Does God Need Science? The Star Of Bethlehem

[CatholicExamin]

There has been many commentaries regarding the Star Of Bethlehem. So folks are using science to determine what the magi saw in the night sky over Bethlehem. People have used the December 25th date to argue against the Church and Christianity

I wrote an article on this and gave my opinion about it. I suggested God does not need science to prove himself.

How would you respond to the idea of proving God with Science and the assumption that the Church is somehow wrong for celebrating the nativity in December?

Thanks,

Brother Joe

 

[Bassman60]

My first thought is that God created science! God also created our ability to understand in a logical and scientific manner. I have an amateur interest in physics and if there is a Discovery show about physics then I will watch without hesitation. I have been blessed with a logical mind, we all have our gifts and that is one of mine, by the grace of God.

But as far as proving God’s existence through logic or science goes, I have little interest. For me, religion is about faith. Through logic we know that the universe, as we know it, had a beginning, i.e. the Big Bang. But that does not tell us what caused the Big Bang, we can infer that it was an intelligent being. But this says nothing about The Bible, Jesus, etc. For me, this is a matter of faith and I like it that way.

As far as the whole December 25th thing goes, we have no exact date and I suppose the church decided on this date to coincide with the birth of the pagan sun god. Okay, big deal, the church leaders chose a date that would be easy for converts to understand. Does this make Jesus’ message any less important? It doesn’t to me.

 

[Jesus_123]

• Three times or so this past week Mother Angelica’s . . . wonderful . . . Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) . . . broadcast a marvelous and fascinating show on the science of astronomy . . . the Biblical wise men’s journey to find our **Lord and King **. . . the promised Messiah . . . and the marvels of the heavenly . . . **“Star of Bethlehem” **. . . correlating them with Sacred :bible1: Scripture relating to same . . . and how in our age via the use of the . . . extraordinary . . . availability of highly sophisticated computerized mathematical calculations . . . radical new discoveries are emerging in the marvelous disciplined science of astronomy . . .

The program dealt with astronomical activities in the ancient skies . . . and how they harmonized to perfection in regard to the . . . appearance . . . travels . . . and . . . stopping . . . of the . . . Holy Bethlehem Star . . . and forwarded an interesting scientific hypothesis regarding the activities of same.

The phenomenal astronomical science available now regarding our Wonderful Eternal God’s gorgeous beautifully and divinely designed starry skies is astonishing . . . . . . our family watched every showing of EWTN’s contribution to our new year’s festivities . . . ***fantastic stuff! ***. . . *worth every second . . . *

God doesn’t need science to “prove” Himself . . . He Is Science . . . His orderly beautifully created universe is built and runs on vast and intricate scientific principles/designs . . . about which humble little man is making new discoveries every day . . . Our lowly . . . *sooooo-limited *. . . finite minds have only scratched infinitesimal little portions of the surface of the infinite reaches of our Eternal Father God’s intelligent overall design . . . and designs . . . within designs . . . within designs . . . of created things . . . ***through the flowing river of time **. . . ad adfinitum . . . *

The Holy :bible1: Bible

Jesus
saith to him:
I am the WAY, and the TRUTH, and the LIFE.
No man cometh to the Father, but by me.
John 14:6

Christianity . . . as taught by our Holy Mother Church . . . is by no means a “religion” of human reason alone . . . rather it is a . . . relationship . . with . . . TRUTH . . . Who . . . is our . . . Crucified Resurrected Ascended Lord Jesus Christ Himself . . . God Incarnate . . .

At the beginning of Fides et ratio is recorded a blessing from our highly esteemed** Holy Father **. . . **the Vicar of Christ **. . . **Pope John Paul the Great **. . . which brings into focus . . . **human reason ** . . . and its significance in . . . participating with . . . God . . . in the salvific nature of the Holy Gift of Christian Faith . . .

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of TRUTH; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the TRUTH—in a word, to know HIMSELF—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).”
​

Continuing on in Fides et ratio, Chapter 1, Section #9 . . .

"…Based upon God’s testimony and enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace, FAITH is of an order other than philosophical knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone. Philosophy and the sciences function within the order of natural reason; **while FAITH, enlightened and guided by the Spirit, recognizes in the message of salvation the :bible1: “fullness of grace and truth” **(cf. Jn 1:14) which God has willed to reveal in history and definitively through his Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 5:9; Jn 5:31-32)."​

Link: vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/__P1.HTM

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord God our Creator+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[Murray1105]

According to a show I just watched a week or so ago there was some astrological event around the “time” of Jesus’ birth. I believe science can help explain how God chose to create and work in the universe. December 25th being chosen had nothing to do with christs actual day of birth. The christians of the first couple centuries didn’t really care about his birth. They focused on his resurection more than anything. The day was chosen however to be a symbol of the triumph of christ the true son of God over the pagan sun god. So science should not even come up when discussing the date we celebrate the incarnation.

 

[edwest2]

According to a show I just watched a week or so ago there was some astrological event around the “time” of Jesus’ birth. I believe science can help explain how God chose to create and work in the universe. December 25th being chosen had nothing to do with christs actual day of birth. The christians of the first couple centuries didn’t really care about his birth. They focused on his resurection more than anything. The day was chosen however to be a symbol of the triumph of christ the true son of God over the pagan sun god. So science should not even come up when discussing the date we celebrate the incarnation.

I don’t think science can explain God’s work. By its very method it excludes supernatural explanations and only allows for natural, i.e. observable events. I don’t understand how you can say the Christians of the first couple centuries did not care about His birth. Where does this idea come from?

