The Star Of Bethlehem

[Malcolm Hutton]

The question of whether the Star of Bethlehem had some scientific or historic significance has been debated in another forum.

 

These are some of the theories that have been put forward:

 

My own thoughts are that:

The star is Sirius which is equated with Horus/Iosa, the Egyptian Jesus.

 

We now have evidence that Egyptian astronomers were watching for the heliacal rising of Sirius - refer Robert Bauval's latest book, "The Egypt Code". Each year Sirius is not visible for about 70 days and they waited for it with great excitement. The longer Sothic Cycle takes 1,460 years and when this is due, you can imagine how the priest/astronomers must have really got worked up.

 

In 239CE, the Roman chronologist Censorius wrote that:

 

"The beginnngs of these years are always reckoned from the first day of that month which is called by the Egyptians Thoth, which happened this year upon the 7th of the kalends of July [25 June]. For a hundred years ago from the present year the same fell upon the 12th of the kalends of August [21 July], on which day Canicula [sirius] regularly rises in Egypt."

 

Bauval: What Censorius was saying in so many words was that a Sothic Cycle began on 21 July AD 139, when 1 Thoth of the civil calendar (I Akhet 1), which was the first day of the new year, coincided with the heliacal rising of Sirius. A quick check with Starry Night Pro.V4 confirms that this statement is correct. Sirius did rise heliacally on 21 July according to the Julian calendar in the year AD139 as witnessd from the city of Alexandria, from where the observation was most probably made, since it was the capital city of Egypt at that time and the seat of learning and calendrical time-keeping. Censorius has thus provided future chronologists with an anchorage point from which othe Sothic cycles could be determined by subtracting increments of 1,460 years starting from the year AD 139. This gives us the dates of 1321 BC, 2781 BC, 4241 BC and so forth for the start of the Sothic cycles. It follows, therefore, that the Egyptian civil calendar must have started at one of these dates."

 

Bauval then goes on at some length to show that the First Time - Zep Tepi must have been 11,451 BC.

 

139CE would have been around the time when the first gospels may have been written. In Egypt there would have been great excitement over the beginning of the new Sothic Cycle and it would have been well known that Egyptian and other astronomers would have been measuring declinations and right ascensions to establish the time. The previous beginning of a Sothic Cycle was in 1321BCE and this date was only 57 years after the arrival of YmnHtp III - Solomon whose birth is recorded in his temple at Luxor and one of the scenes shows three men kneeling in adoration and holding up gifts in one hand.

 

Another theory posted by Vatic was : It wasn't that kind of star, nor even a view of the sky the Magi were watching, Callum. It was something else entirely and has nothing to do with astronomy or astrology, or heavenly bodies. The star of Bethlehem was a living entity which could appear at will in proximity to whomever it wanted to appear to.

 

Old Fossil gave us these facts: Matthew is generally accepted to have been written no earlier than 66AD in Antioch, and magi are also known to be Zoroastrian priests.

Now there were two big events that made "world news" in that year.

Halley's Comet appeared, and Tiridates, the Armenian king, travelled to Rome to be officially crowned by Nero.

 

Tiridates had soundly defeated the Romans years earlier and had organised a truce with Rome, but would only recognise it from Nero himself, hence his well recorded coronation journey to Rome.

Tiridates was not only a king, he was also a Zoroastrian priest, a magi, and he took with him numerous magi.

Being a magi he was also an astrologer, and the appearance of Halley's Comet was a good omen and the catalyst for the journey. After all a comet was part of the royal insignia and fulfilled the Zoroastrian prophecy - 'That a sign may come to the earth, the night when that prince is born, a star falls from the sky; when that prince is born the star shows a signal.'

 

After leaving Rome Tiridates was concerned about his safety, so he took a sea route home instead so as to thwart any chance of being ambushed.

The closest seaport to his homeland was Seleucia, which was also the seaport for Antioch where Matthew was thinking about how to start off his story.

 

Matthew must have been in raptures when Tiridates' entourage came through.

Here were magi following a star to worship a king, and perceiving a threat to the newly crowned king they had taken another route home, a route that virtually landed them right on Matthew's doorstep.

 

There was no star for magi to follow when Jesus was supposedly born, there were no magi following stars in the year that Jesus was supposedly born, and there were no new kings being recognised when Jesus was supposedly born, but there were in 66AD.

 

Calum: There has been no input from any Christian - other than Vatic who doesn't believe in much of the bible anyway. Are there any Christians out there who can give us their version substantiated with some kind of intelligent evidence? If so let us hear from you. The whole 114 posts can be read on http://wheresjesus.multiply.com/journal/it...eplies_read=114