News: The Star of Bethlehem

Or God could have providentially removed them so we wouldn't worship them.......

You still did not answer the question of what are the important issues in salvation. I think the virgin birth is important to salvation, because had this not happened, well, Christ is not God and is just another man!

You seem to trust in human logic and deny that God can perform miracles.......what a small God! He is far greater than human wisdom (Isa. 55:8-9)!

Neal

[ December 27, 2002, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

His theory is completly wrong. This Star had to move just above a single house where Jesus lay. A conjunction can't do that!!! At the most, Stars in conjunction can point at an area the size of our solar system. Planets in conjuctions can point at something the size of a planet.</font>[/QUOTE]you obviously have not yet read the article.

edit: Olive, Barry is eating lunch right now. When his mouth is empty, I'll ask him to dictate an answer for you, OK?

[ December 27, 2002, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c018.html

I found this an interesting answer........Why....oh why, can't we just accept what the word says and believe it was a miraculous appearance gving direction since there is NO scientific explanation one way or the other?

Cheers,

Jim

 

OOOOHHHHHHH, how that eternity invaded this thing we call time!!! Is there anything too hard for God?? He can produce a virgin birth---seems like developing a star to go along with it would be "child's play" to God!!

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

Folks, it was something already known! It was something Daniel spoke about to their ancestors as he was the head astrologer/wise man in their country through four kings! It's all there! They knew about it because of Daniel. It was in their records. It was NOT a new star or something new resembling a star. It was something predicted, foretold by God Himself in their stories and in the heaven itself.

Yes, it could have been something else, but it wasn't. The time of his birth, to the season and almost the day was specifically predicted. That is why they knew EXACTLY what it was they were seeing and what it meant!

There is no reason be be afraid of research or science, folks. True science will always agree with the Bible! It's exciting, it's real, it's verifiable, it's there.

 

From Barry:
First of all, it was not an assumption that Jesus was about 15 months old when the magoi arrived. It is specifically written in Matthew that Jesus was now a young child, no longer an infant; and He was in a house in Bethlehem, not in a stable or cave.

We are told the star appeared in the east (literally, in the Greek text, “in the first rays of the dawn”) to begin with, and then led them westward to Judea. This process took two years. This eliminates the possibility of it simply being a new star which appeared and then disappeared, and both Chaldean and Chinese records show that there were no new stars at that time. There is only one class of celestial bodies which behaves in this way: namely, the planets, and we know from Chaldean records that they were watching very closely the movement of the planets from 4 B.C. onwards, most probably because of Daniel’s teachings generations earlier.

The records of what we have in the sky at the time, and the Chaldean records all point to the Christmas Star being the sequence of events outlined in my paper. It was unique in the history of the world and being watched for.

First, about the zodiac, it is, as such, not part of the Christmas Star, although it was part of God’s Promise of a Redeemer. One star in the constellation Leo was involved in the famous series of conjunctions, but that was all. The Christmas Star involved mainly the planets – and only those which are the brightest in our solar system. However they could only indicate the time, not exactly the place, as noted. But the place without the time meant nothing, so both the predicted conjunctions and the Shekinah glory were used by God to show the way to His Son.

This is clearly the way God works consistently. We see the evidence in general in nature, but the specifics are communicated directly by God Himself. So yes, the Jews all knew the prediction of the Messiah appearing out of Bethlehem, but the Magoi would not have. Thus they had to ask.

The fact that the general timing of the appearance of the Messiah was known by the Jews is evidenced by the records we have of so many male children being named “Y’shua” (translated Jesus) at that time. The world was, literally, waiting.

A similar sequence of events astronomically occurred with the planets in 1999-2000, or thereabouts (my memory is hazy as to the precise time right now). A number of planets in the solar system were involved in a series of conjunctions. However, Venus and Jupiter did not appear to fuse together as one immense ball of light, as happened at the time of the birth of Christ. Neither was there a triple conjunction between Jupiter and Regulus, the ‘king-making’ star in Leo. So while astronomers (and, I am sure astrologers, too!) were fascinated by this series of events (in fact, they called it ‘the conjunction of the Millennium, because this sort of thing occurs so rarely), the events at the time of Christ’s advent were even more dramatic and startling to those who knew what they were seeing.

 

Well, at least don't say there is no scientific explanation, because there is. It's just that you don't have to accept it. It doesn't make it any the less from God. He is the Creator.

I am curious though how the wise men would have known about 'his star in the east' if it was simply a miraculous appearance of something new.

