Proof that Jesus was born on 11 September, 3 BC!!

there is argument about every point and every word in every story in th bible......its a dead end street...............if you want to read the word of god, go collect some sea shells or something, thats the truth.

A curious find.
So much of what we know is twisted. Including the Jesus story.

Its a fact, December 25th was picked because its the birthday of the sungod. Emperor Constantine made it official to please his pagan religion followers.

Here are the facts regarding the birth of Christ.

It is widely believed (as the Christmas cards keep reminding us) that Jesus was born in a stable - but the Gospels do not say that. In fact, there is no 'stable' mentioned in any authorised Gospel. The Nativity is not mentioned at all in Mark or John, and Matthew makes it quite plain that Jesus was born 'in a house'.

Where did the stable idea originate? It came from a misinterpretation of the Gospel of Luke which relates that Jesus was 'laid in a manger' (not 'born', as often misquoted, but 'laid') and a manger was, and still is, nothing more than an animal feeding-box. In practice, it was perfectly common for mangers to be used as emergency cradles and they were often brought indoors for that very purpose.

Why has it been presumed that this particular manger was in a stable? Because the English translations of Luke tell us that there was 'no room in the inn'. But the old manuscript of Luke did not say that. In fact, there were no inns in the region - travellers lodged in private houses and family hospitality was a normal way of life in those days.

In fact, if we are really going to be precise, there were no stables in the region either. 'Stable' is an English word that specifically defines a place for keeping horses. But few (apart from some Roman officers) ever used horses in 1st-century Judaea - they mainly used mules and oxen which, if kept under cover at all, would have been in some type of outhouse - certainly not a stable.

As for the mythical inn, the original Greek text of Luke does not relate that there was 'no room in the inn'. By the best translation it actually states that there was 'no provision in the room' (i.e. 'no topos in the kataluma'). As previously mentioned, Matthew states that Jesus was born in a house and, when correctly translated, Luke reveals that Jesus was laid in a manger (an animal feeding box) because there was no cradle provided in the room.

While on the subject of Jesus's birth, we ought to look at the chronology here, because the two Gospels which deal with the Nativity actually give different dates for the event. According to Matthew, Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great, who debated the event with the Magi and apparently ordered the slaying of the infants. King Herod died in the notional year 4 BC - so we know from Matthew that Jesus was born before that. Indeed, because of this, most standard concordance Bibles give 5 BC as Jesus's date of birth.

In Luke, however, a completely different date is given. This Gospel states that Jesus was born while Cyrenius was Governor of Syria - the same year that Emperor Augustus implemented the national taxing census which caused Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem.

There are two relevant points to mention here, both of which are recorded in the 1st-century Jewish annals (such as The Antiquities of the Jews). Cyrenius was not appointed Governor of Syria until AD 6, and this was the very year that Emperor Augustus implemented the census, which was supervised by Cyrenius himself.

So Jesus appears to have been born on two separate occasions: 'before 4 BC' and again 'in AD 6'. Is there a mistake in one of the Gospels? Not necessarily - at least not in the way things were originally portrayed. We are actually looking at two quite specific births: Jesus's 'physical' birth and his 'community' birth. These were defined as the 'first' and 'second' births - the second being an initiation into society by way of a ritual ceremony of rebirth.

Second births for boys took place at the age of twelve (a ceremony in which they were ritualistically born again from their mother's womb). And so we know from Luke that Jesus was twelve in AD 6. Unfortunately, the latter-day Gospel translators and transcribers completely missed the significance of this, while subsequent Church teachings combined the Matthew and Luke accounts into one, giving rise to the spurious nonsense about a Nativity scene in a stable.

Since Jesus was twelve in AD 6 (as given in Luke), then he was actually born in 7 BC, which was indeed during the late reign of Herod the Great as related in Matthew. But we now discover what appears to be another anomaly. The Luke Gospel then says that when Jesus was twelve years old, his parents, Mary and Joseph, took him to Jerusalem for the day - only to walk homewards for a full day's journey with their friends before they realised that Jesus was not in their party. Then they returned to Jerusalem to find him at the temple discussing his father's business with the doctors.

