The Star of Bethlehem : The date of Jesus birth and death in the stars

windword


You do know that constellations don't really look like that right?

Well, golly gee gomer, I did not know that, thank you for enlightening me! Really windword?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Bethlehem was NOT inhabited at the time Jesus was supposedly born!

Many archaeologists and theological scholars believe Jesus was actually born in either Nazareth or Bethlehem of Galilee, a town just outside Nazareth, citing biblical references and archaeological evidence to support their conclusion. Throughout the Bible, Jesus is referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth,” not “Jesus of Bethlehem.” In fact, in John (7:41- 43) there is a passage questioning Jesus’ legitimacy because he’s from Galilee and not Judaea, as the Hebrew Scriptures say the Messiah must be.

Archaeological excavations have shown that Bethlehem in Judaea likely did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 B.C., when Jesus is believed to have been born. Studies of the town have turned up a great deal of Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 B.C. as well as material from the sixth century A.D., but nothing from the first century B.C. or the first century A.D. Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority, says, “There is surprisingly no archaeological evidence that ties Bethlehem in Judaea to the period in which Jesus would have been born.
ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Its the same mythology! In Ovid's account the ground shook. The dead walked among the living and the Sun's light faltered. The same story that the Bible retells, only it was written in 4 BC!

I did say that there was one similarity, that does not make it the same story. Jesus was resurrected in body, Caesar was not. Jesus was God, incarnate, Caesar was given his deity status by his successor, after he died. Jesus had a star associated with his birth, Caesar had a comet associated with his death (months after his death.) Jesus was seen by his followers after his death, Caesar's spirit was "taken by Venus" while his body rotted.

They are not even remotely the same story.

By your bizarre logic, you and I are the same person, because, in spite of thousands of points of disagreement, we share the characteristic of belonging to ATS.

reply to post by adjensen


i thought everyoone knew that Jesus,, and Ceasar were in a Race,, too see who,,could bring back too God the Keys of the Gates of Hell ious Prime.




Jesus won.
so it was said.
So it was Written.

reply to post by adjensen

I did say that there was one similarity, that does not make it the same story.

There are many similarities.

Julius Ceasar was called "The Christ"
The earth shook and the dead were raised
Caesar's effigy was put on a cross
The cross (Chi Rho) was an ancient symbol
Caesar was the son of a god
the people believed that Caesar was resurrected.
Caesar was taken up in the clouds and resides in heaven

Jesus was resurrected in body,

Says the Bible......

Caesar was not.

The Roman believed he was. He was transfigured, just like Jesus!

Jesus was God, incarnate, Caesar was given his deity status by his successor, after he died.

Caesar was a god incarnate, the son of Venus. He was deified by Augustus after his death. Jesus was also deified after his supposed death. Nobody thought that Jesus was God while he was alive, because he said that he was the son of (a) god.

Still, the Gods gave sure signs of the grief to come on earth. People heard trumpets in the sky and weapons clashed in black clouds. The sad image of the sun offered only a lurid light to the worried lands (785-6). Drops of blood fell among the clouds; the Morning Star was spattered with darkness; the Moon was spattered with blood
OVID

Acts 2:20
The sun will become dark and the moon will be turned to blood, before that great day of the Lord comes in glory

Then the angel took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar, and threw it to the earth. And there were noises, thunderings, lightnings, and an earthquake.
The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the earth.

Jesus had a star associated with his birth, Caesar had a comet associated with his death (months after his death.) Jesus was seen by his followers after his death, Caesar's spirit was "taken by Venus" while his body rotted.

Death and rebirth. Same story. It's the same star/comet.

Caesar's body didn't rot. He was cremated, and his followers put his ashes on their heads. Ash Wednesday ring a bell?

Then Jupiter, the Father, spoke..."Take up Caesar’s spirit from his murdered corpse, and change it into a star, so that the deified Julius may always look down from his high temple on our Capitol and forum." He had barely finished, when gentle Venus stood in the midst of the Senate, seen by no one, and took up the newly freed spirit of her Caesar from his body, and preventing it from vanishing into the air, carried it towards the glorious stars. As she carried it, she felt it glow and take fire, and loosed it from her breast: it climbed higher than the moon, and drawing behind it a fiery tail, shone as a star
OVID

Revelation 22:16 I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Luke 24
And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Acts 1:9
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

It's just the same old mythological story of a dying and resurrected god.

well,,well, well,,,, a deep hole,,
black hole,,,knee slapper,, lol
and anyway,,
dont look now but apparently either Ceasar or Jesus the Christ,,
is making a return ,,showing


www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

The software places the happenings in the sky after Herod the Great's death (3-2 BC). The bible says the birth of Jesus was during his lifetime (before 4bc).

