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?
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.