Star of Bethlehem?

[Zzyzx]

.
The "Star of Bethlehem" is depicted in a bible story thus:

Matthew 2:1--2: In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, "Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage."

Matthew 2:7--10: Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage." When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy.

Apologists attempt to defend the story as being real by suggesting what the "star" might have been, or could have been, or might possibly have been. However, what the story talks about as being a "star" is IMMATERIAL

No matter what the "Star of Bethlehem" is proposed to be it would have been visible from a vast area of the Earth's surface. Therefore, it would not lead anyone anywhere and would NOT have stopped over any point on the Earth's surface.

The Earth is now known to be a rotating spheroid (actually an oblate spheroid or ellipsoid of revolution " IOW, bulged at the equator). It is understood that the apparent movement of celestial objects other than the moon is due to the Earth's rotation rather than their movement.

Since the Earth is NOT the center of the universe and celestial objects (other than the moon) do NOT revolve around the Earth, one object CANNOT "stop". For that to happen the Earth would have to stop rotating " and all objects would "stop" " and there would be immense effects on the Earth.

The Star of Bethlehem story can be made to fit IF one considers the Earth to be a flat surface around which sun, moon and stars revolve. Then one object could be proposed to move differently from others and to stop. THAT is the level of ignorance of the people who tell a story about a star leading people and stopping.

Each one of us has FAR greater knowledge about the Earth and about astronomy than did the best minds and greatest astronomers of ancient times. You are, in all probability, fairly confident that the Earth is a planet and that it revolves around one of billions of stars in a vast universe " and that the stars do NOT revolve around the Earth.

1. You can see the planets, stars, moon, etc from your location just as anyone can from other places on the globe. Does that "lead" you anywhere? Could you possibly "follow" the moon " or a star?

2. Could anyone "follow" a star? If so, describe in detail exactly how that would be done.

3. Could a star "stop" over a city? If so, explain exactly how that would happen.

4. In reality, the story is in all likelihood a "parable" or a myth or a fantasy told by people who thought the Earth was a flat surface and that the "heavens" and all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. If the writers were "inspired" by a "god" or a "holy spirit" to write truth, why did they not write truth?

5. In another thread a member attempts to use the "star" tale as an example of "evidence to support the Christian bible". Does the story provide such evidence? If so, how?

[Cartesio]

I believe that Zeitgeist the Movie ( http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com ) pretty much answered those questions.

Three days after the winter solstice (21 december) the ancients used to wait for all the night the birth of the new sun the morning of the 25 december. And the sun always rised in corrispondence of the line formed by the three stars of Orion aligned with Sirius.





The egyptians even had a hieroglyph of it:



To confirm it I've made a simulation of the sky in Jerusalem in the year 1 AD (the year when Jesus was supposedly born) with the aid of the Starry Night Pro Plus software (expensive but very good!). Both the night of the 24 december and the sunrise of 25 december are shown from the same position and azimuth.



High resolution version (click to enlarge):

[Easyrider]

Many scholars have argued that Jesus was born in the fall of the year (late September) due to the description of shepherds in the field, etc.

I liked this one:



Personally I believe that the Star of Bethlehem was a supernatural occurrance perhaps orchestrated by God using physical properties (i.e. comet, conjunction, or whatever). But 2,000 years after the fact I seriously doubt we we're going to really know what it was. You're not going to be able to either prove it or disprove it.

[Alterego]

To confirm it I've made a simulation of the sky in Jerusalem in the year 1 AD (the year when Jesus was supposedly born) with the aid of the Starry Night Pro Plus software (expensive but very good!). Both the night of the 24 december and the sunrise of 25 december are shown from the same position and azimuth.

Too bad, that these elements like the the 24th of December, the three kings, and even 1 AD were invented centuries after Jesus's birth.

so in a certain sense, these theories about this pagan celestial stuff inspiring the "Betlehem story" are right, if we are talking about the folklore version, but it doesn't explain the origination of the biblical story, that was already canonized long before these elements were added.

[Zzyzx]

.

Personally I believe that the Star of Bethlehem was a supernatural occurrance perhaps orchestrated by God using physical properties (i.e. comet, conjunction, or whatever).

I accept that as your personal opinion. My personal opinion is that I doubt that the event happened as portrayed by the bible story.

I present information indicating that the Earth is a rotating spheroid and that celestial bodies do not revolve around the Earth. I also call attention to the inability for one celestial object to stop moving and to lead anyone anywhere. This information has not been disputed.

NO information, other than a personal opinion has been presented to favor the "orchestrated by god" hypothesis. Other stories alleging supernatural events and characters have also failed to be supported " suggesting a pattern of bible stories being unsupported or unsupportable " reducing credibility of the source.

I maintain that the primary reason to accept the "Star of Bethlehem" story is emotional attachment to a religious belief system " and rejection of reasoning and knowledge of astronomy.

But 2,000 years after the fact I seriously doubt we we're going to really know what it was. You're not going to be able to either prove it or disprove it.