In reality, what sort of parents would wander for a whole day in the desert, without knowing their twelve-year-old son was not with them? The fact is that the whole point of the passage has been lost in the translation, for there was a wealth of difference between a twelve-year-old son and a son in his twelfth year. When a son, on completing his initial twelve years (that is to say, on reaching his thirteenth birthday) was initiated into the community at the ceremony of his Second Birth, he was regarded as commencing his first year. It was the original root of the modern bar mitzvah. His next initiation - the initiation of manhood in the community - took place in his ninth year, when he was twenty-one (the root of the age-twenty-one privilege). Various 'degrees' then followed and the next major test was at the end of his twelfth year: at the age of twenty-four.

It is, therefore, apparent that when Jesus remained at the temple in his twelfth year, he was actually twenty-four years-old - not twelve. As for his discussion with the doctors, this would have related to his next degree - the degree set by his spiritual father, whose business he discussed. At that time, his spiritual father (the overall patriarch) was Simeon the Essene - and we see, in Luke, that it was precisely this man (the 'just and devout Simeon') who had legitimated Jesus under the law.

So 9/11 Twin Towers same date as supposed birthday of J.C. Coïncidence or a more sinister symbolism behind it,like birth or initiation of the so-called "Antichrist"?

:history:

The King James Bible was a rewritten translation like all the Bibles of today are. They all are using modern ways of telling how it looks to be understood. Understanding as you can see for yourself here at GLP comes in all forms and preferences.

Comparing Hitler to Bush is a great disservice to the memory of Hitler, unless you are a gullible fool who believes in fairy tales.
Is it mere coincidence that the jews were instrumental in the death of both?

No.

Can you handle the truth?

I doubt it.

if you know anything about the area and the culture, you'd know jesus was born in the spring, not fall.

there was _never_ any census or tax that required people to return to the place of their birth. to believe that ever happened is ludicrous.

you celebrate your first birthday at the _end_ of that first year. thus, your 12th birthday is when you have finished 12 years, and you're _not_ 13 until a year after that.

Dimwit, since when is Bush dead?

You ought to try to do something about those crossed wires in you brain.

I was comparing Hitler and Christ, who is the meat of this discussion. I had assumed anyone with a mere fourth grade education understands that.

Apparently, you are not among that group.
By all means. go back and seek out some porno or something and leave these weighty discussions to older folk.

Others who dispute my offerings will have to provide a little more than "thats not the way it was type commentary".

And none of the followers of Jesus Christ the crucified Savior of all mankind, spoke up or wrote about their outrage at Constantine picking the wrong date for such a significant holiday? Is there no record that? Interesting.

Christ was born in 7 BC and his birthday was on the equivalent of 1 March, with an official royal birthday on 15 September to comply with dynastic regulation and the month of Atonement. But, when establishing the Roman Church in the 4th century, Emperor Constantine ignored both of these dates and supplemented 25 December as the new Christ's Mass Day - to coincide with the pagan Sun Festival with which his Imperial subjects were familiar. Later, at the Synod of Whitby held in England in 664, the bishops also expropriated the Celtic festival of Easter (Eostre), the Goddess of Spring and Fertility, and attached a wholly new Christian significance by aligning it with the Resurrection of Jesus. In so doing, they actually changed the date of the old festival to sever its traditional association with the Jewish Passover.

Today's two main Christian festivals (Christmas and Easter) are spurious Roman inventions and, historically, they have nothing whatever to do with Jesus. Christianity, as we know it, has evolved as a composite religion quite unlike any other. If Jesus was its living catalyst, then Christianity should rightly be based on the teachings of Jesus himself - the moral and social codes of a fair-minded, tolerant ministry, with the people as its benefactors. But orthodox Christianity ('churchianity') is not based on the teachings of Jesus: it centres upon the teachings of the bishops, which are entirely different.

There are a number of reasons for this, the foremost of which is that Jesus was deliberately sidestepped in favour of the alternative teachings of Peter and Paul: teachings which were thoroughly denounced by the Nazarene Church of Jesus and his brother James - teachings which the Nazarenes called 'the faith of fools'.

Only by removing Jesus from the front-line could the popes and cardinals reign supreme. When formally instituting Christianity as the State religion of Rome, Constantine declared that he alone was the true Saviour Messiah - not Jesus! As for the Bishops of Rome (the popes), they were granted a fabricated Apostolic descent from St Peter, since the legitimate Messianic descent from Jesus and his brothers was retained within the parallel Nazarene Church.

