Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A theory about his birthdate is also discussed on the main presentation.
I estimate that if he had been born in the autumn of 4BC, then he would have been 35 in early AD33.
(There is no year zero).
I watched the clip again and he does mention the crucifixion. I'll admit he kind of mumbles the words but he mentions it at least three times.
Thanks. That's better. I appreciate that. I watched the clip several times as well, and I still missed hearing anything about crucifixion. Yes, he does mumble. I'll listen again more carefully, but frankly, the guy is pretty yawn-inducing.
Even though there is no year called zero, doesn't mean whatever year it wasn't there. It's about determining the period of time in relation to the system of time we use now. It can get tricky considering that the calendar system has undergone some changes over the last 2000 or so years. Making a dividing line from 1 BC to become 1 AD the next year isn't anything that's unknown. But people do wrestle around with non-issues like that such as was the year 2000 the end of the of the last century or the beginning of this century, and why do we call the 1900s the 20th century.
There are easy reasons but not worth haggling about. The point is that the date of birth is not precisely pinpointed with a general range of anywhere within several years; almost a decade. While a decade is pretty insignificant in terms of really long periods of time, it is important to establish when trying to determine such things as a person's lifespan, when they were born to when they died. Since there were no specific birth annd death records available like we have today, it boils down to guesswork based on known historical facts. Even at that, there can be a fudge factor. Tax records were held periodically, but it was based on making an appearance and announcing when a child was born. Believe me, that's not as efficient as it may seem. My mother-in-law was a sweet but uneducated woman and things like what year her kids were born didn't have any meaning. No one kept such records. In terms of guessing, her reckoing was off in comparision to school records which were kept some 50-60 years ago. Even school records couldn't be considered foolproof as they didn't record birth dates, only the year of attendence at schools. Now, kick that back a couple of thousand years ago when there were no actual birth records, and the recording of "when' a child was born was hit and miss based solely on what the parents claimed.
If there was no actual recording of birth records at the time of birth (which helps in case memory itself isn't so accurate) then certainly it becomes guessing as to when a person died and how old they were.
Now, on to another matter, the eclipse video. The video shows Aries in amazing graphical details. If we can assume such details might be stellar clouds of gas and dust, they would be invisible to the naked eye. All that can be seen by eye are the brightest stars that make up the constellation. If the details are there only to illustrate the figure of a ram, then it's just plain silly to say 'Here's where the heart of the ram is". So what? Obviously a human and a ram are not the same thing, nor do a group of stars the same thing as a ram. So it gets down to imaginative symbolism. Something that's symbolic is not an accurate representation of what it's suppose to represent. In terms of the the presentation in the video clip, it's pretty clear that the emphasis is heavily placed on symbolism, by imagining a ram. Such symbolism regarding constellations can be interpretated in other configurations which have nothing to do with a ram.
People make such associations of symbols as representative of something people know. We do that in many other ways as well. You can look at a geological formation in the distance and imagine it to be a sleeping giant, or see clouds that resemble an elephant, etc. That's known as paredolia and it comes from imagining certain shapes resembling something known. It's the same thing as seeing the man in the moon or the face on Mars. Pareidolia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is exactly what the speaker in the video has done. He's taken an imagined configuration and declared it as though it's a secret wonder of God's handiwork. In addition, the speaker declares how emotional, excited and choked up he gets just by gazing at such a wonderous discovery. There's nothing new about inserting emotions into such talks. The reason should be clear. It's to generate a response of empathy from the listeners. It's all about getting attention. Why do you think televangelists generate so much emotional response that people start digging into their pockets and purses for money to donate? Wait! Unless you obtained the DVD at no cost, you probably paid for it. Why? Evidently, you felt the speaker provided fantastic hidden truth, proof in the very heavens above! Wait a second. Proof? It isnt proof of anything. It's imaginary symbolism.
Unfortunately, there are people who get caught up by the shrewd techniques used by certain speakers who take full advantage of the lack of knowledge of other people and feed on their emotional responses. That same technique is used today in infomercials trying to convince you to buy something you don't need and probably doesn't work as well as hoped for, especially the 'get rich quick' schemes.
You can certainly do whatever you want to do. However, I would suggest that you use your own mind and consider other plausible views to decide for yourself as to what's real and what isn't. After all, do you think God gave you a brain to think with? Are symbolic concepts more important than the knowledge of things that are real? I'm not saying that symbolism has no place in the human mind, but it's also important to be able to discern the wheat from the chaff. Wouldn't you agree?
