesaurus, wild and gonzo are synonyms.

With the above information in hand, we are in a far better position to ascertain if and to what degree the symbol in question applies to what we have been told of the life of Jesus. Here are a few points that support piercethevale's position:

flock--> sheep--> Jesus as "The Good Shepherd"

flock--> a group of people under the leadership of one person, especially the members of a church --> Jesus and His disciples, Christ and His Church

geese --> gonzo --> Jesus as an unconventional leader, perhaps one who employed a "exaggerated" and/or "highly subjective style"

geese --> gunsel --> Jesus was no "hoodlum" but he was treated like and punished as a criminal and was crucified between two of them.

wild --> a synonym of gonzo which in turn is a paronym of geese.

Now you might, after all of this, still hold to your original assertion that "I know enough about geese to know they have nothing to do with Jesus" but as you can surely see, there are better ways to support that conclusion than to merely count the number of times the word geese appears in the Bible.

thoughtfully
sdh3
 
divine g

divine g

Banned
Re: Birth chart of Jesus?/Aries 12

Wowwwwww....all of that, as opposed to linking a symbol of a Rabbit with the Easter Bunny?

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. --------Divine
 
divine g

divine g

Banned
Re: Birth chart of Jesus?/Aries 12

sdh3 said:
The best practice when using the Sabian Symbols is to consider ALL of the words in the symbol rather than just one. The first step in doing so is to consider the meaning and origin of each word and second to consider the relationships they have to one another. Had you done so, here are a few things about wild geese and flocks thereof that you might have discovered:

The collective noun flock descends from the Old English flocc (a group of persons, company, troop) and is related to the Old Norse flokkr (crowd, troop, band) and the Middle Low German vlocke (crowd, flock, sheep). The word itself means “a group of animals that live, travel, or feed together”, “a group of people under the leadership of one person, especially the members of a church”, and “a large crowd or number.”

The word wild descends from the Indo-European root welt- which means “woods, wild.” Other derivatives include weald (an area of open or forested country), wold (an unforested rolling plain), vole (a rodent), weld (the yellow dye obtained from dyer's rocket), wilderness, and wildebeest (African antelopes).

The word geese descends from the Indo-European root ghans- which means “goose” and from which are derived gander, goshawk, gunsel (a hoodlum or other criminal), and gonzo (an exaggerated, highly subjective style; bizarre, unconventional).

The most obvious unifying theme here involves animals—both wild and domesticated. Specifically, the paronyms of flock refer to animals in general and sheep in particular. The paronyms of wild include vole (rodents resembling rats or mice) and wildebeest (African antelopes). Finally, the paronyms of geese include goose, gander (a male goose), and goshawk.

A second unifying theme concerns wildness as an attribute of human beings. The keyword wild has many definitions including “uncivilized or barbarous; savage”, “lacking supervision or restraint”, “disorderly; unruly”, “full of, marked by, or suggestive of strong, uncontrolled emotion”, and “risky; imprudent.” Among the paronyms of geese is gonzo which means “using an exaggerated, highly subjective style” and “bizarre; unconventional.” According to Roget’s 21st Century Thesaurus, wild and gonzo are synonyms.

With the above information in hand, we are in a far better position to ascertain if and to what degree the symbol in question applies to what we have been told of the life of Jesus. Here are a few points that support piercethevale's position:

flock--> sheep--> Jesus as "The Good Shepherd"

flock--> a group of people under the leadership of one person, especially the members of a church --> Jesus and His disciples, Christ and His Church

geese --> gonzo --> Jesus as an unconventional leader, perhaps one who employed a "exaggerated" and/or "highly subjective style"

geese --> gunsel --> Jesus was no "hoodlum" but he was treated like and punished as a criminal and was crucified between two of them.

wild --> a synonym of gonzo which in turn is a paronym of geese.

Now you might, after all of this, still hold to your original assertion that "I know enough about geese to know they have nothing to do with Jesus" but as you can surely see, there are better ways to support that conclusion than to merely count the number of times the word geese appears in the Bible.

thoughtfully
sdh3
Click to expand...