Peace,
Ed

 

[NHInsider]

There has been many commentaries regarding the Star Of Bethlehem. So folks are using science to determine what the magi saw in the night sky over Bethlehem. People have used the December 25th date to argue against the Church and Christianity

I wrote an article on this and gave my opinion about it. I suggested God does not need science to prove himself.

How would you respond to the idea of proving God with Science and the assumption that the Church is somehow wrong for celebrating the nativity in December?

God needs nothing. But He chooses to reveal Himself “in diverse ways,” and if He embedded in the historical record some details that would not be discernable until centuries later, when a skeptical and science-worshiping people might find them, wouldn’t that be just like Him??

As to the date of Christmas, is there really anyone out there whose faith might be shaken by the notion that the 25th of December is not the precise day? And if there is, would they be unshaken by the observation that the date of Christmas is NOT a doctrine of the faith?

 

[JRKH]

According to a show I just watched a week or so ago there was some astrological event around the “time” of Jesus’ birth. I believe science can help explain how God chose to create and work in the universe. December 25th being chosen had nothing to do with christs actual day of birth. The christians of the first couple centuries didn’t really care about his birth. They focused on his resurection more than anything. The day was chosen however to be a symbol of the triumph of christ the true son of God over the pagan sun god. So science should not even come up when discussing the date we celebrate the incarnation.

For anyone interested, here is a bethlehemstar.net/**** to the site run by the man who gave the presentation on EWTN.
I saw it too and thought it was fastinating.

To the OP, Does God need science? Seems to be an odd question.
God can neither be proven or disproven with science. For one thing God is so great a concept, so great a being, so great a God that he cannot be contained, or fully understood with our purely human intellect. All we can hope to grasp is a glimpse of a shadow of his beauty and grandeur.

As to those who crab about celebrating Christmas on Dec 25th, I usually try to explain how they are misinformed about the issue. If they wish to argue the points I just let them go since it is not that important. If they wish to not celebrate Christmas that is their choice.

Peace
James

 

[PlipPlop]

We can’t really be sure when Jesus was born. It doesn’t truly matter, though, when we celebrate it. We celebrate it in December because so many pagan holidays are in December, so it was basically the Church saying “Hey! We’re fun too!”.

It really doesn’t matter when you celebrate the birth of Jesus. What matters is that you discard the pagan rituals which still make their way into the celebration - assuming, of course, that you call yourself a Christian.

As for science: science and religion aren’t enemies. Those who claim they are believe that science will disprove (or seem to disprove) a particular religion.

I say, if your beliefs are disproved, why hold them? I believe the Bible is divinely inspired. I also believe it has been tampered with extensively.

 

[Mad_Amos]

Let us not fall into the all-too-common errors of either personifying or institutionalizing science; such is nothing more than the methodology by which God-given human reason is employed to ponder the wonders of The Almighty’s creation.

As to the matter of December 25th in relation to Professor Larson’s erudite research, I must clarify that he does not state it to be the date of Christ’s birth but rather that of the Epiphany (i.e. the visitation of the Magi).

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

The star was not a real star.

 

[Ranp]

God needs nothing. But He chooses to reveal Himself “in diverse ways,” …

Indeed! God absolutely does not need science. As someone has already noted, God created man with the ability to develop science. Science is nothing more than (1) a set of structured methods for learning more about the world God created and (2) a body of knowledge of what has been learned through its methods. Science does not conflict with faith in God. Conflict is found only by those who either don’t have faith or don’t really understand science. I always like to note that the primalry sequence of events in the Book of Genesis is the same as those physics and biology. First there was nothing, then there was light, then the earth, the seas, the fish, the animals, and then man. What a coincidence! lol

This is one of my favorite quotes:

Holy Scripture by the manner of its language transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery.

• Pope St. Gregory the Great

 

[peary1]

There has been many commentaries regarding the Star Of Bethlehem. So folks are using science to determine what the magi saw in the night sky over Bethlehem. People have used the December 25th date to argue against the Church and Christianity

I wrote an article on this and gave my opinion about it. I suggested God does not need science to prove himself.

How would you respond to the idea of proving God with Science and the assumption that the Church is somehow wrong for celebrating the nativity in December?

Thanks,

Brother Joe

It was probably a comet. According to the Magi, they saw the star “in the East”. They had to travel West in order to get to Bethlehem UNLESS they were coming up from Egypt or down from Phoenicia. What is gathered from scripture is that they followed the star which resided (or appeared to reside or rest) over the town of Bethlehem where Jesus was born. They would have had to be traveling in an eastern direction.

I kind of base my own opinion on the three pyramids in Egypt. I think the Magi were Egyptians.

 

[edwest2]

One thing was left out. Men do science and science can be manipulated. As a tool of national policy, science can do both good and bad.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Jesus_123]

The star was not a real star.

A “star” can actually be more than one possible entity . . .

"Main Entry: star"

Pronunciation: \stär
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English sterre, from Old English steorra; akin to Old High German sterno star, Latin stella, Greek astēr, astron
Date: before 12th century

**1 a: **a natural luminous body visible in the sky especially at night b: a self-luminous gaseous spheroidal celestial body of great mass which produces energy by means of nuclear fusion reactions

2 a: a planet or a configuration of the planets

​

​

- Merriam Webster Dictionary​

**​

JRKH . . . thanks much for finding and sharing that link . . . I tried “.org” and “.com” . . .didn’t go for that third try for “.net” . . .

**:compcoff: Link: **bethlehemstar.net/ . . . super great site! . . .

. . . all for Jesus+​

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

An English dictionary is not useful for a 1st century Greek word, aster. ST John Chrysostom lived in the mid 4th century and he said it was not a real star since it move and the magi followed it, some have said the star was actually an angel