The Star Of Bethlehem

[dB-Paradox]

A friend gave me the video in hopes that I would see the light (bad pun, I know). It's actually a fascinating video. It didn't make a believer out of me, but what it did do was make a stronger case for Christianity as a myth rooted in the stars. I have no doubt that parts of scripture are inspired by real events, and no doubt the star of Bethlehem could very well have been an ancient telling of a messiah coming to earth. But not as a message from God...rather, a story made by man. The video makes some very good points, but at the same time, some of those points it makes actually weaken the integrity of a literal Christianity. The video tries to prove that the star was the combination of the king planet (Jupiter) and king star (can't remember the name) lining up and that this is proof for the biblical account of Jesus' birth. What it fails to realize is that while it may be feasible to believe Jupiter's orbit in conjunction with the king star may very well have been the star of Bethlehem mentioned in the bible, it doesn't necessarily mean it's proof for the life of Jesus as mentioned in the bible. In fact, such a celestial occurrence would most likely have caught the eye of star-gazers back then, and the story of Jesus would probably have been the outcome of such an event. In other words, the story came from the stars.

 

Has anyone else seen this video? What were your thoughts? (I actually only saw a little more than half and then the video froze and I couldn't watch the rest.)

[Shyone]

In other words, the story came from the stars.

 

Has anyone else seen this video? What were your thoughts? (I actually only saw a little more than half and then the video froze and I couldn't watch the rest.)

I haven't seen the video, but regardless of which specific astronomic conjunction might have possibly been the "star of Bethlehem", none probably were.

 

Exceptional people were expected to have "wondrous signs and portents" of their births, so retrospectively, someone probably asked, "What signs did this Jewish God make regarding such an unusual event as the birth of his own Son?" The answer, at first was, "Uh..." But then the second time they were asked, we have a star. "But who attested to the star's activity?" "Uh..." And the third time, we have "Magi" from the source of astrology itself, the "east."

 

The story makes very little sense except as a way of introducing Magical Jesus to the credulous and gullible people who believed in the Greek Pantheon.

 

On the night of Alexander’s birth, tradition alleged, the temple of Artemis was burnt down. The local Persian Magi interpreted this as an omen of further disasters to come. They ‘ran about beating their faces and crying aloud that woe and great calamity for Asia had that day been born’, a firebrand that was destined to destroy the entire East.

 

For the Greeks, divine and human parentage were not mutually exclusive, and according to Norden, the miraculous stories of the origin of the Caesars belong to "the Hellenistic virgin motif." (as cited by Boslooper) Augustus was said to have had a miraculous birth and a childhood filled with many portents and signs.

[bornagainathiest]

A friend gave me the video in hopes that I would see the light (bad pun, I know). It's actually a fascinating video. It didn't make a believer out of me, but what it did do was make a stronger case for Christianity as a myth rooted in the stars. I have no doubt that parts of scripture are inspired by real events, and no doubt the star of Bethlehem could very well have been an ancient telling of a messiah coming to earth. But not as a message from God...rather, a story made by man. The video makes some very good points, but at the same time, some of those points it makes actually weaken the integrity of a literal Christianity. The video tries to prove that the star was the combination of the king planet (Jupiter) and king star (can't remember the name) lining up and that this is proof for the biblical account of Jesus' birth. What it fails to realize is that while it may be feasible to believe Jupiter's orbit in conjunction with the king star may very well have been the star of Bethlehem mentioned in the bible, it doesn't necessarily mean it's proof for the life of Jesus as mentioned in the bible. In fact, such a celestial occurrence would most likely have caught the eye of star-gazers back then, and the story of Jesus would probably have been the outcome of such an event. In other words, the story came from the stars.

 

Has anyone else seen this video? What were your thoughts? (I actually only saw a little more than half and then the video froze and I couldn't watch the rest.)

 

Hi Paradox!

 

Tho this isn't directly connected (because it supposes that the Star of Bethlehem was a supernova) you might be interested in this angle.

 

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_(short_story)

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

[dB-Paradox]

Interesting story! Very creative sounding, and it would make a great movie!

[★ Citsonga ★]

The video makes some very good points, but at the same time, some of those points it makes actually weaken the integrity of a literal Christianity. The video tries to prove that the star was the combination of the king planet (Jupiter) and king star (can't remember the name) lining up and that this is proof for the biblical account of Jesus' birth.