Wowwwwww....all of that, as opposed to linking a symbol of a Rabbit with the Easter Bunny? I'm sure you can twist any symbol to fit what you want it to when you use that logic, as opposed to focusing on the KEY words, and ENERGY of the symbol, not rhetoric, and semantics.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. --------Divine
 
S

sdh3

Well-known member
Re: Birth chart of Jesus?/Aries 12

divine g said:
Wowwwwww....all of that, as opposed to linking a symbol of a Rabbit with the Easter Bunny? I'm sure you can twist any symbol to fit what you want it to when you use that logic, as opposed to focusing on the KEY words, and ENERGY of the symbol, not rhetoric, and semantics.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. --------Divine
Click to expand...

Aries 12- a flock of wild geese. No rabbits, no easter bunnies. That was another part of the thread. my focus was on one symbol, Aries 12, and nothing else. I analyze the symbols one at a time and one word at a time and look for the semantic and rhetorical relationships among them. You obviously have another approach. more power to you.

And for what it's worth I have no investment in supporting or detracting from piercethevale's analysis (he can do that ably himself) or for supporting or detracting from yours. my analysis was offered in the spirit of open intellectual debate and information sharing. Do with it what you will. If that point failed to get across, I take full responsibility.

Have a Good Friday and a great Easter!

thoughtfully
sdh3
 
piercethevale

piercethevale

Well-known member
Rudhyar repeatedly states throughout his book on the Sabians that birds are representive of 'spiritual forces' or spiritual entities'. Trevor Ravenscroft noted that the Black Raven, Peacock, Swan and Pelican are representative of the first four stages of initiation and a knights level of achievement that he has obtained in his quest for the grail.



..from "The Spear of Destiny" by Trevor Ravenscroft


"...this chart as one of the illustrations in the work of Basilus Valentinus, a sixteenth century alchemist who had depicted in a series of sketches the central themes from Wolfram Von Eschenbach's Parsival.
This particular picture....depicted the knights Parsival, Gawain and Feirifis, the three heroes of the tale, standing before the hermitage of Treverezent, the aged and wise Guardian of the secrets of the Grail....
The path to the Grail is seen to spiral up the side of a miniature mountain above the cave of the bearded hermit in the rock below. A hare, the sign of both Alchemy and of the fleeting thoughts of the uninitiated, runs toward the path. A little way up the mountainside a large fat hen broods on a nest of eggs to signify the warmth and willpower which must be brought to the development of a picture building imagination, so that thoughts become as substantial as external objects, and take on a new clarity of form and permanence."
 
piercethevale

piercethevale

Well-known member
divine g said:
Question, was Cayce always right in his predictions?
Click to expand...
If you are talking about anything in the future ...as that is what a prediction is...no.
No Clairvoyant can do that with 100% accuracy...most don't even come close to 50%.
The Bible tells us not to use Clairvoyants to see the future but rather to use an Astrologer. It even mentions two kinds of Astrologers. I and some of the other members had an extensive discussion on this in another thread.
In the thousands of readings He gave He only contradicted himself but a few known times...and I'm talking such a very minuscule amount.
He did give 4 different answers as to the date of birth for Jesus...their was a reason for that...I know why...but I'm not saying. If you're smart enough you can figure out why...if it's important to you. I using the correct one...that's all that most anyone needs to know.
 
divine g

divine g

Banned
Yes, I can figure out why he gave 4 different answers. So, was any of the other ones close to my birthdate? And why do you think the one you use is the correct one?
 
piercethevale

piercethevale

Well-known member
divine g said:
Yes, I can figure out why he gave 4 different answers. So, was any of the other ones close to my birthdate? And why do you think the one you use is the correct one?
Click to expand...


...because it is the correct one...you still don't get the symbology, do you?
I've got a book WRITTEN....4 forums where-in I've written extensively explaining why it is correct and you ask me to explain...COME ON!
Read everything before you ask me anymore questions...if you don't want to accept it ...fine...mneh.
 
divine g

divine g

Banned
Sorry, guy, I don't have time to read everyone's books. I obviously wont convince you, nor do I have anything to gain by convincing you, so keep believing that this incredibly weak excuse for the birthchart of Jesus is true, even though it's based on a false prophet named Edgar Cayce, aka "The Sleeping Prophet" who predicted the end of the world in the 1990's.

This is a fail of epic proportions. Lol. Happy Easter.
 
piercethevale

piercethevale

Well-known member
divine g said:
Sorry, guy, I don't have time to read everyone's books. I obviously wont convince you, nor do I have anything to gain by convincing you, so keep believing that this incredibly weak excuse for the birthchart of Jesus is true, even though it's based on a false prophet named Edgar Cayce, aka "The Sleeping Prophet" who predicted the end of the world in the 1990's.

