Star of Bethlehem

One small problem with this. There is astronomical evidence that Herod
may have died in 1 A.D., January of that year. Herod is reported to
have died after an eclipse of the moon and his successor took office
before the Passover shortly thereafter. One lunar eclipse/Passover time
period which seems to give an appropriate amount of time for the events
that occurred between Herod's death and the taking of the throne by his
successor was listed in the astronomical records on December 29th of 1
B. C., with Herod possibly dying early in 1 A. D. Earlier lunar
eclipse/Passover time periods are inadequate for the task, assuming
Josephus adequately chonicled the events he mentions.

This would also be consistent with other historical facts. One can
pretty much throw out the census mentioned for there was no reason for
the movement to ones historical home to be counted. And it was a census
of Roman citizens, not all conquered peoples.

In 2 B.C., there was an oath of allegiance ordered for citizens and
noncitizens alike to celebrate the silver jubilee of the reign of Caesar
Augustus. This may have been started in 3 B. C., so that the results
would be presented to Caesar at the time of the jubilee or ordered by
Caesar himself to affirm his leadership. So, these two pieces of
evidence point to the year of Jesus' birth as being either 3 or 2 B. C.

Having said this, I would still condend that Matthew likely made the
birth story up in an attempt to convince Jewish leaders of the time that
the person he thought was the Messiah was indeed so.

wrote:
Star of Bethlehem

Any celestial event that is assigned a 'meaning' (beyond physics) is
within the realm of ancient astrology. Astronomy is 'observation' and
astrology is 'interpretation'.

To date, all of the astronomical theories and possibilities have been
thoroughly investigated. All of the astronomical theories are mundane,
however, all astronomical commentators have done a superb investigatory
job probing the window of time (7 BC to 4 BC) and coming up with
possible 'Star of Bethlehem' candidates.

At the time of the birth of Christ astrology and astronomy were the
same 'science'. In fact, the only reason that celestial events and
objects were studied was to try to ascertain what 'meaning' was to be
derived from the observed phenomena.

Christ, according to the New Testament, was born before King Herod
died. Herod's death is a matter of historical account and it occured in
April of 4 BC ( 3 B.C.E. because of no year "0" ).

Additionally, NO ONE but the Magi 'saw' the star.

Also, the 'star that rises in the east' is (also) the Sun. I mention
this because there is a great deal of astrological/astronomical
allegory incorporated into The New Testament account of Christ's birth.
For Instance, 'a star that stopped over a house where the child and his
mother were'.

The star that 'stops' is the sun at a solstice point (solstice means
'sun stationary') and a 'house' is a component of an ancient (and
contemporary) astrological chart. The 'house' of the mother is the
astrological 4th house which begins at the time of the summer solstice.
Some evidence is now forming which indicates a possible
astronomical/astrological allegory.

The Old Testament states that the Messiah/King will be born in
Bethlehem (Hebrew for 'house of bread'). Bread, in astrology is
related to the astrological sign of Virgo (The Virgin). There is
further writing in the Old Testament about a 'star' (asterism, which
may be plural (also) for a collection of or constellation) linked to
the birth of the Messiah/King.

The Persian Magi were highly advanced astronomer/astrologers. By
'highly advanced' I mean being possessed of the knowledge of the entire
solar system as it is encoded in mathematic symbols in the construction
of The Great Pyramid at Giza (2800 BC).
See, http://www.templeofsolomon.org/Pyram..._symbolism.htm
for a virtual mind boggling overview of The Great Pyramid.

With that said, it is my opinion that the Star of Bethlehem was an
astrological event witnessed ONLY by the highly advance Persian Magi.
The 'Star' was (IS) revealed in an ancient astrological chart by the
astrological geometric associations (aspects) of the Sun, Moon and
planets. The chart can be viewed he
http://www.templeofsolomon.org/pageone.htg/pageone.htm

and a comparison of astronomical charts and astrological charts for the

2nd of March 5 BC can be seen he
http://www.templeofsolomon.org/StarofBethlehem-star.htm

It is unimportant if astrology is considered by some to be
'non-science'. The astrological charts have been prepared by employing
methods that were used at the time of the birth of Christ (same as the
western astrological chart of today).


Best Regards,
John Charles Webb, Jr.

It is an historical fact that Herod died in April of 4 BC (3 B.C.E.)
One, AND ONLY ONE, Star of Bethlehem commentator found an astronomical
configuration
that, he thought, MAY have been the Star of Bethlehem but it occured in
1 BC. This commentator
then deduced that Josephus (ancient historian) made a transcription
error and wrote 4 BC instead of 1 BC.
Very poor scholarship.

Herod's death was marked by a lunar eclipse (April 13th 4 BC)

The 1 BC date is not supported by any scholars and is seen as a
fabrication in an attempt to lend credibility to the 1 BC.

There was a census (also) in 7 BC.

To presume that Matthew 'made up' the account of the star is an
academic fallacy that leads to a dead end.
If that part was made up why not the whole New testament?

In message . com,
writes
It is an historical fact that Herod died in April of 4 BC (3 B.C.E.)
One, AND ONLY ONE, Star of Bethlehem commentator found an astronomical
configuration
that, he thought, MAY have been the Star of Bethlehem but it occured in
1 BC. This commentator
then deduced that Josephus (ancient historian) made a transcription
error and wrote 4 BC instead of 1 BC.
Very poor scholarship.

Herod's death was marked by a lunar eclipse (April 13th 4 BC)


Could that be a myth, or just an association of two important events?
I doubt Shakespeare was wholly original in writing "the heavens
themselves blaze forth the death of princes" :-)

It (eclipse) gives a time reference for dating biblical events. The
eclipse is an astronomical fact. One occured at the death of Herod
(April 13th 4 BC).