Thanks. That's better. I appreciate that. I watched the clip several times as well, and I still missed hearing anything about crucifixion. Yes, he does mumble. I'll listen again more carefully, but frankly, the guy is pretty yawn-inducing.
Even though there is no year called zero, doesn't mean whatever year it wasn't there. It's about determining the period of time in relation to the system of time we use now. It can get tricky considering that the calendar system has undergone some changes over the last 2000 or so years. Making a dividing line from 1 BC to become 1 AD the next year isn't anything that's unknown. But people do wrestle around with non-issues like that such as was the year 2000 the end of the of the last century or the beginning of this century, and why do we call the 1900s the 20th century.
There are easy reasons but not worth haggling about. The point is that the date of birth is not precisely pinpointed with a general range of anywhere within several years; almost a decade. While a decade is pretty insignificant in terms of really long periods of time, it is important to establish when trying to determine such things as a person's lifespan, when they were born to when they died. Since there were no specific birth annd death records available like we have today, it boils down to guesswork based on known historical facts. Even at that, there can be a fudge factor. Tax records were held periodically, but it was based on making an appearance and announcing when a child was born. Believe me, that's not as efficient as it may seem. My mother-in-law was a sweet but uneducated woman and things like what year her kids were born didn't have any meaning. No one kept such records. In terms of guessing, her reckoing was off in comparision to school records which were kept some 50-60 years ago. Even school records couldn't be considered foolproof as they didn't record birth dates, only the year of attendence at schools. Now, kick that back a couple of thousand years ago when there were no actual birth records, and the recording of "when' a child was born was hit and miss based solely on what the parents claimed.
If there was no actual recording of birth records at the time of birth (which helps in case memory itself isn't so accurate) then certainly it becomes guessing as to when a person died and how old they were.
Now, on to another matter, the eclipse video. The video shows Aries in amazing graphical details. If we can assume such details might be stellar clouds of gas and dust, they would be invisible to the naked eye. All that can be seen by eye are the brightest stars that make up the constellation. If the details are there only to illustrate the figure of a ram, then it's just plain silly to say 'Here's where the heart of the ram is". So what? Obviously a human and a ram are not the same thing, nor do a group of stars the same thing as a ram. So it gets down to imaginative symbolism. Something that's symbolic is not an accurate representation of what it's suppose to represent. In terms of the the presentation in the video clip, it's pretty clear that the emphasis is heavily placed on symbolism, by imagining a ram. Such symbolism regarding constellations can be interpretated in other configurations which have nothing to do with a ram.
People make such associations of symbols as representative of something people know. We do that in many other ways as well. You can look at a geological formation in the distance and imagine it to be a sleeping giant, or see clouds that resemble an elephant, etc. That's known as paredolia and it comes from imagining certain shapes resembling something known. It's the same thing as seeing the man in the moon or the face on Mars. Pareidolia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is exactly what the speaker in the video has done. He's taken an imagined configuration and declared it as though it's a secret wonder of God's handiwork. In addition, the speaker declares how emotional, excited and choked up he gets just by gazing at such a wonderous discovery. There's nothing new about inserting emotions into such talks. The reason should be clear. It's to generate a response of empathy from the listeners. It's all about getting attention. Why do you think televangelists generate so much emotional response that people start digging into their pockets and purses for money to donate? Wait! Unless you obtained the DVD at no cost, you probably paid for it. Why? Evidently, you felt the speaker provided fantastic hidden truth, proof in the very heavens above! Wait a second. Proof? It isnt proof of anything. It's imaginary symbolism.
Unfortunately, there are people who get caught up by the shrewd techniques used by certain speakers who take full advantage of the lack of knowledge of other people and feed on their emotional responses. That same technique is used today in infomercials trying to convince you to buy something you don't need and probably doesn't work as well as hoped for, especially the 'get rich quick' schemes.
You can certainly do whatever you want to do. However, I would suggest that you use your own mind and consider other plausible views to decide for yourself as to what's real and what isn't. After all, do you think God gave you a brain to think with? Are symbolic concepts more important than the knowledge of things that are real? I'm not saying that symbolism has no place in the human mind, but it's also important to be able to discern the wheat from the chaff. Wouldn't you agree?
Yes, I would pretty much agree with everything you said. Personally, I have never been able to "see" the constellation images myself, but I know that lots of people seem to (in general, not in relation to this DVD). I don't understand why you are asking about the birthdate because it doesn't have any bearing on this. Jesus' birth date is unknown, but I have heard that it occurred in the autumn. The date of December 25th, 2BC matches another phenomenon which occurred in the skies over Bethlehem, and is believed to be the date that the magi visited the young family when Jesus was a toddler, and brought gifts.
