What to do with a discovery about the Adoration of the Magi?

[Vico]

Hi brown_bear !

brown_bear:

I saw the video, it seems very interesting to me, but I don’t have the knowledge to scientifically evaluate it.

Thank you very much for your kind answer, it goes straight to my heart
.

I have a question: if the star appears to the Magi on December 25, when Jesus is born, it should continue to shine for at least another 40 days, because the visit of the Magi is subsequent to the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, am I right?

The Gospel of Matthew tells us in detail only of the visit of the Magi.
This star is visible in the sky of Jerusalem between April 7 BC and January 6 BC. and the only possible date for this visit (The Adoration of the Three Wise Men) is December 25.
But yes, you are right, the star is visible in the sky every evening until about January 15th, and than it disappears.

• Does the range of dates you used exclude year zero (since 1 AD was preceded by 1 BC)?
• Also is the date based upon current Gregorian calculation projected backwards?
• Have you read the analysis of the scripture that the Holy Family was traveling to the census which was not held in Winter, and also that the scriptural description does not fit with cold weather?

 

[Marcel]

Hi Vico.
Thank you for these excellent questions

• Does the range of dates you used exclude year zero (since 1 AD was preceded by 1 BC)?

Absolutely. Year 0 does not exist. The astrophysical program I use is Starry Night Pro and it logically excludes the notion of year 0.

• Also is the date based upon current Gregorian calculation projected backwards?

As you will have noted, I mention it in my video - We are in year 7 BC so we are in the Julian calendar. The Gregorian calendar did not come into effect until 1582. I am also talking about the “small” differences in dates between the two calendars.
This December 25 is therefore that of the time of Jesus.
Tradition has kept this date until today (this is a personal note - but I think it turned out that way)

• Have you read the analysis of the scripture that the Holy Family was traveling to the census which was not held in Winter, and also that the scriptural description does not fit with cold weather?

Yes, this is the episode of the shepherds. Note that my work is based solely on the words of the Gospel of Matthew. However, he never speaks to us about shepherds, animals, or the stable. I invite you to reread Chapter II of his Gospel to convince yourself of this. On the other hand, he describes the circumstances in which the Magi follow the star to arrive in Bethlehem.

The episode of the shepherds can be found in the Gospel of Luke (and Mark) and gives us a very different version …I do not discuss the Gospel of Luke in this analysis.

 

[umamibella]

It is to avoid having to explain all these calculations that I made this software, precisely.
All calculations are based on astrophysical data from the “Starry Night Pro” program and are verifiable.
In fact, the demonstration works only if I respect exactly the data of the Star AND the words of the Gospel of Matthew. This is what is amazing and heartwarming at the same time.

Presumably your calculations and software have undergone peer review and found to be correct in the worlds of Astronomy and Maths? What then does NASA say? I dont think the Vatican would listen until the science has been found correct. There is also a science arm linked to the Vatican. Have they seen it? That is where I would begin any conversation. They have a really good observatory and lots of astronomers in its employ.

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico.
Thank you for these excellent questions

Vico:

• Does the range of dates you used exclude year zero (since 1 AD was preceded by 1 BC)?

Absolutely. Year 0 does not exist. The astrophysical program I use is Starry Night Pro and it logically excludes the notion of year 0.

• Also is the date based upon current Gregorian calculation projected backwards?

As you will have noted, I mention it in my video - We are in year 7 BC so we are in the Julian calendar. The Gregorian calendar did not come into effect until 1582. I am also talking about the “small” differences in dates between the two calendars.
This December 25 is therefore that of the time of Jesus.
Tradition has kept this date until today (this is a personal note - but I think it turned out that way)

• Have you read the analysis of the scripture that the Holy Family was traveling to the census which was not held in Winter, and also that the scriptural description does not fit with cold weather?

Yes, this is the episode of the shepherds. Note that my work is based solely on the words of the Gospel of Matthew. However, he never speaks to us about shepherds, animals, or the stable. I invite you to reread Chapter II of his Gospel to convince yourself of this. On the other hand, he describes the circumstances in which the Magi follow the star to arrive in Bethlehem.

The episode of the shepherds can be found in the Gospel of Luke (and Mark) and gives us a very different version …I do not discuss the Gospel of Luke in this analysis.

Thank you. Well, about the calendar, there was and error in the Julian leap year calculation for thirty-six years so that in 8 BC Augustus ordered correction by the omission of leap days for twelve years. This may account for the Winter solstice being on December 25.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

We are in year 7 BC so we are in the Julian calendar. The Gregorian calendar did not come into effect until 1582. I am also talking about the “small” differences in dates between the two calendars.

IIRC, there was a 10-day difference between the Julian calendar and the sun in 1582. Today there is a 13-day difference between the two calendars, so any calculations need to account for those differences.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

IIRC, the astronomers at Vatican Observatory were the ones who told Pope Gregory XIII that the calendar needed reforming, so he added 10 days to the calendar. That’s why it was named for him.

 

[Maximian]

I watched the video and first of all I congratulate you on developing some very handy simulators.

Secondly I don’t agree with those who think you have to explain what is well known to anyone who is interested. To take an example given above, anyone who is interested in this subject will certainly look up who Quirinius was. You can take that as given.

Where I see a problem is in your basic premise that the star was certainly a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. How do you know that? It was a suggestion of Kepler, I believe, who observed, as you do, that the conjunction occurred on 25th December over Bethlehem.

There are other possibilities: the star may have been a local phenomenon not now recorded elsewhere and not identifiable by modern astronomy. It may also have been a non-physical vision granted to the Magi.

