The Star of Bethlehem (A Documentary/website)

[runningdude]

bethlehemstar.net/dance/dance.htm

I saw the documentary version of this today with a youth group that I started helping at - yowsers! In it, he tracks down the prophecies in Isiah, Micah, etc, and using information from the Gospels, to reverse engineer what he contents to be the exact date of the first Christmas (December 25, 2 BC)**!

He uses modern astronomical software to retrace the stars, and concludes that, on this date, and the month prier, the Maji would have been able to track the motions of Jupiter to determine the time that the Prophets predicted that the our Lord would be among us! Its a powerful and convincing story, and I’m confident enough to say that it is probably true!

**Note, the date the Magi visited at least, not necessarily His birth

 

[steve53]

Naw. The Star of Bethlehem was probably Halley’s Comet. It appeared in 12 BC, Jesus’ probably birth date. (source Hagan “Passover”)

 

[CalCatholic]

I bought the CD from the web site, it is very good, and this is a good time of the year to show it to a Bible study or RCIA class.

 

[Vince1022]

Naw. The Star of Bethlehem was probably Halley’s Comet. It appeared in 12 BC, Jesus’ probably birth date. (source Hagan “Passover”)

I’ve never read anything suggesting that date. The scholars I am familiar with suggest 4-6 B.C., given the history of the calendar and Herod the Great’s reign.

I think Hagan’s opinion is a minority one (for what it’s worth).

 

[runningdude]

Naw. The Star of Bethlehem was probably Halley’s Comet. It appeared in 12 BC, Jesus’ probably birth date. (source Hagan “Passover”)

The DVD discussed this possibility. The biggest problem with it was that comets were seen as an ancient symbol of doom - not exactly what the savior of man kind was going after .

To each his own on this one. The teaching about the star presented on the DVD is certainly not dogmatic (binding) by Catholic standards, but I am at least convinced enough that his theory is sound. Watch it for yourself if you ever get the chance

 

[runningdude]

I’ve never read anything suggesting that date. The scholars I am familiar with suggest 4-6 B.C., given the history of the calendar and Herod the Great’s reign.

I think Hagan’s opinion is a minority one (for what it’s worth).

The exact date of Christ’s death is fairly easy to calculate if you make the assumption that the bible’s description of a “preparation day” (Friday), during Passover of a certain Jewish month describes the correct date (as to one chosen out of pius tradition by the Gospel writers).

The date, based on this assumption, then is April 3 of 33 AD. April 7 of 30 AD also technically works, though based on history provided in the narrative, and the presence of an eclipse, Rick Larson prefers the former. Thus if Christ were “about 33” at the time of his death, he was born in about the year 0 AD! (even if the 30 AD were correct, that makes 4BC approximately accurate)

The website’s logic is very clean. It just follows the words of Isiah and Micah, and shows how the Maji from the East might have predicted the arrival of the Messiah using these prophecies and careful observation of the stars.

bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm

 

[JM3]

The date, based on this assumption, then is April 3 of 33 AD. April 7 of 30 AD also technically works, though based on history provided in the narrative, and the presence of an eclipse, Rick Larson prefers the former. Thus if Christ were “about 33” at the time of his death, he was born in about the year 0 AD! (even if the 30 AD were correct, that makes 4BC approximately accurate)

There is no year 0 AD.

 

[Evan]

The date, based on this assumption, then is April 3 of 33 AD. April 7 of 30 AD also technically works, though based on history provided in the narrative, and the presence of an eclipse, Rick Larson prefers the former. Thus if Christ were “about 33” at the time of his death, he was born in about the year 0 AD! (even if the 30 AD were correct, that makes 4BC approximately accurate)

Sorry, there was no eclipse either. The crucifixion took place during a full moon (so no solar eclipse) and ‘darkness covered the earth’ would make no sense for a lunar eclipse.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

The Star is an awesome presentation! Highly recommended and goes waaaaay beyond just “the Star”.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

The exact date of Christ’s death is fairly easy to calculate if you make the assumption that the bible’s description of a “preparation day” (Friday), during Passover of a certain Jewish month describes the correct date (as to one chosen out of pius tradition by the Gospel writers).

The date, based on this assumption, then is April 3 of 33 AD. April 7 of 30 AD also technically works, though based on history provided in the narrative, and the presence of an eclipse, Rick Larson prefers the former. Thus if Christ were “about 33” at the time of his death, he was born in about the year 0 AD! (even if the 30 AD were correct, that makes 4BC approximately accurate)

The website’s logic is very clean. It just follows the words of Isiah and Micah, and shows how the Maji from the East might have predicted the arrival of the Messiah using these prophecies and careful observation of the stars.

bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm

Larson concluded on a birth year of 2BC based on the triple conjunction of Regulus with Jupiter (extremely rare) and extremely close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter (never been seen before by man). So he concludes the “star” is the latter conjunction because it would have been the brightest object in the sky that man had ever seen.

