We all know that the number one alternative candidate (other than Osama bin Laden) for the 9/11 attack was the state of Israel. This is why Israel is the "keystone" of both Qanon and freemasonry (Joe Lange has good writing on Israel as the keystone).
A few weeks ago I learned that there are strong arguments that Jesus was born on September 11, 3 BC. The classic book is by Ernest Martin and was written in 1991, long before the terror attack.
So my natural question is:
Did Israel attack on September 11 in part because its leaders believed that Jesus was born on September 11?
And, since Jesus is associated with goodness and turning the other cheek, would this be a reason why many or most of the deaths on 9/11 were faked, as argued by Miles Mathis?
A related question is: if orthodox Christianity was created, in part, to hide important truths about Jesus, then would the Julian and/or Gregorian calendar (with all of its apparent shortcomings) be designed in part to hide Jesus' birthday on September 11?
Your Homework: Look into these!
**9/11:
Larry Silverstein
Frank Lowy,
Lewis Eisenberg
Ronald Lauder
Jerome Hauer
Urban Moving Systems
Rabbi Dov Zakheim
Michael Chertoff
Maurice Greenberg
The "B" THING,
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
Richard Perle
Paul Wolfowitz
Douglas Feith
Eliot Abrams
Marc Grossman
Ari Fleischer
Alvin K. Hellerstein
Michael B. Mukasey
Michael Chertoff
Kenneth Feinberg
Sheila Birnbaum
Benjamin Chertoff
Stephen Cauffman
Philip Zelikow
Cass Sunstein
Carlyle Group
I'm aware of pretty much all of those. They show a link between Israel and 9/11. They don't really do anything to answer my question, which is much more specific: did the leaders of Israel do 9/11 because in part they believe that Sep. 11 was the birthday of Jesus?
Many, maybe most, here do not know that 9/11 was predominantly a Mossad operation. Your headline assumes we all know. I provided pieces of the puzzle so that others can fit it all together.
I've seen several videos that present the occult connections and occult symbolism. I'll see what I can find.
Thanks, I understand now. Still curious about the Jesus question though...
At 101:45 in this video Fritz Springmeier talks about September 11, 3 BC
The Role of the Illuminati's Occult Philosophy in 9/11 - Fritz Springmeier - PDX 9/11 Truth
All those names seem to be Zionist traitors.
All with a PIECE of the 9/11 PSY-OP.
Jesus was born June 17th.
In Luke 2:8 it states: To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. 6And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. 8And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-2-8/
Theory is the Shepards would not be laying in the fields watching their flock in December, it would be winter at that time. Shepards would have already brought their flocks in from the fields for market.
The Great Star of Bethlehem was seen when Jesus was born. It wasn't actually a star, it was the converging light as Jupitor and Venus crossed paths, this would have occurred on June 17th 2 BC.
The star seemed to stop migrating as it entered about waist level of Virgo (the virgin) It didn't stop there as a sign from God, it was actually switching from a progression to retrogression.
https://truthinscripture.net/2017/01/04/jesus-birth-the-star-of-bethlehem/
December 25th was chosen by Pagans to be the birthday of Jesus. In actuality, December 25th was a day Roman Pagans worshiped their Sun God Sol. They changed Jesus's birthday to confuse Christians and have them celebrate on the same day the Pagans were worshiping the Sun God. The Devil works in mysterious ways,
https://historycooperative.org/pagan-origins-of-christmas/
I've heard that one (Jupiter-Venus) and once had it on my short list. Now Jesus was born before Herod died, which is before Archelaus succeeded him and put down a rebellion on the day of Passover (the spring full moon), according to Josephus. He then has Archelaus deposed in his 10th year, which everyone has as 6 AD, the rebellion of Judas of Galilee (mentioned in Acts by Gamaliel) and the renaming of Idumea as part of Judaea. There was no zero year, so it appears Archelaus began reigning in 4 BC and not after June of 2 BC. Unless something in this paragraph is wrong.
Add: The data about December 25 is relatively accurate. However, God always anticipates things and set up Hanukkah around the winter solstice as well, which was prophesied by Daniel and the date by Haggai 2. So there's always God's older witness to anything counterfeited.
Plus, there's the whole symbolism of the "light of the world" coming in at the darkest time of the year.
I trust Christian Tradition way way more than the "latest findings" and various other speculative research of modern times: I am metaphysically certain that Jesus was born in December.
A primary reason for the mainstream church tradition is the good Eastern Christian tradition that Jesus was baptized on January 6 (in Tybi), and this celebration was connected to his birth very early, thus giving rise to the later 4th-century published date of December 25.
However, earlier evidence for December 25 itself is conflicting, with manuscripts of Hippolytus varying among themselves, and with Clement of Alexandria being unhelpful as usual. Clement's Stromata has Christ's birth as 194 years, 1 month, 13 days before the death of Commodus (31 Dec 193 AD), implying mid-November of 2 BC. Hippolytus's Canon has Jesus's genesis on 2 April of 2 BC, though "genesis" may mean either birth or conception. So the author seems to support a backdating, using Hippolytus's other statements, to conception around 25 March of 4 BC, birth 25 December of 4 BC, which is not too far off from my preferred date of birth 6 October of 4 BC.
This source has rawer data than I've seen and so it's worth pursuit, and it also doesn't do a severe injustice to the concerns I've raised before, so being open-minded I'll need to look more into it. One difficulty is the shepherds in the field and the other non-winter activities of the narrative; another is the timing of John's birth to accord with the Levitical cycles governing Zechariah's service. So I appreciate your goading me to look into this and find more to the story, and I'll keep these traditions in mind moving forward. If I do need to make changes to account for everything I've seen, I'll publish that; but for now there's not sufficient data to overturn my initial presumptions.
No, I don't think Jesus was born on 11 September 3 BC because Martin didn't sufficiently take into account the reign of Archelaus, who came to power before Passover in spring 3 BC, after Jesus's birth. If you push Archelaus too far forward it messes with harmony with established later reigns.
Did the planners set the date to match Martin's date? Probably not, they probably went for the NANPA selection of "911" as an emergency number, and if they had any secondary intent there it wasn't likely relevant. (Of course we can always take spiritual instruction from coincidence, but that doesn't make it the primary or secondary human point.)
The idea that the two towers also represented "11" is just passable enough as a secondary tie-in, especially given the meaning of the two pillars in Masonry; but this too doesn't speak to the birth of Jesus.
We can certainly infer that the placement of Jesus's birth in the winter solstice (when shepherds never watched their flocks by night) was a guided mistake that hasn't yet been rectified fully. But this is an effect of the church calendar templated over the Julian, not an effect of the Julian or Gregorian directly. Many things were done to hide earlier things, but history can be sufficiently discerned.
Ultimately what symbolism was chosen consciously, and what by spiritual forces of "coincidence", isn't that important. Getting the truth is, and that is best done in a community of voices following the Spirit of God. In pursuing the truth I've come to recognize a number of reasons for putting Jesus's birth about a year earlier (search "chronology" at c/Christianity for too many details), and have never found Martin or expositors to have accounted all the data. But I'm open because there are still new lines to investigate. The truth is never far from any of us, and so the simplest step is to remember that Jesus invites us to join him and that is done by accepting his Spirit guiding us into all truth. That suffices to sustain us in all search.
You seem to know a lot more than me about this stuff, but I don't fully understand your argument.
Martin's argument can be traced back in Planetarium software today, precise to the minute, all the way to Sep. 11, 3 BC. This software shows that the relevant celestial bodies (Jupiter, etc.) lined up on that specific day, at that specific time.
Are you denying that the planetarium software correctly calculates the time of when the bodies converged? Or are you arguing that the software is correct, but Jesus was born at a different time?
See the end of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNTcsxRcsO4
Yes, the conjunctions are correct, but the idea that God wants us to date things via methods that nobody knew about at the time and that were not visible to the magi is suspect to me. IIRC the idea is that Jupiter was in Virgo the same time as the sun in fall of 3 BC; but in that case nobody could see Jupiter at the time or cared its exact route through Virgo! (If my memory is off the argument is still valid.)
What did the people actually believe at the time? For instance, they believed that Elijah would come at Passover; and when John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah it's likely that he was born at Passover and Jesus was born 6 months later. Now this one actually could be used either way, fall of 4 BC in my view, or fall of 3 BC in Martin's view, but the point is that there's a belief that we know was extant and that supports the time of year (against those putting Jesus's birth in spring or winter).
But when we investigate what the magi believed, it comes down to the star rising out of Jacob being a sign of the Messiah. This star was visible at night when they were completing their search, according to Luke, the greatest historian of his time. But Jupiter wasn't visible at Martin's time, its position could only be approximated by calculation (I could be wrong!).
OTOH Josephus gives a sign that everyone knew, the lunar eclipse of the full moon in March of 4 BC. This was during the illness of Herod from which he died, and that period can't be made too tight or too loose. After he died, Archelaus put down a Passover rebellion as one of his first acts: data indicates this was spring of 3 BC and cannot be pushed to spring of 2 BC. Both those data points are astronomical and hard to vary. Thus my skepticism.
The sign of the woman, sun, moon, and stars was given to us 100 years after Jesus's birth, not given to the generation of his parents. It indicates both interpretation of age-old things and also events still to come. We are free to try to use it for many interpretations, but we are not free to contradict more direct evidence, and we are not free to say they anticipated it in ways contrary to what evidence suggests they believed. I'm very opinionated, so take me with a grain of salt, but when I can chime in on a subject where I have knowledge then I put in a bit of effort.
I could debate you line by line, but there's a big philosophical problem at the start:
"Yes, the conjunctions are correct, but the idea that God wants us to date things via methods that nobody knew about at the time and that were not visible to the magi is suspect to me."
Of COURSE he would want us to do that. If the methods didn't even exist yet, then this shows that God was working in a predetermined, time-travel-y sort of way.
Not if they contradict the evidence, fren. The evidence is that the magi followed a star they could see at the beginning and the end of the trip.
Perhaps I'm speaking too fast because it's true that new information becomes available, but what I meant is that new information doesn't allow us to redefine old information that has always been interpreted literally.
Now I don't mean any disrespect I have for Martin and his followers to spill over here. So don't read that in. If you want to debate I have time, now and then, and am open-minded. We both have things to learn about this.
https://patriots.win/p/199huhObtW/x/c/4ZGTbyrXNHr
The founding stone of the Pentagon was apparently placed on 9/11, in 1941.
COMMENT AT LINK PROVIDED:
I like to say, just to provoke people, that Jesus was born on 6 October of 4 BC, Julian. At 3 in the morning. It was the first day of Tabernacles, and he was tabernacling among us.
Satanists sacrifice on any old day and they are adept at making up excuses to sacrifice, whether or not they are true. Don't listen to that channel. They want to claim all the days for themselves, but this is why we learn that all the days are already ours and we just need to revive our claims. I don't have evidence that Julian-Gregorian 9/11 is statistically more suspicious than other days.
Good catch! Fascinating!
I think they did it because our Emergency phone # is 911 to signify IRONY and the emergency they were causing our country. Just a guess. Only my opinion. Note my name.
After all is said and done,
There is no getting past the "Nose Out Shot."
<[] <<<
No kidding
Do I have that by any chance ?