The Star of Bethlehem. Myth, Legend or Scientific Fact ? A Must Read For All !

there is more evidence to suggest larson is right. "Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentary on Daniel" points to december 25 as the date of jesus' birth.

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the kalends of January [December 25th], the 4th day of the week [Wednesday], while Augustus was in his forty-second year, [2 or 3BC] but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty third year, 8 days before the kalends of April [March 25th], the Day of Preparation, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar [29 or 30 AD], while Rufus and Roubellion and Gaius Caesar, for the 4th time, and Gaius Cestius Saturninus were Consuls."

hippolytus lived somewhere between 100-200 AD and had access to the imperial records.

reply to post by CherubBaby

Ok. The names were not provided by you in the OP or on the homepage. Thanks.

It says Jupiter entered retrograde. Nothing about the birth of Jesus. The story does throw out several possibilities as far as a possible month of birth. But nothing definitive.

You're correct, I was wrong when referring to the date of the birth. But about the specific month of birth? I'm not so sure they don't make a claim. How about this?

When we continue our study of the sky of September of 3 BC, the mystery of John's vision is unlocked: he is describing more of the starry dance which began with the Jewish New Year.

Of this they say:

These symbols could indicate a birth, but if they were interpreted to indicate the time of conception, the beginning of a human life, might there be something interesting in the sky nine months later?

www.bethlehemstar.net...

It seems that the "several possibilities" you talk about are referring to portents of an impending birth, not the birth itself.

the 3 wise men followed a moving star to bethlehem which shun its light down upon a manger, which was where jesus christ was born, to the VIRGIN mary...immaculate conception or artificial insemination from the gods?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Actually that disagrees with Larson. If you read my previous (and your previous) post it seems that Larson believes the birth occurred in June. According to Larson, the actual "star of Bethlehem" (Jupiter going retrograde) which led the Maji, occurred on December 25th. So the Maji would not have found a newborn, they would have found a 6 month old infant.

I think I have it sorted out now. Six months in a manger?

From the FAQ section:

www.bethlehemstar.net...

The birth of Jesus was announced to shepherds in the fields with their flocks. Does this fix the announcement to a certain season of the year?

Not really. In the Mediterranean mid-East, flocks might be found at pasture almost any time of year, weather permitting. The chronology of the Star may imply that Jesus was born in September or June. Either is consistent with flocks being in the field. In September, the average daytime high in Bethlehem is in the mid-80's, Fahrenheit. Lows are in the mid-60's in the wee hours of the morning. It is normal to run flocks in these temperatures. Of course, June is warmer. Even in the dead of Winter and at 2,550 feet elevation, it rarely freezes in Bethlehem.

It seems like the authors haven't really settled on a date of birth. What they do seem settled on is the Star of Bethlehem and what the heavenly sights in 3BC and 2BC were that led the Magi on their journey. Using computer modeling they have recreated the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Regulus followed by the Jupiter Venus precise conjunction and the Jupiter standstill. These things happened and so it was written.

I don't know if it was so in biblical times but in many historical times the precise date of birth of a prominent person was a closely held secret.

This is one of the thousands of "mysteries" of the Holy Bible.

To be clear: in the bible there is no evidence of a comet, nor star or planet.

This is the very first time in history when someone depict the event: a shining globe with a tail.
Giotto "L'adorazione dei magi" Cappella degli Scrovegni (Padova) 1303-1305


Astronomers world-wide are absolutely sure that at that time there was no Comets in the sky.

According with the magi's travel (all of them are ancient astronomers ant they knew what a comet is) "the shinig star" enlightened their path on route to Bethlehem during the night and shining during the broad day light.
When they lost the way, "the Shining Star" stop and return to them. "The shining star hover" above them at little distance and altitude enlightning the terrain.
When finally they arrive at Bethlehem, "The shining Star" Stop and Hover above the house of the Lord.

Nor a comet nor a star or a shining planet can do this.

Giotto describe a supernatural "event" in its simplicity. An Unknown Flying Object has guided the Magi.

The shining Unknown Flying Object has no tail: It is moving...!!

reply to post by CherubBaby

I also said the thread was in no way meant to be a religious topic but rather a scientific one.

I’m very sorry, but you didn’t say that. This was what you said:

So many people think that science can and will disprove The Bible. The fact is quite the opposite. Most if not all basic and fundamental science facts are in The Bible. The fact also is that The Bible doesn't disagree with science unless science tries to disallow for God.

If that isn’t a religious claim, I really don’t know what is.

So why make it into a religious issue?