Ernest L. Martin's book "The Star of Bethlehem: The Star that astonished the world" can be read (free) online at:

[link to www.askelm.com]

The relevant chapter is:
[link to www.askelm.com]

Some excellent reasoning here.

About Martin:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

You are, I think, correct that Jesus was born on Rosh Hashanah, but I think it was in 1 BC.

To many, the Holy Grail of astrological research is the Star of Bethlehem. Since astrologers were the ones who spotted it the first time around, it only makes sense that astrologers should be able to figure out what it was today. Unfortunately, over the years many different dates and birthcharts have been proposed for Jesus Christ, none of which has met what would seem to be the minimum necessary requirements. In this author’s view, the correct chart for Christ should do many things :

1. It should agree with the Gospels’ timeframe.
2 It should explain the Star of Bethlehem.
3. It should match the Gospels’ reports of Jesus’ character and the circumstances of His life.
4. It should match the Gospels’ history of His life.
5. And since Jesus’ birth was also Christianity’s birth, the correct chart should
also match the character, circumstances, and history of the Christian church.

A horoscope drawn up for Bethlehem at the exact instant of a unique New Moon that occurred on 9/16/1 BC (the year "zero") seems to fulfill all these requirements, and more.

1. The Timeframe
Meeting the timeframe requirement is tricky. Researchers trying to use the Gospels to pinpoint Jesus’ birth have run up against what has long seemed to be a dead-end stone wall — the Gospels of Matthew and Luke seemed to conflict. According to Matthew, Jesus was born while King Herod the Great was still alive, but Luke held that the birth occurred during a Roman census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Until recently, these two reports seemed to present an insoluble problem, since it was thought that Herod died in 4 BC, but Quirinius didn’t become governor until 6 AD. This left a 10 year gap, which made it necessary to assume that either one Gospel or the other was just plain flat-out wrong. Most theorists sided with Matthew’s Herod dating, insisting that Jesus had to have been born before 4 BC. However, for many different reasons, there has always been a great deal of confusion surrounding the Herod clue. For example, Herod’s sons were also called “King Herod” after he died. In fact, as far back as 248 AD, the extremely highly educated Christian apologist Origen thought it was Herod the Tetrarch, one of King Herod the Great’s sons, that Matthew referred to. All we know for sure is that (A) Herod’s sons assumed the throne in 4 BC, and that (B) Herod was supposed to have died sometime after an unspecified lunar eclipse but before Passover. For centuries, it was assumed, quite reasonably, that the year Herod’s sons assumed control of his kingdom was the year he died. But recent scholarship has opened new doors, suggesting that Herod may not have physically died in 4 BC at all, but merely suffered a political death that year, when he fell out of favor with Rome and had the kingdom taken away from him and given to his four sons. If so, this would greatly help to reconcile the two Gospel reports.

Unfortunately, just as the existing data about Herod’s death seems insufficient, nonspecific, and uncertain, the same can be said for the Quirinius data. Curiously, in both cases, little hard data is available. As if through an amazing coincidence, the records of Syria’s governors just happen to be missing for the critical years between 3 BC - 5 AD. Oh, we do have the rest of the list of Syria’s governors. We know exactly who was in office for every year except the crucial window between 3 BC - 5 AD. Sentius Saturninus was Syria’s governor from 9 to 6 BC, followed by Quinctilius Varus from 6 BC- 4 BC. And starting in 6 AD, we know for sure that Quirinius was governor. We are not completely in the dark, however; it is quite certain that Quirinius was not governor in 4 BC, which means either that Herod did not die in 4 BC, or that one of the Gospels was wrong.

However, while the official records do not conclusively show Quirinius to have been the governor of Syria prior to 6 AD, it now seems likely that he was. A possible reference to an earlier term has been found on an inscription called the "Lapis Tiburtinus”, a tombstone recording the achievements of an unknown Syrian governor who served under Augustus . Although this stone is broken in such a way that we are not able to read his name, it clearly declares that some unnamed figure served as governor of Syria twice, and virtually all authorities agree that this inscription refers to Quirinius.