 

I just can't get over those who want to come up with stuff that doesn't at all fit what the bible says and claim it as "evidence" for the bible. The biblical text says it was a "star," not some planetary alignment with a star.

 

And the text says that "the star... went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was" (Matt 2:9). In other words, the star moved to lead the "wise men" and then stopped above where Jesus was. This fits nicely into the ancient belief that stars were little dots that moved across the sky over the earth, but it does not fit with some distant planet/star alignment.

 

So I have to agree that this type of nonsense does "actually weaken the integrity of a literal Christianity," yet some of those who claim to believe in literal christianity will tout this kind of stuff as valid explanations without ever even thinking of the implications.

[hereticzero]

When i was in astronomy back in my college daze, our professor was asked if there really was a star that would account for the birth date of Jesus. He said 'No.' There is an astronomy program, I forget the name, that can project a model of the night sky using any date in the past, present, or future, and none of the models account for any spectacular sky display of planets or stars that would account for the date of Jesus birth.

[mwc]

I just can't get over those who want to come up with stuff that doesn't at all fit what the bible says and claim it as "evidence" for the bible. The biblical text says it was a "star," not some planetary alignment with a star.

To be fair the planets were considered wandering stars. Without bothering with the actual Greek I'll just steal from Etymology Online:

late O.E., from O.Fr. planete (Fr. planète), from L.L. planeta, from Gk. (asteres) planetai "wandering (stars)," from planasthai "to wander," of unknown origin. So called because they have apparent motion, unlike the "fixed" stars. Originally including also the moon and sun; modern scientific sense of "world that orbits a star" is from 1640.

There was the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. These eventually made up the names of the planetary days of the week (starting around 200 BCE give or take).

 

A comet was a fuzzy, or hairy, star by the way. So they didn't just think that all, 100%, of the things they called stars were fixed in place at all times.

 

When i was in astronomy back in my college daze, our professor was asked if there really was a star that would account for the birth date of Jesus. He said 'No.' There is an astronomy program, I forget the name, that can project a model of the night sky using any date in the past, present, or future, and none of the models account for any spectacular sky display of planets or stars that would account for the date of Jesus birth.

No star or event, that we can naturally account for, can be traced to this event (no matter what birth date you apply). You have to go with the supernatural or apply some sort of interpretation to some other event. Most any off the shelf astronomy program can be used to investigate this anymore (something like Starry Nights). You can go back to your chosen date (in Julian time) and location and have a look around. The programs use the NASA databases for known objects so they're pretty good (and even if they're off by even a day or so...which they shouldn't be...that's close enough to "prove" the miracle star I think since it's better than the bible).

 

A number of interesting events did happen in the latter days of Herod the Great but to say that anyone would take that and read into it "Aha! The Jewish Messiah. Finally. Let's roll." Is pretty far fetched.

 

mwc

[★ Citsonga ★]

I just can't get over those who want to come up with stuff that doesn't at all fit what the bible says and claim it as "evidence" for the bible. The biblical text says it was a "star," not some planetary alignment with a star.

To be fair the planets were considered wandering stars.

 

To be fair, you're talking about what people thought. The bible is supposed to be inspired by an omniscient gawd who would inevitably know that planets and stars are different things.

 

[mwc]

To be fair, you're talking about what people thought. The bible is supposed to be inspired by an omniscient gawd who would inevitably know that planets and stars are different things.

I was trying to be fair to the idea that you wouldn't expect to find planets in any ancient texts...

 

I'm assuming that "god" knew that they were planets and he sent down "jesus" to let everyone know that. I think it was probably in his very next sermon but damned if he didn't get crucified and the evil Jews and Romans took all his notes and put them in the shredder. I think he was also going to explain quantum physics using goats, fish, bread and everything. He also had the entire list of winners for every American Idol. So much knowledge lost.

 

mwc

[★ Citsonga ★]

I'm assuming that "god" knew that they were planets and he sent down "jesus" to let everyone know that. I think it was probably in his very next sermon but damned if he didn't get crucified and the evil Jews and Romans took all his notes and put them in the shredder. I think he was also going to explain quantum physics using goats, fish, bread and everything. He also had the entire list of winners for every American Idol. So much knowledge lost.

 

mwc

 

I would assume something along those lines too, except that there's secret footage of an ancient board meeting in heaven. Don't tell anyone, but you can view it here: