Bethlehem star: History & astronomy

[weller2]

That’s just bad astronomy. Not my field.
Phil Plait has discussed this topic for years. Catholics should be ashamed to promote such piffle.

The problem with Phil Plait is that he has an agenda. First, he is a hardcore atheist. Second, he debunks astrology.

Understanding the Star of Bethlehem requires you to recognize that the visitors from the East are referred to as Magi – the ones initiated in magic arts. From the time immemorial, one of the magic arts has been astrology. It has been believed that whatever happens on Earth mirrors what happens in the sky and vice versa. Or, as the adapts of modern mystery schools put it, as above, so below. This in no way means (as Phil Plait asserts) that planets somehow interfere with life of Earth; rather, the mystery schools always believed that everything is connected and so events both on Earth and in the sky mirror a deeper reality.

It’s an objective astronomical fact that a series of very interesting conjunctions took place over the course of several years around the time of Jesus birth. It’s also a historical fact that Babylonians astrologers / astronomers (it was the same thing until the 18th century) could predict future conjunctions since the times of Hammurabi. It was labor-intensive, but could be done, and was being done in order to predict the future (remember, as above, so below); the wealthy and kings were paying good money for horoscopes. Therefore, it is not at all far-fetched that a group of Babylonian astrologers would conjecture that a powerful person would be born at a precise date indicated by the celestial dance.

Determination of date by astrological calculations is straightforward; determination of place less so, particularly that the accuracy with which they could measure position of celestial bodies was pretty low. It’s possible that the horoscope only gave them a general clue “to the West”; from Babylonia, you cannot really go further West then Israel, because you will encounter the sea; so it’s possible that they would just travel West until it was no more feasible and started to look for clues on the ground. Or maybe they were watching Mars, or Jupiter, or Saturn, and stopped they journey when the planet’s apparent motion against the fixed stars stopped just before its retrograde movement began. Or maybe it was just luck. Who knows?

Okay. It looks like the website linked in the OP does a pretty good job of arguing the point, so I will give you something extra. Remember Revelation 12?

1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads.

This is the sky above Israel, 13 February 8BC, looking West, just after sunset:



The most prominent object here is the planet Venus. Planets, of course, shine by reflecting solar light (yes, the ancients knew that). Venus is female, so there’s your woman clothed with the sun. Below Venus, you can see the Moon; unfortunately my software does not show that, but that close to the Sun, the Moon is crescent in shape, with its ends pointing upwards. So there’s your woman with the moon under her feet. Now above Venus, you have Pleiades cluster (marked with the blue rectangle). There’s her crown of stars. Pleiades are composed of 7 stars, not 12, but both 7 and 12 have similar magic significance, so I think someone just got confused when copying the text. Do you now understand where this came from?

http://divinemercyimages.com/wp-content/images/immcrest_select1.jpg

Also, Venus is in constellation Aries – the lamb. And just below Aries is Pisces – the fish.

Below Venus, just above the horizon you can see Mercury – messenger of the gods; the herald angel.

Where’s the dragon then? To the right, sitting just above the Northern horizon, you have the constellation Draco, the dragon:



A similar alignment (arguably even better) could be seen in March 2012 – Pleiades, Venus and Moon were forming a straight line:

 

[openmind77]

According to the account in Matthew, the star “was going before them,” and “stopped at the place where the child was.” Comets of course traverse the sky, and supernovas and conjunctions do appear to move - thanks to the earth’s motion. But that a lighted object high in the sky could give someone to a precise location just doesn’t compute. (In any case, the gospel says that the guiding star “stopped at the place where the child was.” The magi needed no help to find the village of Jesus’ birth, since the men in Jerusalem already mentioned that it was in Bethlehem; they needed help only to determine which child in Bethlehem was the one they were seeking.) St. John Chrysostom I think had the right observation when he said:

For if you can learn what the star was, and of what kind, and whether it were one of the common stars, or new and unlike the rest, and whether it was a star by nature or a star in appearance only, we shall easily know the other things also. Whence then will these points be manifest? From the very things that are written. Thus, that this star was not of the common sort, or rather not a star at all, as it seems at least to me, but some invisible power transformed into this appearance, is in the first place evident from its very course. For there is not, there is not any star that moves by this way, but whether it be the sun you mention, or the moon, or all the other stars, we see them going from east to west; but this was wafted from north to south; for so is Palestine situated with respect to Persia.