Also, Luke’s terminology implies that the census during the nativity was the first of a number of such censuses that occurred while Quirinius was governor of Syria. A great deal of historical evidence indicates that the Roman census took place every 7 years. We know that a census took place during the governorship of Quirinius in 6-7 A.D. If another occurred 7 years earlier, it would have taken place in 1 BC, thus providing specific support for a September 16, 1 BC nativity. At any rate, Luke’s Quirinius clue insists that the nativity must have occurred no earlier than 3 BC (and Luke’s accuracy is widely thought reliable - he is often called “the historian”).

One further clue in the Gospels also seems to hold some promise to help us to pinpoint Jesus’ birth. Luke reports that John the Baptist started preaching “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar”, which works out to 28-29 AD. Sometime shortly after that date, Jesus started His own ministry, when He was “about 30 years old”. Of course, if Jesus was born in 4 BC or earlier (as many have theorized based on assumptions about the date of Herod’s death), then Jesus would have been well past 30 years old in 29 AD. But if born in 1 BC, Jesus would have been exactly 30 years old the very next year after John started preaching.

2. The Star of Bethlehem
The September 16th, 1 BC date also seems to offer an intriguing explanation for the Star of Bethlehem. Extremely respected in their own time, the Magi were legendary figures known throughout the ancient Middle East, even holding an official position within the government of Parthia — as Imperial counselors to the Emperor. Virtually everything we know about the Star of Bethlehem comes from what they are supposed to have said about it, and perhaps even more importantly, from how they reacted to it.

They seem to have been the only ones who witnessed this star at all; contrary to popular imagination, the Biblical report indicates that this star was never even noticed by anyone else. It apparently didn’t stand out very much at all, and must not have been very impressive visually. Besides this potentially useful insight, the only other things we know for sure about the Star of Bethlehem is :

(1) The Magi reportedly saw it rise in the East, and

(2) Whatever it was seemed so important to them that they decided to make a long and difficult journey halfway across their known world to look for a newborn baby, and

(3) When they found this infant, they worshiped it like a god, and

(4) There is no other record of the Magi, or indeed anyone, ever doing anything remotely like this before or since.

Anyone living near India’s Indus River who had been monitoring the New Moon of September 16th, 1 BC would have seen it setting on their Western horizon just as the New Moon became exact. For many reasons, this was an unusual New Moon; it was conjunct Jupiter and Pluto (actually positioned right between them), and opposite a Mars/Uranus conjunction, a rare line-up by anyone's standards. Even though people of that era would have had no clue that Uranus and Pluto were also going to be involved in the lineup, such an angular New Moon alignment still would have been a once-in-a-lifetime event for ancient India’s famous astrologers. By itself, any New Moon this close to Jupiter (less than one degree away) would have been considered noteworthy by the astrologers of that era, since such tight New Moon/Jupiter conjunctions only occur about once every 27 years or so. But to have this Jupiter/Sun/Moon conjunction also oppose Mars at the same time would have made this a definite must-see event for India’s ancient skywatchers. And as if that weren’t enough, the whole alignment would have been straddling their own horizon the precise moment the New Moon became exact; such an unusual angular alignment, they would have realized, only occurs once in many thousands of years. ‘Parans’, near-simultaneous angle crossings such as these, were considered extremely important in ancient astrology. But risings were held to be of far greater importance than settings; risings were the future, while settings were the past. This simple fact might have left the ancient Magi very concerned, for the glorious (Jupiter) New Moon alignment setting precisely on their horizon would have carried the uncomfortable suggestion that their own glorious civilization might be about to fall, while some other martial force (indicated by Mars rising at the same time on the opposite horizon) was about to appear.

Would they have been confident that this was the correct interpretation of the alignment? Most likely not; experience would have taught them, just as it does modern astrologers, to be wary of jumping to any extreme conclusions. But some concern probably would at least have crossed their minds, and they would have made a point of watching this alignment very closely that night, measuring it as best they could.

It seems safe to assume that India’s Magi would have been paying very close attention to this alignment in their skies that night, and as they watched the Sun set on their Western horizon, they would have naturally turned to observe Mars rising like clockwork in the East. And as they were carefully monitoring its upward progress into the night sky, they would have been in the perfect position to notice a strange new star they'd never noticed before — the planet Uranus. Uranus was conjunct Mars that night, and while Uranus is commonly assumed to be invisible to the naked eye, this is not entirely true. Objects with an apparent visual magnitude of 6, like Uranus, are able to be seen with the naked eye from dark rural areas located far away from major cities.