Very interesting and his research is quite good.

 

[redrosetea]

I am having a St Nicholas party for my scripture class…I will be showing this video

I saw Our L:Lady of Guadalupe in the sky, as plain as day

 

[steve53]

Larson concluded on a birth year of 2BC based on the triple conjunction of Regulus with Jupiter (extremely rare) and extremely close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter (never been seen before by man). So he concludes the “star” is the latter conjunction because it would have been the brightest object in the sky that man had ever seen.

Very interesting and his research is quite good.

Hard to believe that any conjuncture of planets would outshine Halley’s comet. There have been reports of supernovas that would certainly be brighter than any conjuncture as well.

BTW, how do you explain in the Gospel of John, in the months before his crucifixion, Jesus was criticized by Temple priests for preaching with authority thought Jesus was “not yet fifty”?

 

[NHInsider]

Hard to believe that any conjuncture of planets would outshine Halley’s comet. There have been reports of supernovas that would certainly be brighter than any conjuncture as well.

I don’t recall that the assertion was that the conjuncture would have been brighter, only that it would have been interpreted by astrologers as the Magi reported.

BTW, how do you explain in the Gospel of John, in the months before his crucifixion, Jesus was criticized by Temple priests for preaching with authority thought Jesus was “not yet fifty”?

Pretty sure they were not challenging him for being too young to teach with authority. On its face the remark is a challenge to his statement that Abraham rejoiced to see the Incarnation.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Hard to believe that any conjuncture of planets would outshine Halley’s comet. There have been reports of supernovas that would certainly be brighter than any conjuncture as well.

It’s not just about “outshining”, the Star has to behave as it does in the Biblical account to qualify. If you watch the video you’ll see how a comet doesn’t qualify and how a conjunction of planets does. It has to do with how they move in the sky (retrograde motion).

BTW, how do you explain in the Gospel of John, in the months before his crucifixion, Jesus was criticized by Temple priests for preaching with authority thought Jesus was “not yet fifty”?

I’m not sure what that has to do with anything? If Jesus was born in 2BC and crucified in 33AD, that would make him “not yet fifty”.

 

[Vince1022]

The exact date of Christ’s death is fairly easy to calculate if you make the assumption that the bible’s description of a “preparation day” (Friday), during Passover of a certain Jewish month describes the correct date (as to one chosen out of pius tradition by the Gospel writers).

The date, based on this assumption, then is April 3 of 33 AD. April 7 of 30 AD also technically works, though based on history provided in the narrative, and the presence of an eclipse, Rick Larson prefers the former. Thus if Christ were “about 33” at the time of his death, he was born in about the year 0 AD! (even if the 30 AD were correct, that makes 4BC approximately accurate)

The website’s logic is very clean. It just follows the words of Isiah and Micah, and shows how the Maji from the East might have predicted the arrival of the Messiah using these prophecies and careful observation of the stars.

bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm

I was asking about the date of birth, not death, and nowhere does the Bible say Jesus was “about 33” does it? What source(s) are you referring to in order to suggest Jesus was about 33 when he died?

The discrepancy in the year of Jesus’ birth has nothing to do with when he died.

Rather, it was an error (many think) in the revision of the calendar done by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century.

 

[steve53]

NH and Vince! Old friends! Promise I won’t mention Hagan…

To quote faithful:
" Larson concluded on a birth year of 2BC based on the triple conjunction of Regulus with Jupiter (extremely rare) and extremely close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter (never been seen before by man). So he concludes the “star” is the latter conjunction because it would have been the brightest object in the sky that man had ever seen. "

Brightest object in the sky that man has ever seen? I stand by my assertion that Halley’s comet or a supernova would far outshine anything seen in the night sky- including a full moon. Heck, Halley’s comet could be seen during the day, it has been reported.

But I agree that it would take an incredibly bright object to motivate not just one, but three wise men to leave their homes to seek out a new born king. Especially so if they came from Babylon or some other eastern city well out of Herod the Great’s territory. Frankly, I don’t think any conjuncture of planets would do it.

People underestimate the sophistication of those times. The wealthy had a life of ease where they could sit around contemplate life and their world. Along the equator, the night sky lasted a full twelve hours. There was also a minimum amount of light pollution, so the stars and planets were brilliant and easily seen. Even Jupiter. Astrology was a huge part of the Jewish religion, and other middle eastern religions. They tracked the objects in the night sky with great fervor and intensity- as they were thought to be windows into heaven.