I didn’t. You did, in the very first paragraph of your very first post.

reply to post by Astyanax


You think God as a solo entity is a religion? Why do you even bother if thats what you feel? The thread is about The star of Bethlehem, Myth,Legend or scientific fact. So let me ask you is it myth legend or scientific fact? Thats all that matters is your opinion. Thats the thread. If you think Im gonna lay down and let you mis represent the facts and the topic your sadly mistaken I assure of that. you have already mis stated the facts mis quoted them and accused me of trying to "Pick a fight" with you because I corrected your error in plain sight. Now do you want to contine disrupting and appearing to try to DERAIL the thread ? If so I will report you. I promise you that

Dont selectively edit my comments,

There is nothing novel about this explanation.

In 3–2 BC, there was a series of seven conjunctions, including three between Jupiter and Regulus and a strikingly close conjunction between Jupiter and Venus near Regulus on June 17, 2 BC. "The fusion of two planets would have been a rare and awe-inspiring event", according to Roger Sinnott.[47] This event however occurred after the generally accepted date of 4 BC for the death of Herod. Since the conjunction would have been seen in the west at sunset it could not have led the magi south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.[48] It also does not fit with an event seen at rising that might have started them on the journey.

As usual, there are several aspects to it which are simply irreconcilable to the Gospel story taken as history. Since the latter is however built in part around an allegory of actual astrological events, where it is not simply recasting texts from the "Old Testament" as passing off these pious fictions as "fulfilled prophecy", this sort of thing is expected. It establishes nothing regarding the historicity of the Nativity myth.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
hippolytus lived somewhere between 100-200 AD and had access to the imperial records.

To be precise he was born in 170 and that means he was writing at least two hundred years after the alleged "fact". And "Christ's" birth was recorded in the annals of the Imperium Romanum? Give me a break. What evidence have you of this (spare us the usual circular reasoning )? Or what evidence have you for such records being consulted in this instance? There is no correct date because the entire series of stories in question began as mythology, rather than as the fictional history of later centuries.

Originally posted by PoeteMaudit
There is nothing novel about this explanation.

In 3–2 BC, there was a series of seven conjunctions, including three between Jupiter and Regulus and a strikingly close conjunction between Jupiter and Venus near Regulus on June 17, 2 BC. "The fusion of two planets would have been a rare and awe-inspiring event", according to Roger Sinnott.[47] This event however occurred after the generally accepted date of 4 BC for the death of Herod. Since the conjunction would have been seen in the west at sunset it could not have led the magi south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.[48] It also does not fit with an event seen at rising that might have started them on the journey.

As usual, there are several aspects to it which are simply irreconcilable to the Gospel story taken as history. Since the latter is however built in part around an allegory of actual astrological events, where it is not simply recasting texts from the "Old Testament" as passing off these pious fictions as "fulfilled prophecy", this sort of thing is expected. It establishes nothing regarding the historicity of the Nativity myth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------

CherubBaby says :::::::

I am just curious where your proof is in what you say? I dont see any links. No quotes or links to quotes. Just opinion.. You do have credible links right?

Originally posted by CherubBaby
So let me ask you is it myth legend or scientific fact?

That depends what you mean. I think a factual astrological event, perhaps the one you refer to, likely served as the basis for the myth.

reply to post by PoeteMaudit


Once again you provide no documentation or links to your claims. Why is that? I will be happy to look at your proof that backs your claims. Just post it.

PS Powerfull signature..

reply to post by PoeteMaudit


What you call Mythe and what you think are opinions and nothing more. Opinnions without substance or professional backing in any form unless you count disbelief as a science. Post your links or admit you have none and your only saying what you want to believe without proof.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
I am just curious where your proof is in what you say? I dont see any links. No quotes or links to quotes. Just opinion.. You do have credible links right?

The second paragraph is a quotation. What exactly are you looking for? This isn't a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, and nor are the "links" and "quotes" you posted . So what exactly would "links" and "quotes" prove in any case? They are simply further opinions. Astrological themes in the Gospels have been documented since the 18th century, and the mythicist school of New Testament scholarship, and by that I don't mean some fashionable nonsense about other "crucified saviours" reworked from Kersey Graves' horribly inaccurate work and found in Zeitgeist, has a long history going from Bruno Bauer through Arthur Drews and J. M. Robertson, and down to Robert Price and Earl Doherty. If you are curious, read about it for yourself.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by PoeteMaudit

 

What you call Mythe and what you think are opinions and nothing more. Opinnions without substance or professional backing in any form unless you count disbelief as a science. Post your links or admit you have none and your only saying what you want to believe without proof.

edit on 22-12-2011 by CherubBaby because: typo

May I quote you?

Thats all that matters is your opinion. Thats the thread.

Furthermore, you own links are links to further opinions. What do you think you have proved?