Did the Magi notice Uranus that evening? They may have; the angular New Moon alignment of September 16th, 1 BC virtually guarantees that they would have been looking in the right place at the right time. The Magi had a long-standing reputation as excellent astrologers, and undoubtedly believed themselves to be thoroughly familiar with all the visible stars in the zodiac. If they really were, and happened to notice the faint dot of Uranus in the sky, they would have immediately realized that it didn't belong, that it hadn't been there before, at least not according to their records.

What would their reaction have been if they had spotted it? They'd have studied it carefully (that was their job), and eventually they would have realized that it was not another fixed star at all, but a whole new planet, another moving star — another god! Back then, virtually all cultures in the area were under the impression that the planets, the moving stars, were gods. The Magi would have been instantly convinced that they had discovered a brand new god in the sky, and would have been wild with excitement and concern. Having a new god appear in the sky was something they were completely unprepared for, indeed, something they’d never even imagined could happen.

Why would Uranus have not been known to them before that? Uranus' visibility comes and goes, and it moves around. It is literally the only planet in the sky that has both these qualities. The rest of the known planets also move around, of course, but their visibility always remains relatively consistent. The visibility of many low-magnitude stars also comes and goes, but they always stay in the same place, and so over time it is still pretty easy to confirm their existence and exact position. The ancient Magi would have been able to return again and again to re-study and re-measure and re-examine all the rest of the fixed stars in the zodiac, and over the centuries, every last star could have been verified and re-verified, even those whose visibility fluctuated. But Uranus not only appeared and disappeared, but moved around a lot as well, making it a lot easier for Uranus to have slipped through their screening process. But eventually, since Uranus is, after all, visible to the naked eye at least some of the time, it seems reasonable to assume that the Magi would have noticed it sooner or later.

Their reaction suggests that they did just that on September 16, 1 BC.

Where might the Magi have been when they made their famous sighting? There’s no way for us to know. They could have been anywhere, but if there happened to be Magi living near the Indus River in India (around 68 E 21'17", 27 N 01'39"), they would have observed the alignment sliding right across their horizon.

This location makes sense for many reasons. While the Magi were a tribe of Zoroastrian priests native to Persia or Parthia, they are known to have spread into India. And indeed, legends of the famous Biblical Magi identifies at least one of those travelers as having come from India. And not only has astrology been respected and studied in India for ages, but Vedic scriptures suggest that Uranus was discovered millennia ago by Indian astrologers. Modern Indian astrology (Jyotish), of course, does not currently use Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, and for a long time it was assumed that this was simply because India had never discovered the outer planets and didn’t know anything about them. However, through translations of many Vedic texts it is now believed that indeed they did know of their existence, but felt that these planets were too slow moving to have much impact on individuals’ horoscopes.

So, according to India’s records, Hindu astrologers discovered Uranus ages ago. And according to Israel’s records, astrologers from the East saw a strange new moving star in the sky sometime around 1 BC, and concluded from what they saw that a new god had just been born. Coincidence? Let’s consider their response. Imagine how those ancient astrologers would have reacted to discovering a new moving star in the sky — to a new god in heaven. For a good stretch of time after that, all their beliefs, all their assumptions, all their sense of security (not the least of which was their job security), everything they thought they knew about reality itself, would have been in agonizing turmoil. If they’d had skyscrapers, some Magi might have considered jumping. Indeed, their final reaction was only slightly less extreme.

Being professional priests of a sophisticated culture, they would presumably have been well-educated for their day, and so may have known that one small tribe off to the West, in Judea, had prophesies of just such a thing — of a whole new god being born one day ( Isaiah 9:6) — and so those Magi might have considered it well worth their while to go pay the Jews a visit and see just what was going on.

What reason do we have to suspect that Uranus might have been the Magi’s star? The only evidence anyone has for the Star of Bethlehem is the Magi’s reaction — going to search for a newborn god. And when it comes down to it, the possibility that they spotted an unfamiliar new planet fits this reaction better than any other known phenomenon they could have possibly witnessed. Planetary patterns come and go, but new planets had never been discovered before. The discovery of a new planet would have been completely unprecedented, just as their reaction was. So far as we know, this was the only time the Magi ever took a road trip to go find an unknown, newborn god. It seems safe to conclude that they weren’t simply looking for just another newborn king. Royal families in various Middle Eastern countries had to be giving birth to new princes every decade or so (especially considering the high mortality rate of that era), but the Magi never seem to have bothered to pay any of them a visit, much less worshiped them. If this extraordinary behavior was elicited merely from a rare planetary pattern, then other impressive alignments should have elicited similar reactions down through the ages, which does not seem to be the case.