To take it a step further, glass-blowing was well known in those times. I would submit that the refraction of light through a curved piece of glass, with the distortion of objects seen through it, was a well-known phenomenon. IMO, it would have quickly been applied to the observation of the night sky and so magnify the stars and better chart their course.

So the “wise” men knew all about those objects that traveled independent of the stars- which we know today as planets. And they charted their movements meticulously. In all probability, they knew in advance there was going to be a conjuncture of certain “stars” by simply projecting their paths. So, yes, maybe four planets- or whatever- lining up was unusual, but it WAS predictable. And, again, would that “event” make three wealthy and powerful priests pack up, buy expensive gifts, and travel maybe hundreds of miles to ask Herod the Great if he had a new son?! I don’t think so.

But a brilliant celestial event like Halley’s comet would. Unquestionably.

And they say that with each go-round every 76 years, the comet loses 8 percent of it’s brilliance. Two thousand years ago, it must have been stunning! Certainly something to motivate the wise men to seek out a king!

As for the Gospel of John, the Temple priests might have admonished that Jesus was “not yet fifty” simply because he was close to fifty, but not quite there. Jesus might have been 47 or 48. If Jesus was 33, why didn’t they say “not yet forty”?

And if Jesus was in his late forties at the time of his crucifixion, his birth year would fit in roughly with the passage of Halley’s comet around 12 BC.

Source: my favorite contemporary historian who shall be nameless!

Sorry. I have not seen the DVD. I will wait for it to be on cable television.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

NH and Vince! Old friends! Promise I won’t mention Hagan…

To quote faithful:
" Larson concluded on a birth year of 2BC based on the triple conjunction of Regulus with Jupiter (extremely rare) and extremely close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter (never been seen before by man). So he concludes the “star” is the latter conjunction because it would have been the brightest object in the sky that man had ever seen. "

Brightest object in the sky that man has ever seen? I stand by my assertion that Halley’s comet or a supernova would far outshine anything seen in the night sky- including a full moon. Heck, Halley’s comet could be seen during the day, it has been reported.

But I agree that it would take an incredibly bright object to motivate not just one, but three wise men to leave their homes to seek out a new born king. Especially so if they came from Babylon or some other eastern city well out of Herod the Great’s territory. Frankly, I don’t think any conjuncture of planets would do it.

People underestimate the sophistication of those times. The wealthy had a life of ease where they could sit around contemplate life and their world. Along the equator, the night sky lasted a full twelve hours. There was also a minimum amount of light pollution, so the stars and planets were brilliant and easily seen. Even Jupiter. Astrology was a huge part of the Jewish religion, and other middle eastern religions. They tracked the objects in the night sky with great fervor and intensity- as they were thought to be windows into heaven.

To take it a step further, glass-blowing was well known in those times. I would submit that the refraction of light through a curved piece of glass, with the distortion of objects seen through it, was a well-known phenomenon. IMO, it would have quickly been applied to the observation of the night sky and so magnify the stars and better chart their course.

So the “wise” men knew all about those objects that traveled independent of the stars- which we know today as planets. And they charted their movements meticulously. In all probability, they knew in advance there was going to be a conjuncture of certain “stars” by simply projecting their paths. So, yes, maybe four planets- or whatever- lining up was unusual, but it WAS predictable. And, again, would that “event” make three wealthy and powerful priests pack up, buy expensive gifts, and travel maybe hundreds of miles to ask Herod the Great if he had a new son?! I don’t think so.

But a brilliant celestial event like Halley’s comet would. Unquestionably.

And they say that with each go-round every 76 years, the comet loses 8 percent of it’s brilliance. Two thousand years ago, it must have been stunning! Certainly something to motivate the wise men to seek out a king!

As for the Gospel of John, the Temple priests might have admonished that Jesus was “not yet fifty” simply because he was close to fifty, but not quite there. Jesus might have been 47 or 48. If Jesus was 33, why didn’t they say “not yet forty”?

And if Jesus was in his late forties at the time of his crucifixion, his birth year would fit in roughly with the passage of Halley’s comet around 12 BC.

Source: my favorite contemporary historian who shall be nameless!

Sorry. I have not seen the DVD. I will wait for it to be on cable television.

Hi Steve,

Larson goes into why a comet is not likely to be the Star. Brightness isn’t the only means of identification. There are 9 (if I recall) Biblical points which a candidate for the star has to match. I haven’t watched the DVD in almost a year so I can’t remember all of them. But a comet really only matches one and that’s brightness. One of the key ones that eliminates a comet is that the event that triggered the magi to ride had to be inconspicuous because they had to explain it to Herod when they arrived. Surely Herod would have known if it was a comet overhead.

