Jesus was NOT born on 25th December

In the West we are about to celebrate the birth of the spiritual leader Jesus by spending lots of money and getting drunk.

Astrologers know that Jesus was almost certainly NOT born on 25th December.


We celebrate the birth of the Persian God of Light (or Sun) Mithradates (or Mithra), who was born of a virgin on 25th December, the last day of the Feast of Saturnalia in Roman culture. Mithra was the highest of the Hellenic gods.
The Roman emperor Aurelian first brought all the holy days into one day, 25th December. Later, in 426 AD, the emperor Constantine (who was the first to convert to Christianity) proclaimed that Jesus was born 25th December knowing that the people were used to celebrating the birth of gods on that day, and a few decades later everyone had forgotten about Mithra and celebrated Jesus’ birthday instead.


Historically the 25th December makes no sense. Jesus was born during the Roman census, probably in 4 BC, and the Romans, being practical people, did not hold the census in late December when the roads were frozen and commerce was almost at a standstill. The Roman census was taken just after the harvest, in late September or what we now call October (the months refer to the 7th and 8th months respectively but the Roman year started in March not January).


There were no shepherds shivering on the hills “watching their flocks by night”.


Ho Ho Ho …

Christianity is wierd...

I found a site that said he was born most likely on march 1 soemthing like 4 BC like u said. I hope so cuz that's my bday!

Accourding to the site, he had a crazy pisces stellium with tons of trines to neptune.

I agree.....christianity is bloody crazy.....!

I have also heard that Jesus was a piscean......

Does anyone know what that bright star in the sky that the three wise men followed, could have been........?

Liquid Green said:

I agree.....christianity is bloody crazy.....!

I have also heard that Jesus was a piscean......

Does anyone know what that bright star in the sky that the three wise men followed, could have been........?

Click to expand...

In 6 BC there was a Great Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces, which some consider to be the "star" that the three wise men, or Astrologers from the East, followed to find Jesus. The Great Conjunction would have appeared as very bright in the night sky, but of course could only been seen if the Sun were in the day sky, Virgo, or perhaps Libra, September or October. The consensus is 4 BC.
I don't know one way or the other, although there was probably a person born Jesus the Nazarene during that time since a lot of the old writers like Josephus and Tacitus referred to such a person.

Something of interest though. King Herod killed all the children born around his time. So he was the only child who actually had that horoscope.

wayne penner said:

In 6 BC there was a Great Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces, which some consider to be the "star" that the three wise men, or Astrologers from the East, followed to find Jesus. The Great Conjunction would have appeared as very bright in the night sky, but of course could only been seen if the Sun were in the day sky, Virgo, or perhaps Libra, September or October. The consensus is 4 BC.
I don't know one way or the other, although there was probably a person born Jesus the Nazarene during that time since a lot of the old writers like Josephus and Tacitus referred to such a person.

Something of interest though. King Herod killed all the children born around his time. So he was the only child who actually had that horoscope.

Click to expand...

Wayne,

Your last sentence is very worthy of pondering...............

http://lh5.google.com/thoaknek/R2tIh-UqfPI/AAAAAAAAAes/kF9mOscDs_c/jesus.jpg?imgmax=512

This is the chart I have for Jesus. I think its the one "Moby Dick"
rectified. I will check on that now.

kingsley

Yes there are some indeed amazing charts to be seen in that time period that Jesus was born.

There were no birth certificates issued in those days so we're stuck really.

Jesus was called "The man of sorrows", so perhaps a heavy Saturn aspect to Venus or Moon or both would be expected. I would opt for a Venus/Saturn Conjunction square Moon. He was undoubtedly immensely charismatic so Sun would be sextile or trine Uranus. Mars would be active, perhaps with an affliction to Mercury as Jesus was nothing if not outspoken. Jesus' Mercury would be badly afflicted, especially by Neptune. Pluto would be beautifully aspected especially by Sol.
I expect Jupiter and Saturn would interplay and have some relation with Uranus.

