Star in East/Wise Men

  • Thread starter Thread starter katholikos12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

katholikos12

Guest
So the wise men who came to worship Jesus said they saw his star in the east.

Is there an OT prophecy or something indicating that a star would indicate the coming of Christ? What do we know about this? I know that some have conjectured that it was a star in supernova but that’s it.

Also the scriptures tell us that it went before them and came to rest over where the child was. Was this an angel?
 
I have seen three different theories on this (two by astronomers) and all three think it was the planet Jupiter, possibly in conjunction with the star Regulus, creating what would like one of the brightest stars seen in the night sky. For one theory go to: www.bethlehemstar.net and click on ‘project overview’ for a detailed description of the project. There is also a dvd that is very good.
 
katholikos12 said:
So the wise men who came to worship Jesus said they saw his star in the east.

Is there an OT prophecy or something indicating that a star would indicate the coming of Christ? What do we know about this? I know that some have conjectured that it was a star in supernova but that’s it.

Also the scriptures tell us that it went before them and came to rest over where the child was. Was this an angel?
Click to expand...
Actually there was an OT prophecy about the star: “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab, the skulls of all the sons of Sheth.” – This was Numbers 24:17.
 
Isaiah speaks of the Messiah after His coming was revealed to him by God 700 years before Christ’s birth. God said a light would lead them, they’d bring Him gold, franckensense and myhrr, and would be on Dromedaries which are one humped camels.He was also told the angels would announce His coming. God also stated that the *** and ox would know Him but His people (Israel) would not.
 
I have always pondered why if we believe in the virgin birth, the fully god/man Christ, the angels appearing in the sky… we have to figure out a totally natural/non miraculous non supernatural explanation for the star. Sure the star was some sort of angelic/miraculous manifestation.

I am an avid astronomer. Many nights I stare up in the sky and look at Jupiter. I’ll be blessed if I could follow that thing anywhere much less to a single house/manger in a town in Judea. You just can’t do that.

I also have it on the authority of Deacon Greg that this is what the Angel Really told the shepherds. patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/01/what-the-angel-really-told-the-shepherds/ 🙂
 
Here is an article which claims the Star of Bethlehem was not a real star.
Thus, we might be surprised to realize that the overwhelming consensus of the Catholic tradition – from the Church Fathers, through the Scholastic Doctors (including St. Thomas Aquinas), and up to the great theologians of the counter-reformation period – maintains that the star of Bethlehem was not a real star.
Click to expand...
 
bitznbitez said:
I have always pondered why if we believe in the virgin birth, the fully god/man Christ, the angels appearing in the sky… we have to figure out a totally natural/non miraculous non supernatural explanation for the star. Sure the star was some sort of angelic/miraculous manifestation.

I am an avid astronomer. Many nights I stare up in the sky and look at Jupiter. I’ll be blessed if I could follow that thing anywhere much less to a single house/manger in a town in Judea. You just can’t do that.
t
I also have it on the authority of Deacon Greg that this is what the Angel Really told the shepherds. patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/01/what-the-angel-really-told-the-shepherds/ 🙂
Click to expand...
It didn’t lead them direct to Bethlehem. They got as far as Jerusalem, where they made the mistake of asking Herod.

If star navigation works on the high seas, it will work to lead you on land, although not with door tO door precision.

ICXC NIKA
 
There have been other suggestions, including a Nova. From scripture, one appearance directed the magi eastwards to Jerusalem, then south to Bethlehem, which would be consistent with the perceived position of the Nova recorded in that era in Chinese and Korean astronomical almanacs.

The problem with an actual star is that, unless it is Polaris, it will appear to move in the night sky as the earth rotates. It could be used for a bearing in the early hours of night, and then a sextant or compass used (if they had those then) . I think it would be a supernatural event such as an angel.
 
katholikos12 said:
So the wise men who came to worship Jesus said they saw his star in the east.

Is there an OT prophecy or something indicating that a star would indicate the coming of Christ? What do we know about this? I know that some have conjectured that it was a star in supernova but that’s it.

Also the scriptures tell us that it went before them and came to rest over where the child was. Was this an angel?
Click to expand...
The wise men found Him didn’t they?
God made many Stars what kind or type He uses did help many find the manger.

Merry Christmas
God bless
 
bitznbitez said:
I have always pondered why if we believe in the virgin birth, the fully god/man Christ, the angels appearing in the sky… we have to figure out a totally natural/non miraculous non supernatural explanation for the star. Sure the star was some sort of angelic/miraculous manifestation.

I am an avid astronomer. Many nights I stare up in the sky and look at Jupiter. I’ll be blessed if I could follow that thing anywhere much less to a single house/manger in a town in Judea. You just can’t do that.