I am also curious as to why this something new would not have been remarked by the many astronomers of this time around the world -- or is it to be considered that it was only seen by the wise men as well?

 

Thnking about this thread, there is something that amazes me the same way it has amazed my husband for some time. We see something in Scripture that seems to be different than anything in our normal lives and so we credit it as a direct miracle. That is fine.

But then someone comes along who has studied extensively in this area and says, "Look! Here is the evidence of what God actually did here! Isn't that exciting!? We can point to this to the world and say, 'Look, the Bible knew what it was talking about all along!'"

But so many will reject that entirely, preferring their old explanation that it was simply a direct miracle. It very well may be that, but to remain determined that it WAS that even when actual data can be seen which support a different explanation is almost like preferring ignorance. At least learn what has been said and allow those who are doing the research the respect and consideration I think they deserve. It is not any the less the work of God if we can find historical and natural evidence for something He did. It's exciting. It helps the rest of the world understand the Bible is true!

When Barry used to lecture in astronomy to other astronomers, he had the joy of seeing even a Jewish professor of physics come to the Lord Jesus Christ because he, Barry, was able to show that the Bethlehem star was something real and explainable and historical as well as unique, so it could not be mistaken for anything other than what it was. The professionals get excited by such discoveries in their own fields, and many others have come to the Lord through scientific evidence in their own fields of expertise which showed them that their current belief system was wrong.

It's an exciting and real thing. Please don't denigrate it just because you don't understand it.

In the same way God proclaimed the message of salvation in the heavens themselves, He also used the heavens to announce the advent of the fulfillment of that Promise. There is nothing weird or occultic about this. "Occult" means hidden, and far from that meaning, God's message has been open and available to mankind from the very beginning.

========

I edited this when Barnabas pointed out to me in a PM that the way I had indicated the 'ignorance' part originally could easily be deemed offensive. I absolutely apologize for that. We are all ignorant of far more than we are aware of -- at least I am -- and, again for me, one of my goals is to not prefer ignorance but to learn as much as I can. If it squares with Bible, then, I am willing to consider it seriously. But the only true BELIEF I actually hold is of Jesus my Lord and Redeemer. So while the Christmas Star explanation may not be right, I think it is truly headed in the right direction and should be given attention and respect. Personally, though, I do think it is right. I think it needs to be looked at seriously. Please forgive me for any offensiveness in the original post or this one, if it still seems I have worded it badly. Thank you. Helen

[ December 28, 2002, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

Helen,

I agree that it is wrong to live in ignorance. I love to search out as to the why of things (my undergrad was engineering). One of the things I love is the science going into the defense of creation by the likes of ICR and Answers In Genesis. However, I do think that it can be carried to an extreme in thinking that there has to be a scientific explanation for everything. God very well can perform things that have no explanation. And now I have finally come to the point that I can accept that and that I can't explain how God does everything, but I can trust that God did it. It can be useful information to have scientific data to explain things in order to witness, but sometimes that won't matter because some hearts just won't accept the truth, no matter how much evidence we have (Luke 16:27-31). I think there should be a balance and we should not be obsessed of explaining how God does something.

Neal

 

Amen Barnabas.

The star was a miracle. Christ's birth was a miracle. We don't have to understand everything but if we are His, we believe. That's faith. Anyone who tries to rationalize every thing in the Bible and make it make perfect sense to them, is just going to make themself miserable because now "we see through a glass darkly." But, when that which is perfect shall come, we shall understand that star.

A friend - Jim

 

Well, this thread has turned into a very interesting discussion! Thanks SheEagle9/11 for posting it. It was a great input from Helen and Barry as well. My interjection was born out of the desire to straighten out Post-it for denigrating the Scriptures and blaming the Catholic Church for giving us false information about the birth of Christ. But I can appreciate the great research Barry has done in this regard. Hope you all read his thesis. Jim, it is fine if someone tries to find scientific explanation of things in the Bible. I am sure you'll agree that the Bible will stand for any examination by the experts, and will come through shining as gold!

 

Thank you Barnabas and all. I have edited in an apology in the last post before this one as Barnabas was kind enough to point out in a PM that something I had said could cause offense. So I apologize here, too.

In the meantime, I have no objection at all to not having naturalistic explanations for God's work! The general guide I go by for myself, however, is that if the Bible does not mention something as a direct miracle, it's fair to look for how God did it using nature. For instance, water to wine: direct miracle. It's listed that way and so it is. Creation: direct miracle. And, of course, there are others, such as the virgin birth.