If there is a symbolic association it would be the birth of a son
(Christ - son of God) and, subsequently the origination of a solar
calendar.
With Herod's death and lunar eclipse indicating (in symbol also) a
turning away from the lunar nature (Hebrew) of The Old testament.
Or a birth of a solar religion...
In ancient times astrology and astronomy were the two principal
'sciences'. So, it seems that these two sciences should be consulted in
attempting to decode some of the obscure passages of the New Testament.


Shakespeare's statement is original but also mirrors Genesis wherein it
states that the heavens provides signs and seasons, etc (transposed).

Very Best Regards.

" bravely wrote to "All" (07 Dec 05 11:06:49)
--- on the heady topic of " Star of Bethlehem"

jo From:
jo Xref: core-easynews sci.astro:452747

jo It is an historical fact that Herod died in April of 4 BC (3 B.C.E.)
jo One, AND ONLY ONE, Star of Bethlehem commentator found an astronomical
jo configuration
jo that, he thought, MAY have been the Star of Bethlehem but it occured
jo in 1 BC. This commentator
jo then deduced that Josephus (ancient historian) made a transcription
jo error and wrote 4 BC instead of 1 BC.
jo Very poor scholarship.

jo Herod's death was marked by a lunar eclipse (April 13th 4 BC)

jo The 1 BC date is not supported by any scholars and is seen as a
jo fabrication in an attempt to lend credibility to the 1 BC.

jo There was a census (also) in 7 BC.

jo To presume that Matthew 'made up' the account of the star is an
jo academic fallacy that leads to a dead end.
jo If that part was made up why not the whole New testament?


Has anyone ever considered that the Star of Bethlehem was neither a
comet nor a supernova but instead simply a strong aurora event due to a
large solar eruption? Consider that an aurora event would be a rare
occurrence so far south and would have many folk look up in wonder.

A*s*i*m*o*v

The 'aurora' idea contradicts the ancient text that states "asterism".
meaning a star, a constellation (plural) or some kind of assembly of
celestial bodies.
From a scientific point of view it is best to exhaust all possibilities
that are consistent with the ancient text before exploring other
possible phenomena that do not meet the criteria of "asterism".

And there are biblical scholars who have put forth the idea that Jesus
was a fictition made of the characteristics of many leaders from that
time. I don't necessarily subscribe to this, but wouldn't it be
deliciously funny if true?

As to this particular statement: To presume that Matthew 'made up' the
account of the star is an academic fallacy that leads to a dead end.

Why is it an academic fallacy when in all likelihood it is a proper
interpretation. The story of the star and the wisemen is much more
likely a story intended to show that Matthew's Messiah was prophesized
one. What better way to show he had found the one true Messiah than to
show peoples not related to the Jewish heritage acknowledging him as such.

The nature of the lunar eclipse is what would have likely made it worth
noting. Lunar eclipses were not rare, but ones having a strange
appearance, such as the one in 1 B.C. The Moon rose already partially in
the shadow and proceded to enter it completely as it rose. The one in 4
B.C. happened much later in the evening and likely would not have been
chronicled. And there is the factoidal writings of Josephus of all the
events that took place between the death of Herod, his funeral, and the
ascension to the throne of his successor prior to Passover. Those
events take time, time not in abundance if the April 4 B.C. eclipse was
the correct one.

Oh, and if Josephus wrote either 4 B.C. or 1 B.C., then that is an
amazing fact in and of itself. That kind of designation would not be
developed for more than 500 years in the future.

wrote:
It is an historical fact that Herod died in April of 4 BC (3 B.C.E.)
One, AND ONLY ONE, Star of Bethlehem commentator found an astronomical
configuration
that, he thought, MAY have been the Star of Bethlehem but it occured in
1 BC. This commentator
then deduced that Josephus (ancient historian) made a transcription
error and wrote 4 BC instead of 1 BC.
Very poor scholarship.

Herod's death was marked by a lunar eclipse (April 13th 4 BC)

The 1 BC date is not supported by any scholars and is seen as a
fabrication in an attempt to lend credibility to the 1 BC.

There was a census (also) in 7 BC.

To presume that Matthew 'made up' the account of the star is an
academic fallacy that leads to a dead end.
If that part was made up why not the whole New testament?

Matthew's account of the star is proved correct IF a temporary
celestial phenomenon is discovered within the biblical timeline (7 BC
to 4 BC) that fits the definition of "asterism".

No one, other than the Magi, saw the 'star' (according to the texts).
Even Herod replied (to the Magi) "what star"?

To conclude, without first investigating all reasonable possibilities,
that the account is fiction is unsupportable by all academic standards.

wrote:
Matthew's account of the star is proved correct IF a temporary
celestial phenomenon is discovered within the biblical timeline (7 BC
to 4 BC) that fits the definition of "asterism".

No one, other than the Magi, saw the 'star' (according to the texts).
Even Herod replied (to the Magi) "what star"?

To conclude, without first investigating all reasonable possibilities,
that the account is fiction is unsupportable by all academic standards.


Actually, it is completely nonacademic to claim that the Bible version
is infallible precisely because the Magi were the only ones to see the
phenomenon, whatever it was. If you wish to rely on an astronomical
phenomenon to be the star, you fail because of the motions supposedly
attributed to it. If you wish to assert conjunctions, there is no
written record of how any conjunction would have been any more special
than any other - lots of conjunctions between planets occurred over the
time period in question involving planets and other planets and planets
and bright stars. So, this leaves you with miracle or fantasy, both of
which fall outside of scientific province.

After 2000 years, the only conclusion that can be drawn about those
wishing to vindicate Matthew is that they can't separate faith from
reality. That is what you do when you reject the possibility that
Matthew simply made the story up to make a stronger case for Jesus being
the Messiah.