Kaiousei no Senshi
Premium Member
I was reading the other day and ran across an interesting line.
At first I was just going to let this go and continue reading, but I couldn't just let this idea swim by. Jesus' death marked by a solar eclipse. Really?
St. Luke confirms this in his own gospel:
Besides the surprise of finding the phrase "gave up the ghost" in the Bible (who would have thought!!), I thought it was strange that no one had decided to fix the date of Easter using this information. Obviously there are a couple of obstacles that must be faced here, we have no idea in what year Jesus died. Or do we? *dramatic music*
This solar eclipse St. Luke tells us about must have been total or nearly so as other Biblical sources describe people walking around the city with lamps and torches to be able to see where they were going. Not knowing when Jesus was born makes it difficult to ascertain his death date, but knowing that only one such eclipse was visible from Jerusalm (the place where Jesus died) during the twenty year period of 20-40AD makes this a lot easier. This solar eclipse occured on February 4th, 26AD, and it reached perfection at around 9:50am. Interesting...if this information is true, then it may also be used to figure out Jesus's birth.
We are told Jesus lived to be 33 years old, and if he did indeed die on the day of this solar eclipse he would have been 33 years old in 26AD. So, 33-26= -7 That's about 7BC. I am wondering if this figure is correct, though. I'm assuming that the numerical subtraction counted in 0 as it was counting down; we all know there was no such year as 0BC. Regardless of this slight error, we've got it down to a good year. This year is significant though, as the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn throughout Pisces was occuring through this time. So, perhaps the idea of these planets heralding Jesus's birth is indeed correct as taking his year of death away from his age gives us this year.
Interesting...
Seeing as how we're told Jesus rose from the dead three days later and thus is the basis of Easter, wouldn't someone have figured out that three days after this eclipse was February 7th? So...we can judge that Easter should rightly be set as February 7th every year instead of the first Sunday after the first Full Moon following the Spring Equinox. Wouldn't that be easier?
The problems...
Data: The first problem with this is the accuracy of the data. None of my personal astrology programs would accurately calculate this far back in time, so I was forced to use Astro.com's program. Luckily though, I've never seen any case where Astrodient's calculations have been incorrect, so I've chosen to trust them.
Date: Another problem is the date itself. Given the different calendars employed during our current era and back in Jesus's time, I'm a little unsure if this date is accurate. When I erected the chart, besides the year it was labeled "Gregorian". I believe this is the calendar we are using now while the Julian Calendar was the one employed during the classical periods. However, since it is designated Gregorian, I'm going to assume that the date has been converted from Julian to Gregorian for my convienence.
History: The biggest part of this, though, is the historical accuracy that has been handed down to us. This is another case of Fact vs. Fable. Perhaps Jesus did die during this solar eclipse, I guess it is totally possible. However, would it not be just scary to some people to tell them that a the reported son of God died during a solar eclipse? That's something powerful. Especially considering the astrological significance eclipses have obtained throughout tradition as powerful malefics. This world losing the son of God could be seen as a powerfully unfortunate event. Also, the synchronity between the extinguishing light of the sun and the extinguishing life of the son seems quite interesting. Also, I find the times recorded to be quite odd. St. Luke tells us from the sixth to the ninth hour. That's about noon to three in the afternoon, but it seems more like the eclipse lasted from about nine to noon. Bad translation or bad data? You decide.
Just wanted to share.
The Fated Sky: Astrology in History said:
At first I was just going to let this go and continue reading, but I couldn't just let this idea swim by. Jesus' death marked by a solar eclipse. Really?
St. Luke confirms this in his own gospel:
The Gospel of St. Luke 23:44-46 said:
Besides the surprise of finding the phrase "gave up the ghost" in the Bible (who would have thought!!), I thought it was strange that no one had decided to fix the date of Easter using this information. Obviously there are a couple of obstacles that must be faced here, we have no idea in what year Jesus died. Or do we? *dramatic music*
This solar eclipse St. Luke tells us about must have been total or nearly so as other Biblical sources describe people walking around the city with lamps and torches to be able to see where they were going. Not knowing when Jesus was born makes it difficult to ascertain his death date, but knowing that only one such eclipse was visible from Jerusalm (the place where Jesus died) during the twenty year period of 20-40AD makes this a lot easier. This solar eclipse occured on February 4th, 26AD, and it reached perfection at around 9:50am. Interesting...if this information is true, then it may also be used to figure out Jesus's birth.
We are told Jesus lived to be 33 years old, and if he did indeed die on the day of this solar eclipse he would have been 33 years old in 26AD. So, 33-26= -7 That's about 7BC. I am wondering if this figure is correct, though. I'm assuming that the numerical subtraction counted in 0 as it was counting down; we all know there was no such year as 0BC. Regardless of this slight error, we've got it down to a good year. This year is significant though, as the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn throughout Pisces was occuring through this time. So, perhaps the idea of these planets heralding Jesus's birth is indeed correct as taking his year of death away from his age gives us this year.
Interesting...
Seeing as how we're told Jesus rose from the dead three days later and thus is the basis of Easter, wouldn't someone have figured out that three days after this eclipse was February 7th? So...we can judge that Easter should rightly be set as February 7th every year instead of the first Sunday after the first Full Moon following the Spring Equinox. Wouldn't that be easier?
The problems...
Data: The first problem with this is the accuracy of the data. None of my personal astrology programs would accurately calculate this far back in time, so I was forced to use Astro.com's program. Luckily though, I've never seen any case where Astrodient's calculations have been incorrect, so I've chosen to trust them.
Date: Another problem is the date itself. Given the different calendars employed during our current era and back in Jesus's time, I'm a little unsure if this date is accurate. When I erected the chart, besides the year it was labeled "Gregorian". I believe this is the calendar we are using now while the Julian Calendar was the one employed during the classical periods. However, since it is designated Gregorian, I'm going to assume that the date has been converted from Julian to Gregorian for my convienence.
History: The biggest part of this, though, is the historical accuracy that has been handed down to us. This is another case of Fact vs. Fable. Perhaps Jesus did die during this solar eclipse, I guess it is totally possible. However, would it not be just scary to some people to tell them that a the reported son of God died during a solar eclipse? That's something powerful. Especially considering the astrological significance eclipses have obtained throughout tradition as powerful malefics. This world losing the son of God could be seen as a powerfully unfortunate event. Also, the synchronity between the extinguishing light of the sun and the extinguishing life of the son seems quite interesting. Also, I find the times recorded to be quite odd. St. Luke tells us from the sixth to the ninth hour. That's about noon to three in the afternoon, but it seems more like the eclipse lasted from about nine to noon. Bad translation or bad data? You decide.
Just wanted to share.