This is a fail of epic proportions. Lol. Happy Easter.
Click to expand...

Thank you...btw..Cayce didn't predict the end of the world in the 90s'...you obviously don't read much ...period....as I already told you no psychic can predict the future...even Cayce said that...Cayce did say "WORSE CASE SCENARIO IS..."...there's a huge difference...quit trying to twist facts.
I am definitely exercising my "ignore" option on you...so don't bother to respond...

LATE EDIT. April 22, 2020. I should have written the following at the time this post was first made that the title, "The Sleeping Prophet", was coined by the writer, the author, Jess Stern, as it was the title of the book He wrote about Edgar. That book was published in the early 1960's, almost 20 years after Edgar's death. I don't know of anyone, before the time that book was published, that ever called Edgar Cayce a "prophet". In fact, it was revealed in a reading, given to certain administrators of a branch of the A.R.E., that it wasn't always Edgar that was actually speaking. When the questions put to him were other than health related matters then Edgar became a channel. He would channel either one of the angels of the higher orders of the angelic, which was very rarely, or one of the Ascended Masters that was of the "Great White Brotherhood", aka the "White Lodge"... and he was repeatedly asked the question four times if Saint Germain was one of those beings that spoke through him, to which Edgar [actually it was whomever He was channeling at that moment] finally answered, "Yes, when needed". Reading 254-83 given on 2/14/1935
Another matter here, I would like to address, is that I came across a book about Edgar that was written by Jess Stern and published in the late 1990's that I was unaware of until recently about Edgar on the New Millennium. It was written and published just before Jess Stern died at a very old age. I was stunned by the allegations Jess Stern had made. He claimed Edgar had said some things that I never read, or heard of, before and highly doubt that He ever actually said.... He twisted what Edgar had said, about a number of matters, as for what reason I can only surmise was to protect certain financial investments He was leaving in his will to whoever...likely his children. That the book was endorsed by the A.R.E. at the time...which was after Edgar's son was no longer in charge of the organization, and the "leadership" was in the hands of people that never knew Edgar, nor had any known relation to him, is what I believe must certainly have to do with that. That the A.R.E. offers a free horoscope analysis with every new membership on payment, a practice Edgar denounced [ not TRUE astrology, but rather what astrology has become. ...and of course I am referring to that known here at the forum as "Traditional Astrology", and that as practiced by the Theosophists, and all other forms of modern astrology that was in existence when Edgar was alive.] should be enough evidence of proof that they apparently will do almost anything, or endorse almost anyone, for a few bucks nowadays
 
Last edited:
Mark

Mark

Well-known member
Cayce did not predict the end of the world in the 90's. In fact, there were predictions for things that will happen around the year 2100. Cayce several times used the phrase "'58 to '98" and referred to it as the "testing period" before the Earth changes. Nowhere did Cayce say this world will end in any particular time window. Actually, most of what he said infers that the general population of humans has a big hand in the timing of these events. These events will happen because of us, not the passing of time.

I'm not sure I would call myself a Cayce expert, but I am extensively familiar with much of his work. I have digitised versions of the original readings. A few more than 14,000 readings were recorded and those are the only ones we have today. Any readings given before the hiring of Gladys Davis (the stenographer) were for those people to whom they were given and can now be considered lost as they weren't recorded (unless you want to consult the Light Record yourself, that is).

I've seen a number of examples where people have tried to show that Cayce contradicted himself. Generally, debunkers are looking for a reason to not believe something and once they find it, they stop looking. For instance, there were two people who were told that they were (in a former incarnation) the rich man whom Jesus said only needs to sell all he has, give it to the poor, then follow Him, and he would have eternal life. This seems to be a contradiction. That's why Cayce was later asked about the "contradiction." According to Cayce, both were true. Jesus addressed these two men separately at different times, but the telling of the story condensed the two into a single event. This sort of thing happened a number of times throughout the bible stories for the sake of being concise. The gospels were never supposed to be a completely exhaustive sequence of events. They were meant to give Truth, Love, and Hope to coming generations.