Who knows ...

Of the rare triple conjunction in 7 BC of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces, the middle conjunction was the brightest, and I consider personally that it might have made sense for Jesus to have been born under the middle and brightest of this sequence of conjunctions, the first announcing a messiah and the third consolidating his arrival.

As for to what point in the period of the second conjunction he may have been born at, I like this proposal from Andrew J. Bevan. This places the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction directly overhead in Bethlehem, while right in opposition to the Sun in Virgo upon the IC.

http://www.astronor.com/birth.htm

However, I also like this from David Plant, set for September 15th, and the acronycal rising of Jupiter with the Sun setting in the West, placing Jupiter/Saturn and Sun on the ascendant/descendant axis.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/bethlehem.html

If you feel comfortable with the notion that Jesus would have been born under the rare triple conjunction, and at the middle and brightest of these conjunctions, then I feel that a horoscope set for some time at which the grand conjunction opposes the Sun upon angles would seem a fair choice.

I also like the latter chart, because it is my own birthday.

I do think that this is the vicinity of time in which Jesus was born though, and that he was a Virgo.

wayne
you are technically incorrect.the 25th of december was celebrated by the romans as the rebirth of Sol Invictus.the day was known as Dies Natalis Solis Invicti.the god sol invictus has connections to the sun,the god El Gabal and Mithras.mithras was a zorasterian diety who preceded sol invictus by several hundred years,so sol invictus is most likely a romanized mithra.
it is interseting to note that a sign of sol invictus divinity was a halo around his head.i'm sure most christians don't realize they worship saints with a pagan icon over their heads.
legend has it that constantine the great had the labarum,chi ro [greek abbreviation for jesus christ] painted on his soldiers shields at the battle of the Milvian Bridge by which he took control of rome.but it is interesting to note that when he built a Arch of Triumph of the victory,chi ro appears nowhere but Sol Invictus is the main diety commemorated.
rahu

rahu said:

wayne
you are technically incorrect.the 25th of december was celebrated by the romans as the rebirth of Sol Invictus.the day was known as Dies Natalis Solis Invicti.the god sol invictus has connections to the sun,the god El Gabal and Mithras.mithras was a zorasterian diety who preceded sol invictus by several hundred years,so sol invictus is most likely a romanized mithra.
it is interseting to note that a sign of sol invictus divinity was a halo around his head.i'm sure most christians don't realize they worship saints with a pagan icon over their heads.
legend has it that constantine the great had the labarum,chi ro [greek abbreviation for jesus christ] painted on his soldiers shields at the battle of the Milvian Bridge by which he took control of rome.but it is interesting to note that when he built a Arch of Triumph of the victory,chi ro appears nowhere but Sol Invictus is the main diety commemorated.
rahu

Click to expand...

Rahu, there is considerable disagreement as to the origin of Mithradates or Mithra. Mithra was certainly an Indo-Iranian god and was worshipped in Hinduism as early as 1000 BC as Mitra (Varuna), perhaps much earlier (Wikipedia states 1400 BC). I believe the Iranian prophet Zoroaster (the Zarathrustra referred to by Neitzsche) reformed Persian polytheism and relegated Mithra to being just another of many gods, but Mithra was extremely popular among the Romans was restored with some of his powers, notably as the God of the Sun or of Light. He was born on 25th December from a rock (or a cave or egg).

By the 4th century in the east Jesus' birthday was accepted as 6th January, but this was not accepted in the west and the emperor Constantine established Jesus' birth as 25th December, the last day of the feast of Saturnalia, and Mithra was given the day of the Sun as his holy day. 25th December was also the Winter solstice in the Julian calender.