But a great many other things appear to have been far more miraculous in their timing than in the event itself. In other words, God had set nature in tune with Himself from the beginning. We should not be surprised at this! For instance, if my husband's research is right (and, again, I think it is), we have an explanation as to what caused the Flood of Noah and events that happened later, as well! To me, this is exciting, and does not take away from the Biblical message, but adds 'scientific' depth to it, helping us verify what happened.

On the other hand, I do also think it is a bad waste of time looking for the Ark! That evidence SHOULD not be found -- for a very simple reason: there were no mature trees immediately after the flood for wood for building. I know that when the American settlers reach their destinations in their wagons, often the wagons would be dismantled for the wood to build with. The wood of the Ark was waterproofed and solid. It would have made excellent material for building when the rest of the world was still pretty muddy! Why would Noah have left it there?

So the mind goes. Thinking, probing, wondering. With the Bible as a guide to what the truth is in Christ and its parameters, given in the creation and Flood and other points, it seems to me we have been left free to explore everything we can about Creation, and while some find it boring or unnecessary, preferring simply to trust that God knew what He was doing (and He certainly always has!), others find it fascinating, and fun, and faith-building. It is not that these events HAVE to have naturalistic explanations, but that, if they do, what are they?

There may be a very natural explanation for the star of Bethlehem which fits precisely in with the time and the story itself. If Barry is right, then that's wonderful! It is more evidence for the truth of the Bible in a doubting and dying world. If it was a straight-out direct creative miracle, that's fine, too. God is responsible either way; Jesus was born either way.

I will mention again, however, that it is very doubtful that three old men on camels would have frightened Jerusalem, especially since they were expecting the advent of the Messiah right about that time, in line with Daniel's prophecies!

 

Things it wasn't: It wasn't a comet (Comets, while they can last several weeks or even months, are generally considered bad omens, not good ones) It wasn't an asteroid (An asteroid woud have moved, but would have been one instant event). It's wasn't a supernova (a supernova would have lasted for months, but would not have moved).

Several years ago, I attended a discussion at the Griffith Observatory about the subject. Today, they do a show (in truncated form) about the night sky over Bethlehem, where they project the sky that would have been seen by the magi and shepherds. They do a time lapse, where you can clearly see the planetary conjunction take place, and move across the sky, just as the biblical account describes.
The discussion I attended also brought up some significant items. During that time, the Chinese civilization was thriving, and they were keeping detailed records of the night sky. They recordrd no comets, asteroids, supernovae, etc, but did records conjunctions. Below is a list of stellar happennings, and how they would have been interpreted by the astrologers of Judea:

Aug 12th, 3BC: Jupiter (king), traversing away from the sun (father), becomes conjoined with Venus (mother). The Sun, Moon and Mercury (messenger) are also located with Jupiter and Venus in Leo (the lion), representing the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:9). The message of this configuration: some important royal event is to happen among the Jews. The Magi, noticing this, could have seen this as an impending royal birth in Judah.

Aug 26th, 3BC. Mercury (the messenger) comes to Venus (the mother).
Message: A heavenly messenger is about to visit the mother of the impending royal birth (see note in next paragraph)

Aug 31st, 3BC: Mercury, having left the Sun, now arrives at Venus. The Sun is now in the constellation Virgo (the virgin). Mercury and Venus are in Leo; Jupiter is just entering Leo.
Message: God's messenger is sent to the mother. Note, however, this is not the day when it would have happenned, but the day it was revealed to the astrologers

Sept 11 3BC: One of the visions later recordrd in in Rev 12, that of the woman about to give birth, can be understood astrologically to mark a specific date. If the woman is taken to be the constellation Virgo, the virgin, then the Sun clothes her body for about one month per year. The moon will pass through that region in the course of its monthly cycle so that it is just under her feet on one particular day. In 3 BC, that day is September 11. For the sake of arguement, we can speculate that this is a possible date of Jesus' birth. Had Jesus and Mary been travelling to bethlehem, this time of year would have been among the most favorable to travel.

Sept 14th 3BC, Feb 17th 2BC, and May 8, 2BC. Three conjunctions of Jupiter with Regulus, the brightest star in the constellation Leo (lion), and located between the lion's feet. Gen 49:10 reads: "The scepter will not depart from Judah nor the ruler (sceptre) from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his." Jupiter, the king planet, circles above Regulus, the king star, placing a crown on the king star.

Jun 17, 2BC: A very rare conjunction of Jupiter and Venus (less than 3 minutes of arc). The frequency of such a close conjunction would range from once every 1150 years to once every 34,000 thousand years (A distance of 3mins of arc would occur every 1150 years. A distance of .01 mins of arc wound occur every 34,000 years).
Message: some important royal event is to happen among the Jews (same message as Aug12, 3BC). If the Magi were looking for this, it would be this conjunction that would send them on their way, arriving in Jerusalem about December 25th.

