Birth chart of Jesus?


Well-known member
Please note: I apologize for having deleted most of this thread as it was in original form. At the time I did so I was determined to leave this forum and to never return and there were, at the time, too many trolls and as I no longer wanted to post at this forum and felt my energies would be better served elsewhere I wasn't going to return here solely to deal with them, thanks...piercethevale, aka Dave Mastry, aka Devananda

March 8, 2024 Greetings, after a number of years of trying to get the admin here to restore the missing natal chart that disappeared after the new format was introduced which, by the way, has a much smaller limitation on characters used in the text, that doesn't allow me to change anything in this initial post as it is about threee times the length allowed, thus I've broken up this initial post into four posts. After you've read this one, jump to posts #442 and #443 and, finally #444.
This first post, the first fourth of the original post, now has the original birth chart restored.

Below is an image of a copy of the natal chart that I contend is that of Yeshu'a ben David aka Jesus of Nazareth.

It is by the date that Edgar Cayce gave as the date of birth and is the only date that Edgar Cayce ever gave as the date of birth. I've argued with at least 4 dozen of more challenges to that fact in the last ten years and if you wish to contest that He gave some other date I suggest that you reread the source material, i.e the specific reading that Edgar gave in which you believe he gave a different date, or another date in addition to the one I have used, because Edgar didn't. Reread it a third time a fourth time, whatever.... it doesn't change a thing. You are misunderstanding what Edgar stated and most likely are having a hard time understanding the stilted manner of speaking he had used when in trance.

Edgar was once asked, while He was in a trance if He could speak in a more colloquial manner so as to be better understood. Edgar's reply was "Better ye thy understanding."
Now, do you understand what I'm getting at here?

I will be in the process of revising this thread and restoring an original introduction here in this first post... as it once had but I stupidly deleted without thinking the whole thing through.

The chart below is exactly as like the original chart. It is dated November 23, 2009, but it is true to the original first chart ever produced on November 7, 2004.

Sometime not long after I made this chart below, at astrodienst, they started changing the computer program on a continuous basis. It was only noticeable for dates very distant in the past. ... particularly the date I produced the chart for, i.e. April 2 in the year 3 A.D. Gregorian calendar. Edgar's actual words were "He was born on the nineteenth day of March. By the Julian Calendar, it was in the year Four. From the Hebrew (or Mosaic) Calendar, it was in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-nine." reading # 587

So why am I using the year 3? Because there were two ways of reckoning what the first year was. Some said (and still do) it to be the first full year after his birth beginning on New Years Day, which to them was January 1st (as most everyone took the Church's word for it that December 25th was the correct day of birth at that time) others claim that the first year is the year He was born in regardless of how late in the year it was.
But the real trick here is knowing that in those days most all of the Roman citizenry, and the Roman officials, considered April 1st as the first day of a New Year. The gov't calendar used a fiscal year and that held that New Years Day was January 1st, I believe..or it may have been a different date in Jan., the point is that the one day all the people, in general, observed and held their New Years festivities by ...and so did all the politicians of Rome, as no one wants to be left out of a good party... was April 1st.

So because the Gregorian Calendar must add a day every new century that is divisible by 4, When Pope Gregory started his Calendar it was 1582 and at the time of the Popes' action March 19th, in the year 3 A.D., was then progressed to March 31, 3 A.D.
In the year 1600 another day was added making it April 1st and by the common Roman Julian Calendar that observed April 1st as the first day of a New Year, His birth could, from that day forward, be said to have actually occurred in the 4th year by the Julian Calendar as it was commonly observed among the peoples of Rome.

When I first began this project, in 2001, I was unaware of these facts and also ignorant of the fact that another day had to be added as of the year 2000, and that March 19th by the Julian Calendar was from then on April 2nd. It wasn't until 2003 that I became aware of these facts. In the Year 2400 the date will change to April 3rd.

Astrodienst has "adjusted'' something numerous times now since 2004. I have printed charts from as far back as 2004 and 2005 and the oldest that remains in my computer files is from November 2009. Sometime in 2012 astrodienst had tweaked the figures a little bit as to where the Sun, Merc. and Venus had added 02", the Moon 21", Mars 11" and Jupiter 01" and Uranus, Neptune and Pluto remained the same. I have a chart from July 2012 that shows all that... but it never effected anything that which had given me cause to claim it to be the natal birth chart of Yeshu'a. They had been using a program they got from JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena California) which is so highly accurate that one can calculate exactly where a satellite must be in ten years and so many months, days and right down to the moment it needs to be withing "X" amount of miles from the surface of one of Neptune's Moons. Although the creator of the program did allow a certain amount of "fudge factor " for the adjustment of some of the planets and the luminaries and as for Pluto it was given the biggest allowance and I figure that was for the reason it still hadn't been observed long enough by 1992, when the program was created (I believe that is the correct could be give or take a year or two. That specific info is available on the internet if you are that interested in precise facts regarding that issue. I'm trying to expedite this process of restoring a workable and informative intro to the thread and it isn't that important to spend the half hour or so it would take to retrieve it.) The allowance Pluto was given as to adding as much as up to, or as much as less than, but no more or less than, was given as 00* 01' 59".