Looks like it works against the bible more than for it.

Someone, used the word shoehorn and I agree.

There are many similarities.

Julius Ceasar was called "The Christ"

I'd like to see a reputable source that cites evidence that Julius Caesar was "called the Christ".

The earth shook and the dead were raised

Already agreed and whoop-dee-doo.

Caesar's effigy was put on a cross

Jesus's effigy was not put on a cross, and the only instance that I can find of Caesar's appears to be from a Christ mythicist who does not cite a source.

The cross (Chi Rho) was an ancient symbol

So what? It's also what the Romans used to crucify people.

Caesar was the son of a god

Actually, Augustus said that Caesar WAS a god (after he died) so that he, Augustus, could claim to be the son of a god. There is no evidence that Julius Caesar claimed to be a god, or son of a god, or anything else along those lines, in his lifetime -- it was all "after the fact" propaganda from Augustus.

the people believed that Caesar was resurrected.

No, they did not.

Caesar was taken up in the clouds and resides in heaven

Caesar's SPIRIT was supposedly taken up, not his body.

So, in summary, you don't seem to know what resurrected means, you haven't cited a single credible source for your claims, and you've intentionally misrepresented things in order to draw a conclusion that is invalid.

daskakik
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

The software places the happenings in the sky after Herod the Great's death (3-2 BC). The bible says the birth of Jesus was during his lifetime (before 4bc).

Looks like it works against the bible more than for it.

Someone, used the word shoehorn and I agree.

Actually, it goes by the bible's description of what the signs were for the virgin birth and that is how it shows the event in 3 BC. There are several indicators of the signs, and one was for when the Magi noticed the changes and began their journey and eventually got to Bethlehem. That was the account in the bible of the sign of his birth.

Where in the bible does it give a date prior to 4 BC?

I did enjoy Michael Heiser's explanation utilizing Revelation 12 and the 80 minute window that apparently all those things happened. It is interesting to note that a year prior in March of 4 BC there was a special conjunction that only happens ever 40,000,000 years that this image represents. I believe this is possibly what really caught the Magi's attention so they then saw the king planet crowning Regulus in Leo the next year in 3 BC:

reply to post by windword

The Roman believed he was. He was transfigured, just like Jesus!

I think it's worth pointing out that no one believes it now.
And Christ is the one who died in total obscurity.

reply to post by adjensen

Jesus's effigy was not put on a cross

Jesus' effigy is STILL on the cross!

Caesar was an emperor. All emperors ruled by divine right. They were considered gods on earth. Anyone who said otherwise was "dealt with".

Caesar was an anointed king, which is what the word "Christ" means. Jesus was NOT anointed and he wasn't a king. Many people were given the title of Christ before Jesus was ever even supposedly born.

Caesar was a real person. There is no proof that Jesus even existed. And Jesus "Christ" certainly never existed.

Caesar's Comet is a real event that is documented. There is no documentation for the Star of Bethlehem.

Ovid wrote the account of Caesar's resurrection. That account is echoed throughout the Bible, and transferred to the mythical figure of Jesus Christ.

While Ceasar was alive, it was an accepted fact that he was the son of the Venus.

Upon the death and subsequent comet, temples were erected to Caesar.



It really clear to anyone who investigates, and isn't brainwashed, that Christianity evolved from the stories of Julius Caesar.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Great video thank you for sharing! Very interesting. And of course it wouldn't be ATS if you didn't have the anti-Christian shills blasting any and every thread that has to do with Christ.

Why would the Romans persecute Christians for worshipping one of the first emperors? It was for a host of reasons that Christians were persecuted by the Romans. Nero did it because he blamed them for the Great Fire.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

Tacitus, Roman historian

Here's some discussion from a Pliny discussing how he deals with Christians in Turkey. Notice how he's referring to their refusal to worship the Emperors of Rome (Roman state religion). Roman society was remarkably tolerant of local religious practices, often adopting local deities, but they absolutely demanded that the subject peoples also adopt the Roman state religion which treated the Emperor and all previous Emperors as deities. This supported their divine right of rule, and from what you describe, Octavian (Ceasar's nephew) did the necessary groundwork to set up his uncle as the progenitor of this cult.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ–none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do–these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

from a letter by Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan, 112 AD

The implication here is that a true Christian refuses to worship the Emperor, but even here with suspected Christians going through the motions and cursing Christ, the Romans are suspicious. This, btw, has morphed a lot from a ploy to establish a cult around Emperor worship if it's only taken roughly 112 years from Christ's death to get this far out of hand. source

And Tacitus is not the only non-Christian source to have mentioned Jesus:

CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees,[23] who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority].[bold] Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.[24] Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
The Antinquities of the Jews, Book 20, Josephus
source

And, of course, by insisting that Jesus never existed, you are flying in the face of the belief of most modern scholars of both antiquity and Biblical study, although I know that second aspect doesn't bother you.

UnifiedSerenity
Actually, it goes by the bible's description of what the signs were for the virgin birth and that is how it shows the event in 3 BC. There are several indicators of the signs, and one was for when the Magi noticed the changes and began their journey and eventually got to Bethlehem. That was the account in the bible of the sign of his birth.

Never said it wasn't the account.

Where in the bible does it give a date prior to 4 BC?

According to Mathew II, Herod the Great is the one who met the wisemen and ordered the massacre of the innocents. That Herod died in 4BC.

Adapting the story to signs previously seen in the sky is not such an outlandish idea. I don't understand why believers are so amazed at "How god did that" when humans making stuff up is such an obvious and more probable answer.

reply to post by ketsuko


I assume your post was a reply to me.

First of all, your last citation is from Josephus and it is deemed a forgery by scholars. Josephus didn't write the part about "Christ" that is a well known forgery/interpolation. There were many Jesuses though, and Josephus does write of some of them.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4).

Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.

SOURCE

Secondly, the account of Tacitus doesn't refer to "Christians" as the followers of Jesus the Nazarene, as early followers of Jesus the Nazarene weren't called Christians, they were called Nazarenes. There was already a pagan cult whose followers were called Christians, or Chrestians.

The fourth century Catholic historian Epiphanius wrote of this group from the time of 69/70 A.D. until his day, and he starts out with an interesting admission:

All Christians were called Nazarenes once…They were so-called followers of the apostles…they dedicate themselves to the law…However, everyone called the Christians Nazarenes as I said before. This appears from the accusation against Paul…[Acts 24:5]…

SOURCE

Thirdly, Jews were thorns in the Roman Emperor's side as the Jews refused to worship Caesar.

As we have seen, the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians. 'Jewish/Christians' – being perceived by Roman authorities (and the populace at large) simply as Jews meant that early Christ-followers also got caught up in general attacks upon the Jews.

"Their effects to dissemble their Jewish origins were detected by the decisive test of circumcision; nor were the Roman magistrates at leisure to enquire into the difference of their religious tenets."
– Edward Gibbon (Decline and Fall)

One consequence of the fire which destroyed much of Rome in 64 AD was a capitation tax levied on the Jews and it was the Jews – throughout the empire – who were required to pay for the city’s rebuilding – a factor which helped to radicalise many Jews in the late 60s AD.

Again, Jesus "Christ" never existed. Jesus the Nazarene most probably did. But there is nothing written of him by any of his contemporaries.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


As someone who has studied the Tetrads etensively, this really affected me. I admit, I cried.

I think his math is off about the Friday. (I want to check the guys math, I've read tons of ppl saying it couldn't hav e happened on a Friday, for obvious reasons, but other than that, quite an amazing video & presentation.

Thank you very much, keep up the fight & faith.

Consider the cost.

reply to post by windword


You're really grasping at straws here.

Julius Caesar was not considered a god while he was alive. He wasn't a king. He wasn't resurrected. He didn't have twelve Apostles. He wasn't poor and ministered to the poor. He wasn't killed by an oppressive government, he WAS the oppressive government. There is no evidence that his effigy was placed on a cross. The comet associated with him appeared months after his death and would have had nothing to do with his story if Augustus hadn't used it as a sign to lay claim to his personal status as the "son of a god," even though he wasn't Caesar's son, and no one thought Caesar was a god until Augustus made that claim.