[link to www.divisiontheory.com]

- Peter

doesn't it say in the bible that Jesus was born while the lambs were suckling?
that puts the time around march to april.

There is evidence to dispute that in regards to Mitra...

According to research, Mitra was born on Dec 25th and was a holiday celebrated in Roman times. When Constantine demanded the removal of all pagan holidays, the outcry for this one was so much that instead of abolishing it, he simply "covered it up" and renamed this holiday for the Birth of Christ.

The Vatican is supposedly built upon the ruins of a temple to Mitra which consists of an underground cave(go figure)

More interesting notes on the supposed history of Mitra...

-Born of a Virgin
-Had 12 followers
-broke bread and drank wine representing his body and blood
-supposedly performed miracles
-supposedly had a last supper
-supposedly ascended to heaven.

Really interesting that the origins of this "religion" trace back to Lake Van in Turkey as well.

Another attempt at deceit by the deceiver

It is a widely accepted theory that Jesus was born either at the end of August or the first part of Sept. so 9/11 fits well into that theory...

Jesus was 33 years old when he was crucified in 30 AD which would put his birth date at 3 BC...

OP, they're using the Bible to prove this. Bible codes? Really, that's NO proof whatsoever. Show me clear, significant archeological evidence then we might have something.

Biblical, anecdotal, astronomical, yes. Archeological, no. Check out the link to Martin's book a few posts above you. Nothing whatsoever to do with bible codes.

Still, it's unusual for the bible codes to support this hypothesis. Coincidence?

So, if we work backwards to the original Roman Calendar, with March being the first month, the numerical date of birth then would actually be 7-11, not 9-11.

That explains why October, the 10th month, is named after the word which stands for 8 - oct.

So, they got it wrong.

LOL!


[link to usnisa.org]

(writing with a sprainded wrist so this will be short)
Years and years ago I published a short book on the star of Bethlehem and put the birthdate of Jesus at spring of 7BC for many reasons, some mentioned above, like the shepherds were out with the sheep which thy only do during the births in spring, the superior cojunction of saturn/Jupiter in Taurus, first in spring, and the reign of cyrenius, Herod and appointment of Pilate. The Magi were astrologers, not kings and there may have been as many as 12, they didnt get the faamous names until the morality plays in the middle ages...they were not at the crib, but much later, when Joseph had rented a little house for them all. they brought the incsense because He was a king, the Myrr because there was an imminint danger of death in his "stars" and gold for the "get -a-way " money in case the family would flee. Since all baby boys born at this precise location at that tiime had similar charts, and would die, by leavin and relocating His destiny waas put off for 33 yrs. But as the Wise Men had been traveling a while, Herod killed all boys under two to be sure he got this little King.
As for the teaching in the temple at 12, it was jewish custom gfor the men and women to travel seperately, and each one think the other had Jesus with them since after Bar Mitzfeh, He could be with the men.
The booklet was out of print 20 years ago and the info was appropriated by many others, which is ok as long as the truth is availabe to all.

Sorry for typos, hand in cast...
forgot to say, Spring is time of passover, and that ties in with his birth and deth...also any thought on the vist to St. Elizabeth for the birth of John the baptist for timelines? And remember, Mat, Mark and John were contemporaries, but Luke never met Jesus...it is t hough he knew Mary, though.

OP, if you has said "evidence" instaed of "proof" or a "theory" you would have impressed me. Except for the multiple exclaimation points.

It just seems that you're over-excited by all this. Which does not lend credibility.

He born during census time...
in SEPTEMBER

September 11 usually coincides with New Year's Day (1 Thout) in the Coptic Calendar.

The Talmud 100 Years B.C. Story of Jesus

[link to www.christianorigins.com]

Which is probably just as well, since I'm not the writer of any of these pieces, and have nothing to gain by winning your trust.

Dictionary definition of proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

So, yes... after reading that one chapter I believe Martin has taken whatever is necessary into consideration to 'prove' his theory, and it's proof enough for me. Clearly, by its own definition, even proof is subjective.