In the chart below you will notice that Pluto was given to be at 00* Libra 58' 52". Astrodienst claims it started using an entirely new computer ephemeris sometime in either late 2012 or in 2013, I forget exactly when, and that this new program is based on a more recent JPL computer program and, also, that Pluto is still allowed the exact same amount of adjustment.
Well, astrodienst did adjust Pluto, they added the maximum allowance of 00* 01' 59" to it's position and now list it at 01* Libra 00' 51" which messes with my explanation as it is essential that Pluto was in the 1st degree of Libra and not the 2nd as they presently have it. One might think that a planet moved a mere 00* 01 59" isn't really very much but considering how far Pluto is from the Sun and the full length of one complete orbit of Pluto around the Sun it amounts to (and I had the exact figures ...or as close as I could calculate that distance, but can't find them right at this moment... let me just say that it was in the tens of millions of miles and may have in fact been in the hundreds of millions of miles... I'll get that exact, or as close as I can possibly be to exact, figure here at a later date.) an enormous amount of miles... so much in a distance that if the Earth were moved as much toward the Sun this planet would be a ball of charcoal. Edit: July 18, 2020/ I have those figures for as to how far astrodienst effectively moved Pluto in miles when they altered its position by 00* 01' 59". Going by the est. average speed of Pluto in it s orbit, 4.743 km/s and the estimated orbit period of 247.94 years [but they also give 247.68 and one is in Julian years the other I believe is in Gregorian ...and there is a difference. Astronomers use Julian, but it is a variable from century to century. So I used the former.] That distance in miles comes to, approximately, 2,120,194.71 miles. While it isn't as much as I thought I had remembered and wouldn't turn the Earth into a lump of charcoal if moved so much towards the Sun... [For a comparison, Venus is about 68 million miles away from Earth at its closest.] it is substantial and considering that NASA used the same original program that astrodienst saw reason to change, when NASA launched its New Horizons space probe to Pluto in 2006, and that it came within 7,750 miles to Pluto, they would've been a long way off had they adjusted Pluto's positions as astrodienst has done.

The Birth Chart of Yeshu'a ben David aka Jesus of Nazareth

Yeshua Natal Nov. 23, 2009.jpg
Last edited:


Well-known member

i dont know if anyone read the latest news but
aussie astronomer figured out that Jesus was born June 15th 2nd year AD

this is last weekend's news



Well-known member
Dave, I deleted the double post for you and PM'd you on how to do it yourself next time, should you want to do that.

Cheers, Starlink


Well-known member
My goodness, Pierce, you are quite something! For me this is really unknown territory with matrixes and Julian Calendars etc. so I hope you forgive me if I dont comment on your post. But I must say, you do come up with very special posts always:).



Well-known member
Hi Star

believe it or not julian calendar is still being used in northern africa... it was used in europe until 1582 ... then it was switched to Gregorian

Last edited:


Well-known member
Tika, thanks. I once had to change timefrom Gregorian to our calendar (my Russian Grandmother in law) but Julian calendar I never dealt with.


Well-known member
Congratulations on your book! It is so amazing to see all of these talented and wonderful people on this website!
:) :) :) :) :) :) :)
While I am pretty new at astrology myself, I know the basics (I think), do you think this book would go above the knowledge that I have?
I am interested in reading it, but with my Gemini self I love to read fast, and if things get too complicated I go nuts!
Edit again,
Would I need another resource book to help me to understand it? I am very interested!
Last edited:


Well-known member
My strong feeling is that Jesus was born around 7 BC our time. It is possible he was born in March, I would agree. I have researched this subject quite extensively and my belief that in 33AD when he was crucified that he was around 39 or 40. There are strong arguments for this which I wont go into on this forum.


Well-known member
I always remember that that Jesus was described as being a King,and the fact that his birth was recognized by those who had studied the stars and they followed this star because a great King was to be born.Can that be found in this natal chart also?


