The Magi and the Star -- Epiphany Explored

CatholicExchange.com ^ | January 4, 2010 | Michael J. Miller

[Salvation]

A different approach to the Star of Bethlehem.

[Salvation]

Since today is the day most of the world celebrates the Epiphany, I decided to post this.

[GreyFriar]

Date for gospels uses your reasoning.

[Salvation]

science and astrology ping — for whoever has those lists.

[Jedidah]

http://www.bethlehemstar.com/

Marvelous research and info here. You’ll like it.

[Salvation]

Science and Astronomy Ping!

[mrreaganaut]

Thanks! This is the best explanation I’ve read.

[mrreaganaut]

Epiphany ping!

[Titanites]

This is a great explanation, Salvation. Thanks for posting it.

[blues_guitarist]

Chuck Missler, (Koinonia House,) has some interesting information on the Nativity story and the true origin of the Magi. Seems Daniel was probably involved ahead of time.

[glide625]

Outstanding; thanks!

[glide625]

I’d like to hear more about that reasoning for the gospels dating. I’ve long suspected they are considerably older than the academics time line.

[Paved Paradise]

Just because the ancients might not have associated Leo with the Lion of Judah (and this writing does not even support that statement with any evidence) does not mean that we, today, cannot appreciate this fact based on where the plants were aligned.

I had to use that software in my astronomy class and I believe the Star of Bethlehem had so many good points, why are you trying to badmouth it?

[zot]

Thanks for the ping. This is an excellent article.

[Salvation]

Just posting the article. I am only the messenger. I realize that there were many good points about the Star of Bethlehem. I just thought thw science and astonomy in this thread was interesting.

Are there specific points with which you disagree? Agree?

[zot]

The basic reasoning is as stated in this article: there is no way the Gospels or Acts would have failed to indicate the writer’s knowledge of the Jewish rebellion (AD 66) or the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70). Many academics date the Gospels later than AD 70 because they do not believe Jesus could have predicted the destruction of Jerusalem.

[Salvation]

Did you miss this line?

**He found that an unbiased examination of the historical evidence for the Nativity does not undermine, but corroborates, Christian Tradition.**

[Paved Paradise]

Regarding your two posts, I realize that the author of that article was promoting the historical evidence for the Nativity and I also realize that you are just the messenger and apologize that I was hasty in my posting and didn’t specify that. My beef was that the author seemed to be rather negative of Larson and “The Star of Bethlehem” because he was so adamant about what the Magi could have seen and known back then since they didn’t have the modern computer simulations and my response to that is, “duh.” Of course, but now that WE can see what was going on relative to the conjunctions and positions of the various astronomical bodies during that year, WE can be blessed by this information (e.g., the Lion - Leo and Lion of Judah). That was my beef with the article primarily.

I wish he had only written his article a little more positively. Larson did a good thing and my sneaking suspicion is that it is another Catholic bashing a Protestant (sorry, Salvation, just my 2 cents).

[Unam Sanctam]

Michael R. Molnar, citing Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos , argues that the constellation Aries governed the Herodian monarchy in Judea, and on April 17, 6 B.C., Jupiter rose "in the east" in that sign of the zodiac, along with the sun and Venus. Unfortunately, Ptolemy’s astrological work was written a century later than the Gospels.

I read Molnar's book, which was quite interesting in spelling out the state of astrology in the Hellenistic world around the time of Christ. I'm not sure why Ptolemy's book being a century later than the Gospels is dispositive of Molnar's interesting thesis about the constellation Aries.

[eleni121]

And Merry Christmas to all Julian Calendar Christians today!!!