Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Star Of Bethlehem Explained


OrdinaryClay

Recommended Posts

Goodbye Jesus
  • Super Moderator

Pyramids, therefore ALIENS!!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the simplest explanation for the Star of Bethlehem is that it was made up. Somebody inventing a gospel of Jesus wanted to impress Greek readers so he plagiarized. See, Jesus has a better star story than those other guys.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'star of Bethlehem' has not been noted in other writings of astronomy. I find it doubtful the 'star' could only be seen from Bethlehem or the mid east so I claim the 'star' is just one more hoax perpetrated by the Christian church. The 'star' is also not noted among writings by Hebrews of that time period. A star so bright, moving in the heavens, would not go unnoticed by others of that time. Yes, you have three wise men, according to the babble, who followed the star to Bethlehem but there is nothing that records the star's appearance or that anyone ever noticed it beyond the yahoos written of in the babble--and the Jews also had astronomers. There are also no astrological papers from the time going into detail of this supposed 'star.' Astrologers would have gone nuts over a new star in the heavens and the births of kings, etc., etc., but they do not.

 

The video does not explain Jack Shit except to bolster someone's faith in the impossible. It is just more mindless trash from Christians with no common sense and a total lack of understanding as to how our universe works.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a UFO. It was on an episode of Ancient Aliens.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post a video of an actual astronomer explaining the 'star of Bethlehem', and try to pick one that does not interpret the star in accordance with the babble or his church doctrines. The babble has no credibility as a science, biology, or astronomy book. If the bible was given to man by god, god should have explained how things work in space. The terms 'star' and 'angel' are interchangeable in Christian dialog so it is hard to carry on a dialog with a funny-mental who has no concept of what they are talking about beyond what is stated in their babbles because if you corner them on explaining stars, they come back with how the star was moving cuz it was really an angel. I call this horse shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good short story.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ar_(short_story)

 

Ok, it's fiction... but then, what's the Bible?

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the planet rotates, wouldn't following a star make you go in circles?

 

Primitive societies had no concept of interstellar distance. (or intergalactic, since some of the "stars" in the night sky are actually entire galaxies viewed from a great distance) They probably thought the sky was a giant dome-like thing with the sun, moon, and stars hanging up there somehow. (and yet a star was able to move to a specific location and perfectly hover over a particular house!) The only way the story makes sense is to view it through an incorrect cosmological model.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'star of Bethlehem' has not been noted in other writings of astronomy. I find it doubtful the 'star' could only be seen from Bethlehem or the mid east so I claim the 'star' is just one more hoax perpetrated by the Christian church. The 'star' is also not noted among writings by Hebrews of that time period. A star so bright, moving in the heavens, would not go unnoticed by others of that time. Yes, you have three wise men, according to the babble, who followed the star to Bethlehem but there is nothing that records the star's appearance or that anyone ever noticed it beyond the yahoos written of in the babble--and the Jews also had astronomers. There are also no astrological papers from the time going into detail of this supposed 'star.' Astrologers would have gone nuts over a new star in the heavens and the births of kings, etc., etc., but they do not.

 

The video does not explain Jack Shit except to bolster someone's faith in the impossible. It is just more mindless trash from Christians with no common sense and a total lack of understanding as to how our universe works.

I don't think you watched the video. He uses the same astronomical software astronomers use. This software uses the same math any astrophysicist would use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the planet rotates, wouldn't following a star make you go in circles?

Watch the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pagan astrology.

 

Oh, and Answer in Genesis (the Christian apologist site), questioning Larson's thesis: http://www.answersin...f-bethlehem-dvd

 

Bummer. Not even Christian scientists can really agree about their "science". No, wait, Larson is an ... attorney. Great Scott! 3.gif What is it with these lawyers and their egos?

