I am convinced that Jesus Christ was born on Nisan 1, 5 BCE. In the Julian calendar, the biblical month of Nisan corresponds to March/April. If calculated correctly, Nisan 1, 5 BCE corresponds to March 9/10 in the Julian calendar. This would mean that Jesus was born on the sixth day of the week, just like Adam, who was created on the sixth day of the week. And Jesus is the better Adam, the new Adam, who replaced the old Adam. Nisan is the first month in the biblical calendar, which means that Jesus was born on New Year's Day. He was born on New Year's Day because He is the beginning of the new creation, who replaced the old creation. Nisan 1 was the day on which the tent of God was completed, because Jesus is the new tent of God, who replaced the old tent. The Catholic Church, which claims that Jesus was born on December 25, 1 BCE, is gravely mistaken. I advise Catholics to repent.
But now we come to the title of this post. I maintain that there is probably a genuine photograph of the Star of Bethlehem. I arrive at this assumption based on the following: The ancient Chinese report that sometime between March 9 and April 6, 5 BCE, a tailed comet appeared in the sky and was visible for more than 70 days. This means that this comet was visible until at least May 5 BCE. Now, if we count exactly 2000 years from the birth of Jesus, we arrive in the year 1996. At the beginning of March 1996, a comet became visible to the naked eye in the sky until the end of May. In total, this comet was visible to the naked eye for about 90 days. This comet had a long tail. This comet is known as "Comet Hyakutake." What I believe is this: I believe that God celebrated the 2000th anniversary of his son's birth by sending back the Star of Bethlehem. I suspect that this comet of 1996 is the same comet that appeared in 5 BCE. Comet Hyakutake was closest to Earth in late March 1996. In 1996, Nisan 1 fell on March 21. A few days later, on Nisan 15, there was a total lunar eclipse, just like on Nisan 15, 5 BCE. So we see similarities between 5 BCE and 1996.
Heh heh. I've already demonstrated that all these are in the category of typology, which would also include the new coincidence trail, and that should only be used as a secondary reference to confirm what is accurately witnessed by primary references, because typology can be twisted to produce any number of coincidences.
God allowed Josephus to record just enough data about the period to give us the general picture and to find more details by analysis. In particular, putting the birth of Jesus on that early date does not agree with the timing of Josephus, nor of the timing of Matthew in how long the kings would take to come from the east. I probably have some additional notes lying around here about why it's reasonable for the Chinese-observed comet to mark the beginning of the kings' journey. Further, Hyakutake can be calculated to have entered the solar system with a period of approximately 17,000 years, not exactly 2,000 years. So to hit a couple secondary matches doesn't help if there are several primary fails.
That's why I don't argue about it, but I also blithely say Jesus was born 6 Oct 4 BC at 3 a.m. on primary and secondary evidence.
a) A reference refers to something that came before aka a secondary referring to a primary.
b) Nature implies primary; being implies secondary...any references are made by secondary beings to one another.
c) Ignoring natural for artificial references makes ones a partaker...not a witness.
a) Few suggest type (symbolism) to twist the minds of many into circular logic.
b) Only nature pro (forwards) duces (to lead)...a being needs to resist the wanted temptation of being lead forwards. Few puppeteer leaders to tempt many to willingly follow.
Aka using memory for adaption to perceivable inspiration...not to store suggested information.
General implies all (al) generating (gener) each one within...others suggest pluralism (us) and the capturing of momentum (pictures) to distract ones perception from discerning that.
Nature doesn't give pictures...it gives each being sight during a process of differentiation (analysis). Looking/locking at a picture implies an artificial synthesis.
Jesus aka je suis aka I AM contradicts particularity by taking possession over self, while branding others as YOU ARE (judah).
a) BE (being) cannot mark GIN (generation) without ignoring...being (life) generated (inception towards death).
b) A being cannot perceive ones beginning (inception) or end (death), because sight can only work in-between aka as above/so below.
I vs you + don't vs do imply argumentation.