Thank you for putting that so succinctly to bjorkstrand. He is a most persistent one isn't he?
{He's been following me from forum to forum ever since the two of us crossed paths at astrodienst's forum in Sept. 2007. ...although I can say that He has become somewhat more civil in the interim} As I did explain that wasn't a date, that Cayce gave as being that of the birth, in that very link I posted, some number of posts back, here in this thread as to those dates.
Although I must, once again, reiterate that the year you are quoting is an erroneous presumption and, in addition, you're quoting it out of context,
If you read the reply again you'll notice that Cayce said,
"By the Julian calendar, it was in the year four."
In Julius Caesar's time, a new year began on April 1st.
{unless you were using a fiscal calendar or one of the other such type specialty calendars that the plebeians didn't use, and I'd be willing to wager that they all celebrated it as a new year, if such celebrations were held, on every April 1st, in those times by all Romans and those under Roman rule.} ..and as Cayce is saying the "year 4" that is in reference to when, much later long after the Crucifixion, some did start counting the years from the time Yeshu'a was born and made note of the years prior to the birth as being that of as like most all Christians presently do as either being of after the birth as A.D. or before as B.C. , but in the particular vernacular of their own particular region and era.
Then you have to consider that there were a multitude of different manners in which those that did start observing this difference, and some did write the date as the number of how many years from the birth it was, and noted it as being different from those years prior to the birth and numbered, as such, as to how many years it was before, from that very year that Yeshu'a was born in. Some had the entire year Yeshu'a was born in as a neutral sort of thing, that is as the year "0" {Zero}, which so happens to be as, just as how astronomical time is observed, i.e. with a year "0 B.C." {Zero B.C.}
...
The only thing is, the Romans didn't, have or, use integers nor did they have anything to represent "Zero". Nor did they ever have until they started using Arabic numerals, which really came from India by way of the Arabs, like just about everything else they seem to get accredited for as they were, most often, only the delivery guys and not the source. I ran across one ref. that said that some observed [and this was based on the belief, by the author, that December 25th is the correct date] all time from Dec. 24th and before as B.C. and all time since that Dec. 26th as A.D. and the day He was born as a "neutral day".
So okay, then...let's just say for the sake of illustrating a point that you would agree with that concept as is like how astronomical time is so observed ...where does that leave us? If the reference was to Dec. 25th of that neutral year then the following Jan 1st is the first day of the first year of the Gregorian calendar and which by present standards is so observed and accounted to be as such. From there my date then would be considered to be in the year 3 A.D.
But, there were those that claimed, and maybe there are some that still do, that the year He was born in, is the year 1 A.D. and that the year before that is 1 B.C. as the majority of Christians alive presently do. But at one time prior to the middle ages,
{and has been found on ancient documents and ledgers, letters of correspondence and the like.} that year was considered to have begun on that new years day that occurred prior to the birth and by that reckoning then it was the year 2 A.D. on the new years day that followed the birth. But, recall that new years day was April 1st in those times of the birth, ...and one could then say, that I'm still wrong as to the date for which I produced a chart, as it wouldn't be the following year until April 1st, and yes, that would be correct too. But, when Pope Gregory issued his edit and all calendars were advanced, many days never existed, in a sense, by the Gregorian calendar because they were skipped over.
The following is from wikipedia:
" The Gregorian calendar is a solar calendar. A regular Gregorian year consists of 365 days and in a leap year, an intercalary or leap day is added as 29 February making the year 366 days. Normally a leap year occurs every 4 years, but the Gregorian calendar omits 3 leap days every 400 years, unlike the Julian calendar, which retains those leap days."
Now, by 1601 A.D. greg. that means that to convert March 19th by the Julian date to a Gregorian date you would need to add 4 times 3 leap days, {as those are not counted, i.e. they are "omitted", by the Gregorian reckoning} to that date of March 19th and thus you will get March 31st....and by 2001
{or 2000 as to be honest I don't if you add those days on the last year of the century or the next one after, but I'm pretty sure it's that century when it begins as the first leap day added would've been in the year 5 A.D.} one has to add three more days and that would make that date April 3rd. But, one has to remember that He was born after February that year
{regardless that it was the year 3 A.D., or for that matter even 4 A.D. as you think it was, as this is about the fact that the Gregorians consider it to be the year 1 A.D.} so one only adds 2 days....thus it becomes April 2nd as of 2001 or 2000....whatever.
{To be perfectly honest, I never thought that I'd ever again be all too concerned with dates that far back in the past to have to remember this business of conversion, nor did I think that I'd have to take notes on this business of the dates as I never thought that I'd have this much difficulty getting any astrologer to recognize the natal chart I produced for what it is. But, in 2004, when I produced the chart [and even up until fairly recently, I still believed, or hoped ...] I had no idea of how little recognized the validity and veracity of the Sabian Symbols are by the Astrological community and how few among those are even any where near the level of adeptness that they claim to be of what ever school or technique it is that they adhere to, And that, is something, almost every last astrologer of any school of technique presently alive on Earth is guilty of, in my humble opinion, which I am supposed to write at this point, since I was read the riot act by Wilson T.C. some years ago or be expectant to be banished forever from this forum but even if I do it doesn't change the fact it is the shining truth... which means very little anyways, as I have found out during the last ten years, as every last school or technique being adhered to presently, as I was made increasingly aware of over that period, is more wrong than right to begin with.
One thing is for certain that Edgar Cayce said, about studying and practicing any of those schools or techniques that were in use when He was alive, is "that it will do one more harm than good". ...in my humble opinion, of course}
Here a photo of the very first attempt I made at checking the date Cayce gave...or I should say, that I thought it to be the date that Cayce gave because I had evicted from my home, the house that I rented on May 6, 2001,
{when Uranus was at 24* Aquarius 47' and conj. my nadir which is at 24* Aquarius 21' and my natal Moon, also, at 24* Aquar. 03'} because I was working from memory, as I was homeless, and camping on the river bank of the American River, and all my books and everything else that I could save were stored in a friends garage at the time, and as I only became interested in the project since I had been evicted as for the reason I had just finished Adrian Gilbert's book "The Orion Mystery" and had learned of the NASA computer program, "Skyglobe" that He used and I had learned of astrodienst's computer program that, until recently, I thought had been developed using that program but found out only last week that it was in fact developed in 1994 from JPL's program that was being used by NASA for all their space missions at one time
{and may still be, for all I know, as now I'm not certain if in fact NASA every did use "Skyglobe for anything...and I have been planing on making an announcement in the thread, I started in the "Hot Topic sub-forum here at a.w, on astrodienst altering the data as I also learned of something pertaining to that that does allow them, by the written instructions left by the scientist that developed it, to adjust Pluto's position by plus, or minus [as I seem to recall at this moment] up to 2' of a degree.} and I needed something to do during daylight as one didn't want to get caught camping along the river and the local library in Folsom was at that time but only about a miles walk and as they had 3 computers on line for public use that day and the waiting list was hours long I was able to use a 4th computer that was a first come first serve unit for 15 minutes use only. As one can see quite clearly I had the date Cayce that Edgar gave wrong as the chart I printed from that session, on July 2, 2001 at 3:17 p.m. clearly visible in the lower right hand corner of the chart, has a date of March 22, 04 greg.
[/URL][/IMG]