Aug 26th 2BC: A close conjunction of Jupiter and Mars (war) in Leo, with Venus and Mercury also in Leo, and the Sun in Virgo.
Message: the events will lead to conflict.

If the Magi had visited Herod around the 25th of December to give him the news, this would also be the time when Herod plots the killing of every male child in the province (the conflict seen on Aug 26th). Also circa the 25th, the movement of Jupiter stops in the night sky. Biblically, the star is said to have stopped over the place where Jesus was. From the Magi's point of view, when they came out of Jerusalem that night (after seeing Herod) to go to Bethlehem, they saw Jupiter "stopped" in the southern sky over the village of Bethlehem. Also, other historical accounts place Herod's death shortly after this time, probably within a few months or even weeks.

Shortly after the 25th, Jupiter makes a reverse direction in the sky, heading eastward again, possibly signifying that the prediction of events has now ceased, and also signifying that the Magi's journey is over. They may also have taken the reverse direction to mean that it was time for them to return home. Also note that the occurrence of events on or about 12/25 here seem to be coincidental to the fact that we celebrate Christmas on that day today. 12/25 was originally the calendar day of the winter solstice, but that day appears on modern calendars as 12/21. When the calendar was adjusted, the celebration of Christmas was not.

 

John, essentially they are presenting Barry Setterfield's work without giving him credit for it. Barry first presented this about twenty years ago in Australia to a number of astronomers and it has been carried to a number of places in various forms and with some variations ever since. It would be nice if they would credit him, but crediting a YEC with knowing or doing anything right is unheard of...

 

It couldn't be a comet Jim

I concur. It couldn't have been a comet or asteroid. Those events were bad omens, not good omens, in the Judaic customs of the time.

 

With respect to Dr Setterfield (at least I think he's got a doctorate), many people in the last 30 years have drawn similar conclusions regarding planetary conjunctions in Judaic practice. Since they can be well pinpointed, multiple people seeing the same thing today would come as no surprise

 

I maintain the argument that the age is an assumption. The Greek word used for the baby, as directed by the angels to the shepherds, is brephos. Luke 2:12, 16 But in verse 17, the word for child, paidion. They made known the saying of the child they had just seen. Hebrew law state that the child is to be circumcised on the eighth day, which in verse 21, he is also called a paidion, or child. So, being called a child in Matthew does not put him at the 15 month old mark.

The most likely reason for Mary and Joseph to be in Bethlehem is because she was in her period after contamination, the 40 day period needed, according to the Law, during the cleansing process (Leviticus 12). This time frame falls within the lenghth of time for the Magi to travel from their land.

As for Herod, he was feared among all, even those closest to him. He would easily have ordered the death of children, just to be sure. The impact of the cries was even greater, because of the sheer number of infants. But, more likely, this would aid in possible confusion as to the actual age of the children to be slaughtered. This is also supported by the fact from Matthew 2:16, that Herod knowingly killed all infants to the coasts, even though Jesus was in Bethlehem. I had read that it was better to be Herod's pig than to be Herod's son.

So, Jesus was born in late Sept, of 2BC, Herod died in late January of 1BC. The eclipse sets the time for Herod's death. The planetary alignments, that you have spoken of, could have been a sign, for those who studied the stars, of the coming of the Savior. This allowed for preparation, and also forknowledge of the time to soon come. When Herod inquired of the chief preists and scribes, it was for the place of the birth. The time would be unbenounced to them because the study of the stars and planets was expressly forbidden in Jewish Law. Deut 18:9-14.

There is also proof in the writings of Tertullian, Irenaeus and Eusebius of the time of Jesus birth. Tertullian and Irenaeus both write that his birth occured in the 41st year of Augustus reign; Eusebius states it was the 42nd year. Augustus began his reign in 43 BC. Augustus reigned his 42nd year from Aug of 2BC to Aug of 1 BC, backing up his date with Cleopatra, the 28th year after her death. Clement of Alexandria states he was born in the 15th year before the death of Augustus Caesar.

I conclude that Jesus was born in Sept of 2, Magi came in Dec of 2, they fled to Egypt in Dec of 2, Herod died in Jan of 1, the three returned from Egypt in Feb of 1. Matthew tells of their flight to Egypt, but Luke tells of their return to Nazareth, after all the things according to the Law were performed.