I understand the people on the Moon, when witnessing this phenomena in the sky, saw it as an auspicious greeting from their god Zol-Tar ... and then commenced with much revelry, feasting and orgies.
Yes, I would pretty much agree with everything you said. Personally, I have never been able to "see" the constellation images myself, but I know that lots of people seem to (in general, not in relation to this DVD). I don't understand why you are asking about the birthdate because it doesn't have any bearing on this. Jesus' birth date is unknown, but I have heard that it occurred in the autumn. The date of December 25th, 2BC matches another phenomenon which occurred in the skies over Bethlehem, and is believed to be the date that the magi visited the young family when Jesus was a toddler, and brought gifts.
I agree, it does take a great deal of imagination to "see" the arrangement of stars in the constellations as figures or characters.
The only reason I posed the question about the birthdate is because it would help to better establish whether or not the notion that the crucifixion took place in 33 AD is true, which as you indicated many people believe. You mentioned that year yourself, and suggest that if he was born in 4 BC, he would've been 35 in 33 AD. As I also pointed out, there are historical scholars who think the birthdate could've been as far back as 7 BC. It only means there is no conclusive determination about what year he was born.
And that ties in with the point about the lunar eclipse in the constellation of Aries. For alll anyone knows, he could've died years before such an eclipse. It takes imagination to conclude an eclipse took place during the crucifixion, because nothing really describes anything about an eclipse, only that there was darkness. A lunar eclipse would work out as an explanation,but I think a solar eclipse would be a better one. Whether there were any total solar eclipses over Jeursalem around that time, I don't know. What I do know is that lunar eclipses can occur anywhere from 0-3 times in a year, although not necessarily in the same location. In addition lunar eclipses can be total, prenumbral, and partial. Info about eclipses can be found in the link below. Solar and Lunar Eclipses
If Frederick Larson is making a big deal that there was a lunar eclipse over Jerusalem in 33 AD, and believes that is also the year of the crucifixion, then he could be making a whopping assumption trying to tie the two together. While there may have been a lunar eclipse over Jerusalem in 33 AD, it's uncertain that the crucifixion took place in that year. All there is to go on are the 4 books of the gospels. And all there is of the gospels are copies or translations. None of the originals have ever been found and we don't know how accurate the copies and translations were. It's quite possible for errors to creep in over time. And if that isn't enough, it isn't known when the gospels were written. Neither Mark or Luke were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. When were the gospels written and by whom? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
It's possible that the two events might not have occurred in the same year (whatever that year may have been). But putting the two events together would certainly give the story a much greater impression. There was also a description of an earthquake that took place. Whether such an earthquake actually took place at the same time is unknown.
The matter of a celestial event taking place over Bethlehem on Dec. 25 marking the day of birth is highly suspicious, as you yourself noted. The first appearance of Dec. 25 as a birthdate was established in the early 4th century by the church in Rome, probably as an effort to Christianize pagan traditions which were still being observed by long held traditions. But it's not likely that was the actual date of birth because by then no one knew when it was. In a nutshell, we don't know when he was born, we don't know when he died and we don't know how long he lived. Christmas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As you can see, there are loads of unknowns - too many. That said, what Frederick Larson claims regarding the miracle of the lunar eclipse is complete speculation, and his tactics are pretty shifty. 'Look! Nothing up my sleeves. Presto! A secret miracle appears before your very eyes!' I'm not saying he doesn't believe it. I don't know. But I am saying that his credibility adds up to zero. I suspect his motivation is to sell books and DVDs to gullible people.
As you can see, there are loads of unknowns - too many. That said, what Frederick Larson claims regarding the miracle of the lunar eclipse is complete speculation, and his tactics are pretty shifty. 'Look! Nothing up my sleeves. Presto! A secret miracle appears before your very eyes!' I'm not saying he doesn't believe it. I don't know. But I am saying that his credibility adds up to zero. I suspect his motivation is to sell books and DVDs to gullible people.
I think his motivation was to share some findings that he thought were pretty amazing. The person who shared the DVD with me and others thought the same thing. He admits that the year 33AD is an assumption, but a possible one that was established by some scholars. And it is interesting date because it lines up with some celestial occurrences that correlate to visions in the Bible.
This thing with Aries "seen" from the moon had nothing to do with any of the other visions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