Similarly, some other "contradictions" come from our assumption that we have all the information. Cayce gave more than three names for the "wise men" who visited baby Jesus. This was quite confusing because everybody knows there could only have been three of them, right? According to Cayce, there were several groups of visitors. One group was of three and another was of five. I don't think anyone ever asked for an exhaustive list of all the visitors to the infant King, so we don't know how many there really were.

The only real contradictions that were given, as piercethevale mentioned above, are for very sensitive information such as the exact time of Jesus's birth. As astrologers, we should know how very cumbersome it is to measure time linearly and convert various methods of recording time to each other. This provides a perfect shield of ambiguity. These "ambiguities" were included to intentionally deflect people with the wrong intentions. There is much that could be learned from the birth of Jesus which happened at an appointed time. Those who want to dismiss it will be aided by the "contradictions" they see. If you look long and hard enough throughout life, you'll notice that grand and important Truths are often safeguarded behind silly things that would make most people turn away. Those who want Truth, regardless of the mouth speaking it, will receive it. Those who find fault for superficial reasons will not.

I cannot prove the efficacy of Cayce's readings to anyone, but I can say that I have tested and proved them to myself. In fact, how could any man give 14,000+ readings in the course of ~40 years and only "contradict" himself a handful of times? If the number of "contradictions" is that astonishingly low, it could be covered by our margin of error in studying and interpreting them. There were plenty of occasions when Cayce gave separate readings, decades apart, on the same specific subject and used some of the same words and phrasings in both readings. If Cayce was a fraud, he was the greatest and most accomplished fraud of all time, way above and beyond all others. Test the readings for yourself. Don't listen to my hype or anyone else's. If you want to know, then seek and you will find. It's all there on record for anyone who wants to know. It has been given.

P.S. The important thing to remember about predictions is that they are dependent on living things (us). The passing of time doesn't trigger anything. We do. Thus, there is a certain X-factor built into every prediction, no matter how accurate it is. Cayce could say that something will happen, but how and when are entirely up to the living people involved in it's manifestation. You can never account or discount free will.

P.P.S. For gits and shiggles, after posting this I noticed that it is my 661st post, the 76th in the thread, and it was posted at 4:18pm local standard for me. All of these are 13's and thus 4's. Ain't the Universe an interesting thing? :)
 
Last edited:
piercethevale

piercethevale

Well-known member
Mark said:
Cayce did not predict the end of the world in the 90's. In fact, there were predictions for things that will happen around the year 2100. Cayce several times used the phrase "'58 to '98" and referred to it as the "testing period" before the Earth changes. Nowhere did Cayce say this world will end in any particular time window. Actually, most of what he said infers that the general population of humans has a big hand in the timing of these events. These events will happen because of us, not the passing of time.

I'm not sure I would call myself a Cayce expert, but I am extensively familiar with much of his work. I have digitised versions of the original readings. A few more than 14,000 readings were recorded and those are the only ones we have today. Any readings given before the hiring of Gladys Davis (the stenographer) were for those people to whom they were given and can now be considered lost as they weren't recorded (unless you want to consult the Light Record yourself, that is).

I've seen a number of examples where people have tried to show that Cayce contradicted himself. Generally, debunkers are looking for a reason to not believe something and once they find it, they stop looking. For instance, there were two people who were told that they were (in a former incarnation) the rich man whom Jesus said only needs to sell all he has, give it to the poor, then follow Him, and he would have eternal life. This seems to be a contradiction. That's why Cayce was later asked about the "contradiction." According to Cayce, both were true. Jesus addressed these two men separately at different times, but the telling of the story condensed the two into a single event. This sort of thing happened a number of times throughout the bible stories for the sake of being concise. The gospels were never supposed to be a completely exhaustive sequence of events. They were meant to give Truth, Love, and Hope to coming generations.

Similarly, some other "contradictions" come from our assumption that we have all the information. Cayce gave more than three names for the "wise men" who visited baby Jesus. This was quite confusing because everybody knows there could only have been three of them, right? According to Cayce, there were several groups of visitors. One group was of three and another was of five. I don't think anyone ever asked for an exhaustive list of all the visitors to the infant King, so we don't know how many there really were.