 

In conclusion, Larson’s thesis is fraught with problems. It completely relies upon the late death of Herod, something that few historians have embraced. It has some obvious astrological connections that we have not discussed in any detail here. These astrological connections are related to the so-called gospel in the stars theory, which is without foundation, and I have discussed elsewhere. Though Larson does not date the birth of Jesus to December 25, there is a suspicious clinging to that date that has no real connection to the birth of Jesus. This star doesn’t fit the description of Matthew 2. Finally, Mr. Larson means well, and many people who have watched the DVD have gleaned much encouragement from it, but it does take us into a dangerous direction. This DVD attempts to give some scientific answer for why the Bible must be true. The Bible never makes such claims for itself, for it stands as propositional truth, and we reject it at our peril. The DVD attempts to bolster peoples’ faith by showing that there is a natural explanation for the star of Bethlehem, as if we doubted that it actually happened. But by giving a natural explanation for the Christmas star, this cuts both ways and offers an out to the unbeliever. That is, the skeptic can now claim that an unusual, but perfectly natural, set of astronomical events was folded into the set of myths that we call the Bible. One may as well search for natural explanations for other miraculous events in the Bible, such as the crossing of the Red Sea or the plagues of Egypt. While these attempts to somehow prove the Bible might encourage some believers, it frequently has the opposite effect on non-believers.

By Dr. Danny Faulkner, 2010, Answer in Genesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pagan astrology.

 

Oh, and Answer in Genesis (the Christian apologist site), questioning Larson's thesis: http://www.answersin...f-bethlehem-dvd

 

Bummer. Not even Christian scientists can really agree about their "science". No, wait, Larson is an ... attorney. Great Scott! 3.gif What is it with these lawyers and their egos?

 

In conclusion, Larson’s thesis is fraught with problems. It completely relies upon the late death of Herod, something that few historians have embraced. It has some obvious astrological connections that we have not discussed in any detail here. These astrological connections are related to the so-called gospel in the stars theory, which is without foundation, and I have discussed elsewhere. Though Larson does not date the birth of Jesus to December 25, there is a suspicious clinging to that date that has no real connection to the birth of Jesus. This star doesn’t fit the description of Matthew 2. Finally, Mr. Larson means well, and many people who have watched the DVD have gleaned much encouragement from it, but it does take us into a dangerous direction. This DVD attempts to give some scientific answer for why the Bible must be true. The Bible never makes such claims for itself, for it stands as propositional truth, and we reject it at our peril. The DVD attempts to bolster peoples’ faith by showing that there is a natural explanation for the star of Bethlehem, as if we doubted that it actually happened. But by giving a natural explanation for the Christmas star, this cuts both ways and offers an out to the unbeliever. That is, the skeptic can now claim that an unusual, but perfectly natural, set of astronomical events was folded into the set of myths that we call the Bible. One may as well search for natural explanations for other miraculous events in the Bible, such as the crossing of the Red Sea or the plagues of Egypt. While these attempts to somehow prove the Bible might encourage some believers, it frequently has the opposite effect on non-believers.

 

 

By Dr. Danny Faulkner, 2010, Answer in Genesis.

 

He doesn't question the science. People should watch the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He doesn't question the science. People should watch the video.

He got the science of history wrong, at least according to the other Christians. People should read the AiG response, at least the summary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched till the 15 minute mark.

 

Bloody hell, what is this video slow! The guy is rambling on about how he used to decorate his house with christmas and what is written about the stars in the bible. I couldn't care less. 15 minutes should be more than enough to roughly explain an astronomical phenomenon.

 

Also, he is claiming Herod died around 2 or 1 BCE, and he doesn't back it up sufficiently. I claim BS.

 

Sorry, I'm not wasting a whole hour on this. You could try to explain it in your own words if you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He doesn't question the science. People should watch the video.

He got the science of history wrong, at least according to the other Christians. People should read the AiG response, at least the summary.

Yes, of course they should read the link you provided. I guess it would make sense to do so after watching the video, but in either order is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream

Why does it seem to me after so long, that the star of bethlehem is Venus? And why is it that the ancient near eastern association with Dilbat and as a result Ishtar comes to mind? Ishtar would inaugerate kings according to ancient babylonian beliefs. This star would then be replaced by other associations with other angels and deities. It's a myth. It was never meant to be taken as a literal star, but simply a myth stating what Jesus was meant to be, the king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it seem to me after so long, that the star of bethlehem is Venus? And why is it that the ancient near eastern association with Dilbat and as a result Ishtar comes to mind? Ishtar would inaugerate kings according to ancient babylonian beliefs. This star would then be replaced by other associations with other angels and deities. It's a myth. It was never meant to be taken as a literal star, but simply a myth stating what Jesus was meant to be, the king.

Did you watch the video?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is awesome when maybe it backs up something in the bible.

 

But science is crap when it contradicts something in the bible.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is awesome when maybe it backs up something in the bible.