Agreed. There is not likely that we can determine if there was any basis for the bible story about a mystical "star" or about what it might have been.

Therefore, I maintain that it is unwise to conclude that a "star" led people to a "birthplace" or that it did not. In the absence of evidence the prudent course of action is to acknowledge the lack of evidence and to reserve judgment.

I strongly disagree with those who maintain that the story is true or that they know that "goddidit".

[JoeyKnothead]

I can't help but notice in Cartesio's Page 1 Post 2, there is presented a logical, coherent explanation for how the Star of Bethlehem story may have come about.

A brief explanation of the particulars, and images to help explain such.

Then we get to a theist's Page 1 Post 2 explanation, and what do we see?

A claim of a supernatural event and a picture of a star and some sheep.



I can't help but think ol' Cartesio there presents a much more plausible explanation.

[Nilloc James]

But 2,000 years after the fact I seriously doubt we we're going to really know what it was. You're not going to be able to either prove it or disprove it.

So if it is unprovable the only source is a mostly fictional book that can not be sourced.

Why would someone believe the stroy then?

[Goat]

I can't help but notice in Cartesio's Page 1 Post 2, there is presented a logical, coherent explanation for how the Star of Bethlehem story may have come about.

A brief explanation of the particulars, and images to help explain such.

Then we get to a theist's Page 1 Post 2 explanation, and what do we see?

A claim of a supernatural event and a picture of a star and some sheep.



I can't help but think ol' Cartesio there presents a much more plausible explanation.

While it might be more feasible, there are some incorrect assumptions.

It used to be the date that we called 'dec 25th' WAS the solstice. However, it used to be that they didn't take in account the extra .25 days there were in a year (no leap years), and the calender date drifted. While reset in the 16th century , they didn't quite put dec 25th back to the solstice.

[Cartesio]

While it might be more feasible, there are some incorrect assumptions.

It used to be the date that we called 'dec 25th' WAS the solstice. However, it used to be that they didn't take in account the extra .25 days there were in a year (no leap years), and the calender date drifted. While reset in the 16th century , they didn't quite put dec 25th back to the solstice.

I'm sorry but this is not true. Starry Night Pro Plus can determine the winter solstice independently of the calendar date. And they always put the solstice at 21 december. The Saturnalia festival in Rome had 3 festival dates: 17 december, the start, 21 december, the winter solstice, and 25 december, the new sun. Even if they later drifted the date, the pagan festival for the winter solstice was based on those astronomical observations.

Even the Pope admits this. From a speech given by Benedict XVI this very year:


VATICAN CITY, 21 DEC 2008 (VIS) - At noon today Benedict XVI appeared at the window of his private study to pray the Angelus with the pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's Square.

"With Christmas near at hand", the Pope said, "we are invited to fix our gaze upon the ineffable mystery that Mary carried within her virginal womb for nine months: the mystery of God made human. This is the first cardinal point of redemption. The second is the death and resurrection of Jesus and these two inseparable points reveal a single divine plan: to save humanity and its history, taking them up entirely by completely taking on all the evils that oppress them".

"This mystery of salvation also has a historical dimension, a cosmic dimension: Christ is the sun of grace who with His light: 'transfigures and ignites the universe that awaits Him. The very placement of Christmas is tied to the winter solstice, when the days in the Northern hemisphere start to become longer. Regarding this, perhaps not everyone knows that St. Peter's Square is also a meridian: the great obelisk projects its shadow along a line that runs along the pavement toward the fountain under this window, and in these days the shadow is the longest of the entire year. This reminds us of the role of astronomy in marking the hours of prayer. For example, the Angelus is prayed in the morning, at noon, and in the evening".

"The fact that the winter solstice takes place today, 21 December, at this very hour, affords me the opportunity of greeting those who are participating in the initiatives of the International Year of Astronomy 2009, called to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Galileo Galilei's first observations with the telescope. Among my predecessors there have been practicioners of this science, including Sylvester II, who taught it, Gregory XIII to whom we owe our calendar, and St. Pius X, who knew how to build sundials. If the heavens, in the beautiful words of the psalmist, 'tell of the glory of God', the laws of nature, which many scientists have studied over the years giving us an ever-better understanding of them, are a great incentive to contemplate the works of the Lord with gratitude".

http://thecatholicspirit.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=34

A full transcript of the speech is here: http://astronomy2009.org/news/updates/114/

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 1 Post 8:

While it might be more feasible, there are some incorrect assumptions.

It used to be the date that we called 'dec 25th' WAS the solstice. However, it used to be that they didn't take in account the extra .25 days there were in a year (no leap years), and the calender date drifted. While reset in the 16th century , they didn't quite put dec 25th back to the solstice.

(Also see Cartesio's Page 1 Post 9)
Goat, are you speaking of a physical Jesus and physical Magi guys? Could you give us a brief outline of where you are on the Jesus deal here? Are you dismissing the astrological aspect completely?

(edit cause I'm lost as a cow at a square dance)