Per historical evidence, Jesus and Caesar have next to nothing in common.

The only people that I can find that think Christianity had anything to do with Julius Caesar are clueless Christ mythicists and certifiable crackpots.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I have this Video Clip for all to watch regarding the Star of Bethlehem. The Twilight Zone Season 1, Episode 31 The Star 20 Dec 1985)


The Star: www.youtube.com...

reply to post by adjensen

Julius Caesar was not considered a god while he was alive. He wasn't a king

Caesar's Pedigreed Family

His father's family was from the patrician gens of the Julii.

The Julii traced its lineage to the first king of Rome, Romulus, and the goddess Venus or, instead of Romulus, to Venus' grandson Ascanius (aka Iulus or Jullus; whence Julius). One patrician branch of the Julian gens was called Caesar.
ancienthistory.about.com...

Caesar was a member of the deeply patrician Julii family with roots dating to the foundation of the city itself. He later claimed to be a direct descendent of Aenaes, son of Venus, and therefore related to the gods themselves.
www.unrv.com...

Caesar Temple with a CROSS


Caesar WAX(Christ) Effigy upon the Cross (For he is Divine), above his funerary pyre.


Caesars effigy on a cross

The comet associated with him appeared months after his death and would have had nothing to do with his story if Augustus hadn't used it as a sign to lay claim to his personal status as the "son of a god," even though he wasn't Caesar's son, and no one thought Caesar was a god until Augustus made that claim.

Caesar's Comet was known to ancient writers as the Sidus Iulium ("Julian Star") or Caesaris astrum ("Star of Caesar"). The bright, daylight-visible comet appeared suddenly during the festival known as the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris – for which the 44 BC iteration was long considered to have been held in the month of September (a conclusion drawn by Sir Edmund Halley). The dating has recently been revised to a July occurrence in the same year, some four months after the assassination of Julius Caesar, as well as Caesar's own birth month. According to Suetonius, as celebrations were getting underway, "a comet shone for seven successive days, rising about the eleventh hour, and was believed to be the soul of Caesar

Starting in 44 BC, a money maker named P. Sepullius Macer created coins with the front displaying Julius Caesar crowned with a wreath and a star behind his head. On the back, Venus, the patron goddess of the Julian family, holds a starred scepter.
en.wikipedia.org...'s_Comet

The Star of Caesar is echoed in the Jesus story as the Star of Bethlehem.

Also, Caesar was assassinated on the floor of the senate. He was considered a martyr by the Roman people.

Seems to me the only clueless, certifiable crackpots are those who refuse to accept facts in lieu of their superstitous fairy tales.

reply to post by windword


Seriously, do you even think before posting?

You say that Caesar was a king, and the source you cite says that he was descended from them? And you think that makes him a king?

Envy and concern over Caesar's increasing power led to angst among a number of politicians who saw in him an aspiring king. History had shown that Romans had no desire for monarchical rule. (Source)

They killed him because he looked like he might be establishing monarchical rule.

Next, you say that he claimed to be a god, and the source you cite says that he was descended from a god? And you think that makes him a god?

An important part of this strategy involved religion. The Emperor of Rome was already the most powerful man on earth, but this wasn’t enough. Augustus wanted a piece of heaven too: he was determined that his people would see him as their supreme spiritual leader.

Roman religion had many gods and spirits and Augustus was keen to join their number as a god himself. This was not unusual: turning political leaders into gods was an old tradition around the Mediterranean. There was also precedent in Roman history – Aeneas and Romulus, who had helped found Rome, were already worshipped as gods.

Aside from their many gods, Romans were deeply superstitious, so when Augustus was handed a huge piece of luck, he took full advantage of it.

Early in his reign, Halley’s Comet passed over Rome. Augustus claimed it was the spirit of Julius Caesar entering heaven. If Caesar was a god then, as his heir, Augustus was the son of a god and he made sure that everybody knew it. (Source)

Julius Caesar never claimed to be god. It was a scam, after his death, by Augustus.

He was neither king nor god -- that's what historians, who have actually studied Julius Caesar, have to say. But you go ahead and side with the crackpots, just because you hate Christianity.