I’ll be watching it again this week in prep to show it for my study group so I can report back with more specifics after my memory has been refreshed.

 

[Vince1022]

NH and Vince! Old friends! Promise I won’t mention Hagan…

To quote faithful:
" Larson concluded on a birth year of 2BC based on the triple conjunction of Regulus with Jupiter (extremely rare) and extremely close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter (never been seen before by man). So he concludes the “star” is the latter conjunction because it would have been the brightest object in the sky that man had ever seen. "

Brightest object in the sky that man has ever seen? I stand by my assertion that Halley’s comet or a supernova would far outshine anything seen in the night sky- including a full moon. Heck, Halley’s comet could be seen during the day, it has been reported.

But I agree that it would take an incredibly bright object to motivate not just one, but three wise men to leave their homes to seek out a new born king. Especially so if they came from Babylon or some other eastern city well out of Herod the Great’s territory. Frankly, I don’t think any conjuncture of planets would do it.

People underestimate the sophistication of those times. The wealthy had a life of ease where they could sit around contemplate life and their world. Along the equator, the night sky lasted a full twelve hours. There was also a minimum amount of light pollution, so the stars and planets were brilliant and easily seen. Even Jupiter. Astrology was a huge part of the Jewish religion, and other middle eastern religions. They tracked the objects in the night sky with great fervor and intensity- as they were thought to be windows into heaven.

To take it a step further, glass-blowing was well known in those times. I would submit that the refraction of light through a curved piece of glass, with the distortion of objects seen through it, was a well-known phenomenon. IMO, it would have quickly been applied to the observation of the night sky and so magnify the stars and better chart their course.

So the “wise” men knew all about those objects that traveled independent of the stars- which we know today as planets. And they charted their movements meticulously. In all probability, they knew in advance there was going to be a conjuncture of certain “stars” by simply projecting their paths. So, yes, maybe four planets- or whatever- lining up was unusual, but it WAS predictable. And, again, would that “event” make three wealthy and powerful priests pack up, buy expensive gifts, and travel maybe hundreds of miles to ask Herod the Great if he had a new son?! I don’t think so.

But a brilliant celestial event like Halley’s comet would. Unquestionably.

And they say that with each go-round every 76 years, the comet loses 8 percent of it’s brilliance. Two thousand years ago, it must have been stunning! Certainly something to motivate the wise men to seek out a king!

As for the Gospel of John, the Temple priests might have admonished that Jesus was “not yet fifty” simply because he was close to fifty, but not quite there. Jesus might have been 47 or 48. If Jesus was 33, why didn’t they say “not yet forty”?

And if Jesus was in his late forties at the time of his crucifixion, his birth year would fit in roughly with the passage of Halley’s comet around 12 BC.

Source: my favorite contemporary historian who shall be nameless!

Sorry. I have not seen the DVD. I will wait for it to be on cable television.

The literal understanding of the “star” is debatable. Catholics are free to believe it’s a literal account or not. Speculation on what exact celestial event may have been referred to is just that…speculation.

I’ve never come across anyone who claimed Jesus was 40 or more years old. Any reference for that?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The literal understanding of the “star” is debatable. Catholics are free to believe it’s a literal account or not. Speculation on what exact celestial event may have been referred to is just that…speculation.

I’ve never come across anyone who claimed Jesus was 40 or more years old. Any reference for that?

Saint Irenaeus in Against Heresies. Patristic scholars generally acknowledge that he is stretching the truth in order to fit his thesis about recapitulation. I think he’s the only one that has really said this. Apologist Mark Bonocore has an interesting explanation for Irenaeus’ words, but it honestly seems a bit strained. It seems more likely that Irenaeus played loose with the facts to make a theological point.

 

[steve53]

Vince

"I’ve never come across anyone who claimed Jesus was 40 or more years old. Any reference for that? "

Modern reference? You’ll know what I’ll say.

But isn’t the inference in the Gospel of John enough of starting point to make it a reasonable if not valid assumption? John was written by an eyewitness, who might have heard the exchange personally. And John says nothing about Jesus’ birth.

Luke, of course, was written by a late convert who wrote his Gospel based on second and third hand accounts (or later).

The only way out of the gospel of John conundrum is to assume that the “fifty” was in error, or that the age a fifty was some sort of hallmark year in the life of a Rabbi, which made him more believable or maybe he automatically attained a higher station. So saying the 33 year old Jesus was “not yet fifty” would make more sense.
This is not totally out of the question, as the Pentecost was 50 days after the Passover. The Jews placed great significance the number seven, and fifty is one day after the passage of seven weeks.