Well-known member
I always found it amazing how the church always condemns astrology yet it was with the use of astrology that prompted the magi as well as others to even try to find the coming King .And to this day the Magi or as they are called the wise men are always shown in a nativity woshipping the Christ child with thier gifts.In my own personal life this was one of the reasons I began to study astrology,for years as a christian being taught it was evil,I have since realized that we can't just go by what we are taught.We must find out for ourselves the truths behind what we have been taught and then and only then can we hopefully find the truth.I consider my self lucky because I know so many people in the church will never come to this realization,they think they are questioning God and the church but I believe God wants us to question the church and thier beliefs.I mean after all didn't he.


Well-known member
I use 6 Jan 6 BC midnight for jesus's chart in bethlehem.
Moon is in cancer at home 16 deg conjunct eris(superman)
Jupiter conjunct saturn + 2007 OR10 in pisces
asc=10 deg libra 45 minutes (a teacher looking over glasses)
sun = 13 deg capricorn 48 minutes(an ancient bass relief in granite)
It is like one of those buddha statues in the east.
I'll get into the sabian symbols an other day



Well-known member
Progressed charts are a lie.

CHeck out the resurection of jesus the christ
4 apr 28 AD julian at sunrise in Jerusalem(Garden tomb=35 deg 13' 47.92" E, 31 deg 47' 1.87" N) Source for place = wikipedia

It is the birth of christianity
The ascendant + sun = an unexploded bomb?
The moon conjuncts sedna.


  • resurrection_of_jesus.jpg
    86.5 KB · Views: 111

Amy Vir Sn Ari Mn Pis Ris

Well-known member
Pierce - I always appreciate your imput on this and of course I've greatly noted the 19th degree of Pisces since that is my rising. = - )

I found that article interesting because it seemed to be promoting the idea that it was the sky and not a physical manifestation of Jesus here on earth as much as noted in the stars.

I knew I could count on your imput and I was looking forward to it in fact. :)

Thank you as always!

juicey J.

[I apologize for breaking my vow...but I do have to say this ...]

Juicey J...if you've read all the previous posts in this thread and it is still a mystery to you then, yes, there must be a reason for that.:whistling:

Who said the birth you gave is right? Can you know for absolute certain? Your going by the theory of the star being the moon obsuring a star in aries where as many say it was saturn/jupiter conjunction in pisces and I heard from one source uranus was involved in said aligment.



i have glanced through this thread but i may have missed some statements that would pertain to my thoughts,if so please be patient.

the first point that aroused my critical nature was your use of easter as being a point of reference. i realize it is the first sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, but it seems thatyou should consider pasover as the easter was not instuited until centuries after the birth.

i also assign great signifigance to edgar cayce.he mentions that jesus was an essene but also that mary was a priestess, i beleive he said mary was the12th out of twelve,she was not the high priestess.there was a problem because the holy spirit was to enter the body of the high priestess but instead enter mary's body.this created the problems that lead to mary having to leave the qumran settlement.

i also wonder why no mentioned is made of the likelyhood that the essenes were the house of zadok.aaron had given the control of the temple cultus to the house of zadok in the time of moses.they held this right until the maccabean revolution in 150bc when the maccabees gave the control of the temple cultus to the hasmoneans who were a secular family.herod's legitmacy was based on the fact that he married a hasmonean princess.

so the fact that the essenes folowed the temple cultus and referred to the priest in jerusalem as usurpers implies they were descended from the house of zadok.
the second book of maccabees states that after the refusal of the maccabees to return the house of zadok to their hereditary right,"they dissappeared in to the desert".also it is mentioned that the house of zadok contained both high priests and high priestess.

the settlement at qumran,and it was a settlement and not soley a monastic retreat is made apparent by the grave yard which contained graves of men and women.
by their own writtings the essenes purpose was to have the teacher of righteousness/messiah born from them/every man fulfilled his domestic duties and then a point in his life ,he dedicated hi life to bringing in the messiah.this was their conscious purpose.and as the qumran settlement began circa 150bc in the desert and the house of zadok dissappeared into the desert circa 150 bc........ why is no attention brought to this.

the qumran settlement was occupied til 5bc,i believe, when it a was damaged by a severe was not reoccupied until approximaetly 30 ad and continue until it was utterly leveled by the romans along with all jerusalem in 140 dates may be off a few years as i have not thought about this for some time.

so the 30 years of jesus life could be represented. and as jesus the christ/messiah/annointed one,when after his death god did not destroy the roman/oppressors,the essences returned to qumran to develope the theology that has evolved into christianity.

so these archeological facts about qumran leads me to place jesus birth in 5 bc,again the actual archeological date may be 6 bc as i am not current in my thoughts as previously mentioned.