The only real contradictions that were given, as piercethevale mentioned above, are for very sensitive information such as the exact time of Jesus's birth. As astrologers, we should know how very cumbersome it is to measure time linearly and convert various methods of recording time to each other. This provides a perfect shield of ambiguity. These "ambiguities" were included to intentionally deflect people with the wrong intentions. There is much that could be learned from the birth of Jesus which happened at an appointed time. Those who want to dismiss it will be aided by the "contradictions" they see. If you look long and hard enough throughout life, you'll notice that grand and important Truths are often safeguarded behind silly things that would make most people turn away. Those who want Truth, regardless of the mouth speaking it, will receive it. Those who find fault for superficial reasons will not.

I cannot prove the efficacy of Cayce's readings to anyone, but I can say that I have tested and proved them to myself. In fact, how could any man give 14,000+ readings in the course of ~40 years and only "contradict" himself a handful of times? If the number of "contradictions" is that astonishingly low, it could be covered by our margin of error in studying and interpreting them. There were plenty of occasions when Cayce gave separate readings, decades apart, on the same specific subject and used some of the same words and phrasings in both readings. If Cayce was a fraud, he was the greatest and most accomplished fraud of all time, way above and beyond all others. Test the readings for yourself. Don't listen to my hype or anyone else's. If you want to know, then seek and you will find. It's all there on record for anyone who wants to know. It has been given.

P.S. The important thing to remember about predictions is that they are dependent on living things (us). The passing of time doesn't trigger anything. We do. Thus, there is a certain X-factor built into every prediction, no matter how accurate it is. Cayce could say that something will happen, but how and when are entirely up to the living people involved in it's manifestation. You can never account or discount free will.

P.P.S. For gits and shiggles, after posting this I noticed that it is my 661st post, the 76th in the thread, and it was posted at 4:18pm local standard for me. All of these are 13's and thus 4's. Ain't the Universe an interesting thing? :)
Click to expand...

:biggrin: Yes!...Now this guy understands and knows his Cayce, and not only that, but that's exactly why different dates were given for the birth.
I tip my hat!:cool:

Late Edit, 4/22/1920. There weren't really any different dates given, only one. As tried to explain above... it may seem as if Edgar had, but you have to read what He said and then think it over... is the best I can do as to explaining this. It has to do with the very stilted manner of speaking English that came from Edgar when He was in a trance. "Better ye thy understanding", as I wrote in an earlier post in this thread, was His response to a request that He speak in a more colloquial manner, to enable those that asked for information from him, for easier understanding.
 
Last edited:
divine g

divine g

Banned
Cayce predicted changes to the Earth surface to begin some time between 1958 and 1998. The cause of these dramatic Earth changes will be the shift in the world's magnetic poles around the year 2000. Cayce predicted that when this pole shift occurs it would begin reversals in the world's climate so that:
"..where there has been a frigid or semi-tropical climate, there will be a more tropical one, and moss and fern will grow."
Click to expand...

I just read that over here at http://www.near-death.com/experiences/cayce11.html

Although it seems he was right about a lot of things in the past (although who knows if his predictions were changed in retrospect, after the fact.)

But still, the climate shift he predicted in 2000 didn't happen, and I remember the madness he helped propagate. I read a few of his books, and find him interesting. But the point is, you can't take his word as scripture.
 
Mark

Mark

Well-known member
How important Cayce's words are to you is entirely up to you. That is fine. I can assure you, however, that Cayce did NOT link the Earth changes to the year 2000. That was done by somebody else.
 
divine g

divine g

Banned
P.P.S. For gits and shiggles, after posting this I noticed that it is my 661st post, the 76th in the thread, and it was posted at 4:18pm local standard for me. All of these are 13's and thus 4's. Ain't the Universe an interesting thing? :)
Click to expand...
It also shows that you edited it at 4:22, so 4 plus 4 again. Yep, the whole universe is based on mathematics.

Back to Cayce, like I said above, I'm familiar with him, and read his books in college, and am aware he was special, or I wouldn't take time to read him. I just wanted to entertain the fact that he may have been wrong once in a while, specifically with this birth chart with Jesus as an Aries. An Arian, unorthodox philosophy, yes. An Arian heart, no. Like I said, an Aries Sun would have went about things totally differently, he wouldn't have been just "speaking" against authorities (Gemini and Mercury), he would have been going after them with an actual sword (Mars,Iron). Not just figuratively, as he is quoted, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword", but literally. When I think of an Aries leader, I think more "Braveheart", than the teacher and messenger(Saturn in Gemini) Jesus. Just my 2cents, nothing more, nothing less!
 
Last edited:
Top