 

But science is crap when it contradicts something in the bible.

Personally I think science is wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is awesome when maybe it backs up something in the bible.

 

But science is crap when it contradicts something in the bible.

Personally I think science is wonderful.

 

Sure you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the video by skimming through it, but I think I saw about 70% of it in detail.

 

I could not find where Larson explains how the magi pinpointed a location from this star.

How exactly does one find a very specific spot in a town based on watching a star?

 

Larson also mixes and matches his narrative according to expediency, ignoring several problems along the way.

The birth narrative in Luke is nothing like the one in Matthew, they are mutually exclusive and require herculean qualifiers to be added for any type of reconciliation to be made.

There are no magi in Luke, no infant death decree by Herod, no star, and no evidence for Mary and Joseph to be in Bethlehem for more than about 40 days.

Luke and Matthew also conflict on other events throughout their gospels.

Larson is using Matthew and ignoring Luke.

He mentions Philo but fails to mention that Philo never records anything about Jesus nor does Philo ever write about the most amazing event in history, the resurrection of the dead saints and their strolling into Jerusalem.

I'd love to see Larson do a video on that bit of history, as conjured up by the author of Matthew.

In essence, he simply assumes Matthew is reliable and then works backwards to justify the birth narrative as presented by Matthew.

As someone also noted, he assigns a revised death date for Herod which he can't validate.

 

He also ignores that Mark, Matthew, and Luke have Jesus arrested and crucified after the passover meal and John has him arrested before the passover.

He ignores that according to John, the disciples received the Holy Spirit before Jesus ascended.

He interprets that a virgin birth was required by scripture when it is not.

Isa 7:14 does not specify that a virgin give birth.

He also assumes Jesus met the qualifications of an expected Jewish king but ignores what the qualifications actually are.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't following a star be just like trying to chase a rainbow? Ever travelled at night and observed the moon, compared to the landscape, the moon appears to move as fast as you are travelling. Thus any star observed which is further away than the moon, would do exactly the same thing.

 

Really amazes me how fucking dumb theists are trying to make an ancient book of riddles sound like it is a valid account of how shit works. I guess if you live in la la land, the rules of fizz-icks does not apply...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can suggest is actually taking the time to just sit outside and watch the movement of the stars and planets, and a comet next fall/winter, if we get lucky. A nice program to help you along can be found by googling Home Planet, and following the fourmilab link. (I had no luck with trying to show the link here.) I use the Home Planet Lite version. There is no other conclusion that can be reached than that the star of Bethlehem never occurred, other than through a supernatural explanation, along with the talking snakes and donkeys. Also, wouldn't observing an astronomical event and putting significance of some type of earthly event (such as the birth of a King) be astrology, which was prohibited in the Torah, and in later Jewish writings also?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream

Why does it seem to me after so long, that the star of bethlehem is Venus? And why is it that the ancient near eastern association with Dilbat and as a result Ishtar comes to mind? Ishtar would inaugerate kings according to ancient babylonian beliefs. This star would then be replaced by other associations with other angels and deities. It's a myth. It was never meant to be taken as a literal star, but simply a myth stating what Jesus was meant to be, the king.

Did you watch the video?

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream

You're right, I didn't watch the video. Thank God! Instead I only wasted like half that reading the book instead via scribd. Big waste of time. It took him an hour just to suggest the obvious, that it was based on a planet! As for planets, they see them every day. Seeing his birth being astrologically foretold doesn't say much beyond its a myth meant to say "he's a divine king". We don't know which star. Every star and planet appears over all of us. I hate to break it to you, but this guys work isn't very impressive. .That's to say the least. As for it being jupiter, I posted Venus because its equally plausable as what its referring to. So is Mars, and I think Saturn. But at that point, who knows? What does it really matter?

 

OrdinaryClay, this video only tries to do what others have already tried to do. It's not convincing to anyone who is serious about the study of either history or astronomy in of themselves. It's a serious waste of time. Nice idea though, but whether or not Jupiter appeared to be over Bethlehem, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't prove the existence of Jesus. Nor that the magi made it to the right manger when it appeared overhead. Perhaps Jesus was in the manger next door, and you're worshipping a fake Jesus instead?

 

Found the book:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76600842/The-Star-of-Bethlehem-by-Rick-Larson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.