As for pagan symbolism in Christianity you will find no argument from me - it is full of pagan worship icons. Indeed a lot of superstitions also stem from Christianity, such as walking under a ladder bringing bad luck because you are breaking the Eternal Triangle of the Son, Father and Holy Ghost. Also, 13 is unlucky because Judas was the 13th to appear at the last supper, and Friday 13th being especially unlucky because Christ was crucified on a Friday.

Although the eating of fish on Friday is lucky - it is the celebration of the exaltation of the planet Venus in Pisces. Friiday (Fria's day in Norse) or Vendredi (Venus' day in French) and fish (Pisces) ...

And so on.

Draco said:

Of the rare triple conjunction in 7 BC of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces, the middle conjunction was the brightest, and I consider personally that it might have made sense for Jesus to have been born under the middle and brightest of this sequence of conjunctions, the first announcing a messiah and the third consolidating his arrival.

As for to what point in the period of the second conjunction he may have been born at, I like this proposal from Andrew J. Bevan. This places the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction directly overhead in Bethlehem, while right in opposition to the Sun in Virgo upon the IC.

http://www.astronor.com/birth.htm

However, I also like this from David Plant, set for September 15th, and the acronycal rising of Jupiter with the Sun setting in the West, placing Jupiter/Saturn and Sun on the ascendant/descendant axis.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/bethlehem.html

If you feel comfortable with the notion that Jesus would have been born under the rare triple conjunction, and at the middle and brightest of these conjunctions, then I feel that a horoscope set for some time at which the grand conjunction opposes the Sun upon angles would seem a fair choice.

I also like the latter chart, because it is my own birthday.

I do think that this is the vicinity of time in which Jesus was born though, and that he was a Virgo.

Click to expand...

Draco it would not surprise me if Jesus was Sun in Virgo, perhaps a Virgo/Libra cusp. Certainly if the great conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn was in fact the Star of Bethlehem it ocurred in Pisces and could only have been seen at night if Sun was in Virgo or Libra.

It does seem that he was born at night.

One other point. The style of the day was for men to have short close-cropped hair. Jesus is often depicted as a long-haired hippie but he would certainly have looked odd at the time, rather like you or I walking about today wearing spats and a bowler hat ...

he great american pyschic,edgar cayce,in the 1920's said jesus was an Essene and that evidence would be uncovered in 1946 of this fact.the Essenes were mentioned in only 2 or 3 places in history with virtually nothing known about them.at the time.in i946 .the Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered.these turned out to be part of a vast library,hidden by the Essenes when the romans wipe out israel in 120 AD.part of the essence's beliefs was that the messiah was to be born from them.the essence community at qumran was established circa 150bc and was totally destroyed as mentioned above.but curiosily a major earthquake devastated the site in 4 bc and it was abandoned and not repopulated until circa 30ad.so the life of jesus can be speculated to fill in this void of time.some of the phraseology and themes used by the essenes were very silimiar to phraseology used by the early church of jerusalem.
all ancient civilizations have acknowleded the precession of the equinox which is responsible for the various "Ages",i.e. the aquarian age etc.so it was at the time of jesus that the world was awaiting the piscean age .the association with jesus and the sign pisces can be interpreted in this light.the magi traveling to worship him would indicate that he was thought to be a messiah of the piscean age.the association with the sign pisces is not by his birth but because he was a transcendant messiah of a change of the Ages,as the piscean age began around 2000 years ago.
i believe jesus was born under the sign gemini.the 12 disciples,esoterically are each associated with a sign of the zodiac just as ech of the 12 tribes of israel are associated with a sign of the zodiac.so with 12 disciples taking the 12 signs what could have been jesus's sign?i believe a clue is with the disciple thomas,as thomas means twin.when the story of jesus was put into greek the greek word didymus was sometimes appended to thomas[john 11:16,20:24,21:2.this makes little sense as it means the twin who was a twin.the question being whose twin was he.one solution is sinse this was the story of jesus then it went without mention that he was the twin of jesus.hence jesus was a gemini,the sign of the twins.
rahu
rahu

edgar cayce also had a interesting version of jesus birth.his divinity came not from his father but his mother.she was a high priestess.the essene's had a ritual where the spirit of god would come into the body of a high priestess.but there was a problem as mary was the 12th high priestess and not the first.the spirit of god entered her instead of the first and this lead to problems.
this sound outlandish until one realizes the from the time of moses until the maccabbean revolution[circa 150bc] the house of zadok controled the temple cultus of judaism and they had both high priest and high priestess.after the maccabbees regain control of the temple at jerusalem[which they had not controlled since the 5th century bc] the house of zadok demanded to be given control of the temple,but the maccabbees gave control to a secular family,the hasmoneans.then according to the book of maccabbees "the house of zadok disappeared into the desert".this occureed circa 150 bc.circa 150 bc the essenes appear in the desert knowing all aspects of the temple cultus and observing all holy days.they referred to the priests in jerusalem as the accursed and the usurpers.so if jesus was an essene,it is posible that mary was a high priestess off the essenes.
rahu

Wayne,you said, One other point. The style of the day was for men to have short close-cropped hair. Jesus is often depicted as a long-haired hippie but he would certainly have looked odd at the time, rather like you or I walking about today wearing spats and a bowler hat ...

They say jesus was a nazarian(spelling again?)........after reading Jesus lived in India (that i mentioned on the other thread), I am convinced he wasnt and was an Essene.....He fits the description of an Essene more......

I strongly recommend trying to get hold of the book.......

have a look at this link...http://www.essenespirit.com/


google ing THE ESSENES will bring up heaps of valid info.......

ok so now after reading more I have some mix up with the nazarians and essenes ..........he certainly was a long haired hippy type though (and good on him!).......and different from the norm.

wish i had that book handy.......makes alot of sense but it has been YEARS since i read it.....

All i know, is that he DIDNT DIE ON THAT CROSS.........anyone who believes that is......................????????

just a note on nazarene.this can mean a person from nazerth or it can indicate that he was a member of the nazarenes who were a zealot entity bent on violent rebellion against the romans.anyone named judas in those days would immediately be assocaiated with rebellion as judas maccabbeus was one of the more influencial fighters who over threw the secleucid dynasty in 150 bc.iscariot is also a unresolved named.it could be a place name or it could mean daggerman or assassin thereby making him a zealot ,most likely.
rahu

Thanks Rahu,
I reckon i can safely assume that Jesus was not hell bent on rebellion......He definitely had some new thoughts but He only lived them and people followed without him having to make them.....
Perhaps the Authorities wanted to put him in that category though.................

(i dont understand what you were trying to say with the bit ' assassin thereby making my a zealot ,most likely.'..............sorry,I'm feeling a bit weird today with the moon and all!)

I found this at some Christian site ... I thought it was interesting enough to post here ...

"The paintings of Christ are simply artists' conceptions and have no Scriptural authorization. At least one historian of His day described Him as being a tall man with chestnut-colored hair, parted in the middle, with short hair which turned up at the end.
In the book, THE MODERN STUDENT'S LIFE OF CHRIST by Irving Vollmer, published by Fleming H. Revell, the author says, "Archeologists object to the conventional pictures of Christ because they are not true to history." A German painter, L. Fahrenkrog, says, "Christ certainly never wore a beard, and His hair was beyond a doubt a closely cut. For this we have historical proof." The oldest representations going back to the first Christian centuries and found chiefly in the catacombs of Rome all pictured Him without a beard.

All the pictures of Christ down to the beginning of the first century and even later are of this kind. Students of the first century and of Roman history are aware of the fact that the time of Christ was characterized by short hair for men.

This author has seen many coins and statues which bear the likenesses of emperors who reigned during and after the time of Christ. Such likenesses reveal that the Ceasars and other rulers and emperors had short hair, and of course, the subjects followed the example set by the emperor. The plain simple truth is that during the life of Christ, short hair was the acceptable style. That Jesus wore the conventional style of His day is proved by the fact that Judas had to kiss Him to point Him out to the soldiers. Had Jesus been somewhat different, as a long-haired freak, Judas could have simply told the soldiers that Jesus was the One with the long hair. This, of course, is not true, as Judas had to place a kiss on Him in order to identify Him."

Then why is there the idea that he was long haired......perhaps he was at some point.....?

Time , with information like that, is like chinese whispers......

There are lots of things that dont make any sense.....at that time Jesus was crucified, it wasnt actually practice to nail the hands......they actually tied them.
Also, i would like to mention something again from that book "jesus lived in India'...........they mention in the bible (apparently, as i dont have a copy to go and check) that when Jesus was on the cross, a soldier passed up a sponge of sorts on the end of a sword and wiped his brow.....after this he apparently yelled out (from memory) and "gave up the ghost"........in those times opium was given to relieve pain and the sorts....it is quite possible that that sponge had something on it to allow Jesus to rest, go into trance, whatever it was that made him look like he was dead( he could have had friends as soldiers!)...... then they said that they poked him with a sword or knife to check if he was dead, blood spirted forth........Of a dead man that doesnt happen.....

Sorry i cant be more thorough of my research here on this topic as i dont have the materials to check what i am saying.....its all from memory.

The whole story about the guy has been lost on the grapevine and lost in translation......I just cant believe that millions of people around the world dont question it........

As long as we get a holiday or two though........................!

It's not my intention to hurt some people's religious feelings, but there is something that not many Christian people know. In one of the first books on Paganism I studied, I learned that almost every Christian celebration has a pagan origin.

Christmas is a celebration that has been always more pagan than Christian, since it's closely related to Celtic fertility rites, Roman Mithraism and Nordic divination. No wonder the Puritans refused to acknowledge it, let alone celebrate it, and it was abhorred by Martir Luther and John Calvin. It was even declared illegal in Boston.

Christmas was originated in the pagan celebration of the lesser Sabbath Yule that was held on the actual winter solstice, around December 21st. (The longest night and shortest day of the year) when the King Sun, the son of God (whatever name you want to call him) is born again.

Long before Christians claimed it to be the celebration of the birth of baby Jesus, there had been a tradition in the west half of the Christian Church that Mary bore him on the twenty-fifth day, but nobody could decide on the month, so in 320 C.E. the Catholic Fathers in Rome agreed to make it December, trying to overcast the Yule celebrations of the Celts and Saxons and the Mithraic celebrations of the Romans. This is how Christmas started.

This celebration is plagued by inconsistencies as we know that shepherds don't tend their flocks by night in winter. In addition, there is historical evidence in the New Testament that points to spring time as the time of baby Jesus' birth. The lambing season occurs in the spring and that it's when shepherds are likely to watch their flocks by night, to make sure that everything goes well.

Well, long before the world heard of Jesus, pagans celebrated the day of the winter solstice bringing in a Yule log made of Ash, lighting it from the remains of last year's log after wishing on it. They sacrificed animals and ate them along with lots of liquor, performed rituals, magick and divination; they also carried corn dollies from house to house while carolling, and the girls who stood under a sprig of mistletoe were subject to a bit more than a kiss, as this was part of the fertility rites that were practiced.

Later the Yule tree took the place of the Yule log and instead of burning it, burning candles were put on it. This Yule tree should be cut down instead of purchased, and then it was disposed of by burning, the proper way to dispose of sacred objects. Christians claim that this is a custom invented by Martin Luther and Catholics say it was Saint Boniface, but the truth is that it can be traced back through the Roman Saturnalia to ancient Egypt.

I could keep going on for hours writting about this subject, but I think this is enough for now. Of course, when we learn these things, we know that Jesus was not born on December 25th. Spring seems a lot more logical.


Carole