I also have it on the authority of Deacon Greg that this is what the Angel Really told the shepherds. patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/01/what-the-angel-really-told-the-shepherds/ 🙂
Click to expand...
There is no need to find a way to explain these things the way you think we should. God created all that you see and intended all that happened to happen. The cosmos is His clock. Read the book of Job. Lord be with you.
 
dyet13 said:
There is no need to find a way to explain these things the way you think we should. God created all that you see and intended all that happened to happen. The cosmos is His clock. Read the book of Job. Lord be with you.
Click to expand...
It’s not a matter of necessity to know this, it’s simply interesting to conjecture and think about. Knowing stuff about the Bible is cool!

Also from an apologetics stand point it never hurts to understand the reasons behind why we believe something.

Go read about why you believe what you profess to be truth.
 
I own The Star of Bethlehem on DVD and I watch it often. Rick Larsen is the presenter who did all the research to support his theory that the birth of Christ was communicated in the night sky. He makes a very compelling case for his theories.

One question I have concerns Larsen’s statement that the Magi actually viewed the Child Jesus when Jesus was already a toddler. Larsen asserts that the Three Kings did not view Jesus in the manger like we see represented in all Nativity decorations during Christmas. Larsen says that the first Christmas was not the day that Jesus was born, but, rather, the first Christmas was the day that the Magi met Jesus, who was already a toddler, and presented Him with their gifts.

Larsen also says that Jesus was probably born 3- or 4-years earlier than we think in what we now label as 3 or 4 B.C.

Is this the way that Catholics understand the meaning of Christmas and the visit of the Magi?
 
Jersey_Jeepster said:
I own The Star of Bethlehem on DVD and I watch it often. Rick Larsen is the presenter who did all the research to support his theory that the birth of Christ was communicated in the night sky. He makes a very compelling case for his theories.

One question I have concerns Larsen’s statement that the Magi actually viewed the Child Jesus when Jesus was already a toddler. Larsen asserts that the Three Kings did not view Jesus in the manger like we see represented in all Nativity decorations during Christmas. Larsen says that the first Christmas was not the day that Jesus was born, but, rather, the first Christmas was the day that the Magi met Jesus, who was already a toddler, and presented Him with their gifts.

Larsen also says that Jesus was probably born 3- or 4-years earlier than we think in what we now label as 3 or 4 B.C.

Is this the way that Catholics understand the meaning of Christmas and the visit of the Magi?
Click to expand...
The traditional belief was that the Magi visited him when he was still an infant, but that doesn’t have to be true just because it was a general assumption. Modern scholarship like Mr. Larsen’s appears to me to have a better basis.
 
dmar198 said:
The traditional belief was that the Magi visited him when he was still an infant, but that doesn’t have to be true just because it was a general assumption. Modern scholarship like Mr. Larsen’s appears to me to have a better basis.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response, dmar198. I agree with you that we can learn from modern scholarship, but we must be careful to apply stringent critical analysis to modern theories for fear of being fooled by certain dark forces that want to rebuke the tenets of Christianity, especially Catholicism.

Do you know if the story of the Magi’s visitation is based on “assumption,” as you say, or if it is based on Inspired writings?
 
Jersey_Jeepster said:
Thank you for your response, dmar198. I agree with you that we can learn from modern scholarship, but we must be careful to apply stringent critical analysis to modern theories for fear of being fooled by certain dark forces that want to rebuke the tenets of Christianity, especially Catholicism.
Click to expand...
That is well-said. My point about Mr. Larsen was that he is particularly faithful to the literal divine inspiration of Scripture, and so his points on the subject are very helpful in showing the Sacred Books to be true.
Do you know if the story of the Magi’s visitation is based on “assumption,” as you say, or if it is based on Inspired writings?
Click to expand...
I was about to write that it seems to be an early assumption because no one argues to it, they just accept it; and then I was going to follow up with my point that Mr. Larsen’s deductions about the astronomical appearances fit nicely with Christ being a toddler rather than an infant. But then I re-read the text in Matthew and I see several reasons to agree rather with the early writers that Christ was in fact an infant. For one, because Herod sent the Magi to Bethlehem to see the child, and Joseph and Mary did not live in Bethlehem but in Nazareth, so we should not expect them to have stayed there for several years after Christ’s birth. But what is more telling to me is that when Herod found that he had been deceived, he had all the children two and under that were in Bethlehem killed. Now if Christ was four years old, that would seem to be a waste of time and life and public respect. So it seems that Christ was an infant at that time, as only infants were killed. Therefore I thank you for inspiring me to re-read the text in this light, and thus gain a better understanding.
 
Again, the Magi was prophezied by Isaiah as told to him by God. Now we have THE STAR of BETHLEHEM video which brings up the skies as they were on the night of Christ’s birth. And there is the star which, I believe, is said to be Jupiter and Venus eclipsed…Juipter representing God and Venus the Virgin Mary in the contellation representing Israel.

If you are checking out that video, check out the other one which shows the skies the day Christ died.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top