…]

In the third place, from its appearing, and hiding itself again. For on their way as far as Palestine it appeared leading them, but after they set foot within Jerusalem, it hid itself: then again, when they had left Herod, having told him on what account they came, and were on the point of departing, it shows itself; all which is not like the motion of a star, but of some power highly endued with reason. For it had not even any course at all of its own, but when they were to move, it moved; when to stand, it stood, dispensing all as need required: in the same kind of way as the pillar of the cloud, now halting and now rousing up the camp of the Jews, when it was needful.

In the fourth place, one may perceive this clearly, from its mode of pointing Him out. For it did not, remaining on high, point out the place; it not being possible for them so to ascertain it, but it came down and performed this office. For you know that a spot of so small dimensions, being only as much as a shed would occupy, or rather as much as the body of a little infant would take up, could not possibly be marked out by a star. For by reason of its immense height, it could not sufficiently distinguish so confined a spot, and discover it to them that were desiring to see it. … How then, tell me, did the star point out a spot so confined, just the space of a manger and shed, unless it left that height and came down, and stood over the very head of the young child? And at this the evangelist was hinting when he said, “Lo, the star went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.”

In fact, the ancient tradition John Chrysostom was describing here (first attested in the Protoevangelium of James - as always - and repeated by other Fathers and writers such as St. Irenaeus, Origen, St. Ephrem, and Theophylact, even down to the days of John Calvin!) has the ‘star’ actually leaving the heavens and coming down to earth to lead the Magi to a particular house, perhaps even to the infant Jesus Himself. In other words, they thought that the ‘star’ was more like Tinker Bell in the Peter Pan stories than any natural celestial phenomenon known to astronomy.

The star descended from the heights and came closer to the earth to show the place to them [the magi]. For if it had appeared to them in the heights, how would they have been able to perceive the particular spot where Christ was? For the stars are visible over a great area. You may accordingly behold the moon over your house while it appears to me that it is over my house only. In short, the moon or a star appears to one and all to stand over them alone. So this star could not have indicated where Christ was unless it descended and stood over the head of the child. (Theophylact, Commentary on Matthew 2.9)

And at His birth the star appeared to the Magi who dwelt in the east; and thereby they learned that Christ was born; and they came to Judaea, led by the star; until the star came to Bethlehem where Christ was born, and entered the house wherein was laid the child, wrapped in swaddling-clothes; and it stood over His head, declaring to the Magi the Son of God, the Christ. (Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 58)

[The star] came down to the very place where the infant was [and it remained] on the Christ [just as, when he later submitted to John’s baptism, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descended] and remained on him. (Origen, Homily on Numbers 18.3 [4])

This may be hard to believe and even harder to prove, but it is my understanding that the Star of Bethlehem was a UFO - a spaceship piloted by aliens from outer space. So it was able to guide the Magi to a specific house while hiding itself when necessary. Although it may have looked like a star to them, it was not a real star or a comet but not quite supernatural either.

 

[patrick457]

This may be hard to believe and even harder to prove, but it is my understanding that the Star of Bethlehem was a UFO - a spaceship piloted by aliens from outer space. So it was able to guide the Magi to a specific house while hiding itself when necessary. Although it may have looked like a star to them, it was not a real star or a comet but not quite supernatural either.

That’s where I was getting at. Why doesn’t it have to be supernatural?

 

[openmind77]

That’s where I was getting at. Why doesn’t it have to be supernatural?

Because nothing is actually supernatural. What seems supernatural is just something we don’t understand.

 

[patrick457]

Because nothing is actually supernatural. What seems supernatural is just something we don’t understand.

Well, how exactly do you define ‘supernatural’? (I’m not asking for dictionary definitions - more your personal idea of what the word means.)

 

[openmind77]

Well, how exactly do you define ‘supernatural’? (I’m not asking for dictionary definitions - more your personal idea of what the word means.)

Any phenomenon that violates the laws of nature (laws of physics, chemistry etc)