 

[Montrose]

My French has long gone so if the thrust of your “discovery” is the date December 25 what difference does it make. It has no impact on our faith or salvation.
I also agree with the poster who says you should not be putting this around to Catholics without the explicit approval of the Church authorities. To ignore them is not an act of humility.

 

[brown_bear]

I dare to say that it is bread for the Vatican Observatory, whose current director is the American Guy Consolmagno:

I am attaching a simple Wikipedia page:

Vatican Observatory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[umamibella]

That was my first thought too. After some sort of peer scrutiny so as not to waste anyones time with the prelims.

 

[Maximian]

I find that unreasonable.

On this site we have many discussions about matters that are not essential to faith. We even have a section devoted to casual matters.

It is of great interest; like the Shroud, or Biblical archeology, even if it makes no difference to our salvation

 

[Montrose]

I find that unreasonable.

On this site we have many discussions about matters that are not essential to faith. We even have a section devoted to casual matters.

It is of great interest; like the Shroud, or Biblical archeology, even if it makes no difference to our salvation

I don’t find it unreasonable. Of course I am not able to read French but it sounds like he is trying make out his discovery is going to shatter what we believe.
Frankly, he should have been patient enough to get approval of Church authorities before circulating it among Catholics. This is probably what irks me more. Its as if he knows better than the Church and doesn’t need their approval.
Whether you find that unreasonable I don’t care. I am entitled to my opinion.

 

[Maximian]

it sounds like he is trying make out his discovery is going to shatter what we believe.

Where do you get that from? He says nothing of the kind

doesn’t need their approval.

Of course he doesn’t.

And you can’t have it both ways: if it makes no difference to our salvation you can’t insist he seeks Church approval.

 

[Montrose]

if it makes no difference to our salvation you can’t insist he seeks Church approval.

Yes I can. He should get Church approval. Pushing this around many people will think it is true or at least credible.
You have your opinion and I have mine.

 

[Maximian]

It’s perfectly credible.

Nowhere does he claim it’s true, only that it’s possible.

 

[Montrose]

It’s perfectly credible.

Nowhere does he claim it’s true, only that it’s possible.

As I said you have your opinion and I have mine. That doesn’t make me correct or you correct. That’s why it’s an opinion.

 

[BartholomewB]

@Marcel, I have started reading your paper, and I would like to ask you a few quick questions.

1. In the Introduction, as far as I can see, you do not give any information about the nature of your discovery. Is this correct?
2. In Chapter I, the main topics mentioned are the Higgs boson, a book called The Bible Code, and the novelist Dan Brown. Would it be true to say that none of these three topics has a direct connection with your discovery?
3. In Chapter II, the reader finds the name Bethlehem mentioned for the first time. He also finds, for the first time, some brief astronomical information. The rest of the chapter deals mainly with the question of the year 1 of the Christian era. Am I here giving an accurate description of Chapter II?
4. In Chapter III we see, for the first time, dates expressed as minus numbers, specifically —4 and —7. When astronomers give dates in this form, they are referring to the years that, in nonspecialist contexts, are conventionally referred to as 5 BC and 8 BC respectively. This is clearly explained on Fred Espenak’s Astropixels website:
   
   Historians should note that the astronomical dating system used in these tables includes the year “0” while the traditional BCE - CE dating convention does not. Thus, the year “0” here corresponds to “1 BCE”, the year “-100” is “101 BCE”, and so on. The old style Julian calendar is used for dates prior to 1582 Oct 15, while the modern Gregorian calendar is used after that date. For more information, see calendar dates.

Can you please confirm that the dates you mention in your paper are all expressed in strict conformity with the practice described here?

Thank you!

 

[Marcel]

Hi Margaret_Ann.

Here is an explanation for the “small” difference :
Here is an excerpt from the software "Starry Night Pro (planetology software) to show you that in reality there is only 3 (or 4) days of difference between these two calendars.

At the change of schedule we skipped 10 days. So of those 13 days there are actually only three left.
But you’re right, any serious analysis must take this into account, I agree with you.

“Starry Night uses the old Julian calendar
for all dates before Oct. 15, 1582, and the
Gregorian calendar for all dates more
recent than this. The dates Oct. 5-Oct. 14,
1582 do not exist in Starry Night, to
account for the ten days which were
skipped when the new calendar was
introduced.”

 

[Marcel]

Thank you VERY much “brown_bear” !

I didn’t know the Vatican had an observatory. This is wonderful news for me!
I hope I can get in touch with them as soon as possible.
Because it is for me the solution to obtain official recognition of my work.

Can I ask you a favor ?

I will write a text requesting contact with this observatory. However, English is not my mother tongue … Could you read me again and see if the wording of my request is in the correct form for this type of official process?

 

[Marcel]

A message to all participants.

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your welcome and for your comments.

I introduced myself to you by asking you the following question “what to do with this discovery?”. And you gave me answers I never thought of:
1- Request the approval of a higher authority of the Church.
2- Get in touch with Vatican scientists in order to validate (or not) this work.

This is what I decided to do. Today, a very good Mexican friend offers to organize an interview for me with a Bishop of Mexico. In order to obtain and follow his advice.

On the proposal of “brown_bear”, I will try to get in touch with this Vatican observatory (which I did not know existed).

This is indeed the only way to put this work to the test, and present it to you, with a clear conscience.

Thank you again for your questions and suggestions.

I will do my best in the coming days to answer your questions and comments. But, I am for the moment practically without electricity (solar only) … which gives me some problems.