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by PoeteMaudit

 

Once again you provide no documentation or links to your claims. Why is that? I will be happy to look at your proof that backs your claims. Just post it.

Yes, they are mere opinions. Because I have no interest in proving anything to anyone or in trying to satisfy my little ego by winning arguments against laymen on the internet. No, that's not a "cop out".

I want to have some interesting discussions. I want to read what others have to say. And I want to offer my personal opinions on the matter. I don't want to spend hours referencing and cross-referencing to write something which will never be looked at again a week from now. If I wanted academic standards, which are hardly offered here, either from you or anyone else, I'd head on down to the history department of the nearest university.

Originally posted by PoeteMaudit

Originally posted by CherubBaby
I am just curious where your proof is in what you say? I dont see any links. No quotes or links to quotes. Just opinion.. You do have credible links right?

The second paragraph is a quotation. What exactly are you looking for? This isn't a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, and nor are the "links" and "quotes" you posted . So what exactly would "links" and "quotes" prove in any case? They are simply further opinions. Astrological themes in the Gospels have been documented since the 18th century, and the mythicist school of New Testament scholarship, and by that I don't mean some fashionable nonsense about other "crucified saviours" reworked from Kersey Graves' horribly inaccurate work and found in Zeitgeist, has a long history going from Bruno Bauer through Arthur Drews and J. M. Robertson, and down to Robert Price and Earl Doherty. If you are curious, read about it for yourself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------
CherubBaby says :::::::::::

Peer reviewed journal? You think these men below are hindered in comparison to you and those piers you speak of? They are on the record. Respected men who have an education over an opinion.PHD PHD PHD P[HD ok?

Text"About 99.9% of the Star of Bethlehem stuff is nutty, but this isn't that. It's well-researched and reasonable."
Ronald A. Schorn, Ph.D.—
Schorn founded and served as Chief of the Planetary Astronomy department at NASA and was Technical Editor of Sky & Telescope magazine. He is the author of Planetary Astronomy

"Larson's understanding and use of orbital mechanics is accurate. This explanation of the Star of Bethlehem is compelling to me. It is consistent with the Biblical story. It pleases me that I can accept it as an engineer, and as an astronomy enthusiast
Frank T. Buzzard, Ph.D.—
NASA's Chief Engineer for both the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. Director of the Columbia shuttle accident task force.

"Your wide-ranging and insightful scholarship in the Scriptures and in the parallel historical record from Josephus, Tacitus and the rest! Your command of Kepler's clock!!... My hat is off to you."
Gerard Piel, Ph.D.—
Former Publisher and Editor, Scientific American magazine
Piel (1915-2004) was the holder of over twenty honorary doctorates. He published and edited Scientific American for nearly four decades, and served as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A prolific writer, his last book is The Age of Science: What Scientists Learned in the Twentieth Century.

Are you a peer that has an opinioon that is more weighted that those with PHD's ? Do you have a PHD? I am dying to know where your authority comes from other than your opinions without proof.

And as far as NONSENSE ?? Prove its nonesense. Prove it.. Prove your point or your point means nothing. Fashionable nonsense is what it is. ok?.

Give me a break. What evidence have you of this

I have no interest in proving anything to anyone

i see your game. you want to stand on a pillar and say "give me evidence of this because i disagree", but when asked to present anything to the contrary you say "i don't have to prove anything".

right. at least your hypocritical response saved me time that i would have wasted in an unproductive discussion with you.

for others who are worth discussing things with: the whole reason mary and joseph went to bethlehem was to be counted in a roman census. hippolytus would have known this, and so the most logical place to look for the birth date of jesus would be the roman records.

reply to post by CherubBaby

The thread is about The star of Bethlehem, Myth,Legend or scientific fact.

Indeed it is. And so far as I can tell, we are right on topic.

So let me ask you is it myth legend or scientific fact?

I have no idea and don’t particularly care. But I agree that the explanation offered is plausible. Not necessarily true; but plausible. That’s an opinion, which is what you say you want. I gave it to you in my first post. So what on earth is all this huffing and puffing about?

If you think Im gonna lay down and let you mis represent the facts and the topic your sadly mistaken I assure of that.

If I did misrepresent the ‘facts’ or the topic, you would certainly be within your rights to oppose me. But I have not done so, apart for a technical error in my first post, which I accepted, apologized for and corrected.

Dont selectively edit my comments

Selectively edit?

I quoted a solid chunk of text from your first paragraph, leaving out only the opening sentence, which was even more religious than the bit I quoted (but wasn’t relevant to the point I was making).

Look, mate; cast your eyes back over the thread so far. It isn’t just me you’re fighting with, you know. Save the page, log off, calm down, read it over and then come back to the discussion. I’m out of it from here, anyway. Cheers!