-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Star of Bethlehem and Christ's Birth
- Thread starter Mel Miller
- Start date
Johnv said:
You're backwards analyzing using contemporary comprehension.
Identifying two lights as two lights instead of one light is "contemporary comprehension"?
Didn't take much to be a "wise man" back then, obviously, if you couldn't tell the difference between one and two.
You're presuming that a messianic birth should be expected every time the conjunction occurrs.
No, I am presuming that if a mathematically predictable phenomenon is a sign, then its recurrence must also be a sign, or there must be some external reason why the first is and the second isn't.
That's ridiculous. There have been many comets, supernovas, etc, as well, that have also been claimed to be the star of bethlehem, but I don't recall any messianic births since then either, which really makes your point pointless.
Well, no, that is my point, precisely.
It does not "point out the specific house". It simply says the star stop over the house. In order for it to have pointed out just the one specific house, then it sould have had to be low enough to remove any doubt of the house next door being the one.
Yes. And your point is?
If that were the case, then it would not have been called a star.
So every planet, moon, comet, galaxy, and other light in the sky gets to be a star but this one?
You're backwards analyzing using contemporary comprehension.
Identifying two lights as two lights instead of one light is "contemporary comprehension"?
Didn't take much to be a "wise man" back then, obviously, if you couldn't tell the difference between one and two.
You're presuming that a messianic birth should be expected every time the conjunction occurrs.
No, I am presuming that if a mathematically predictable phenomenon is a sign, then its recurrence must also be a sign, or there must be some external reason why the first is and the second isn't.
That's ridiculous. There have been many comets, supernovas, etc, as well, that have also been claimed to be the star of bethlehem, but I don't recall any messianic births since then either, which really makes your point pointless.
Well, no, that is my point, precisely.
It does not "point out the specific house". It simply says the star stop over the house. In order for it to have pointed out just the one specific house, then it sould have had to be low enough to remove any doubt of the house next door being the one.
Yes. And your point is?
If that were the case, then it would not have been called a star.
So every planet, moon, comet, galaxy, and other light in the sky gets to be a star but this one?
What point, Ransom?
And 'committed to a naturalistic point of view'???
HARDLY! If there is ANYONE on this board who opposes evolution it is me! And for basic scientific reasons, as well.
There is nothing wrong with looking for 'naturalistic' explanations within the biblical frame of reference. They may or may not be there. If not, no problem. But as someone who has been involved in science, as a Christian, for a long time, I find it exciting when we can associate something that happened 'in nature' to something God refers to in the Bible.
We are not committed to the idea that the Star was something that we can actually know about astronomically, but the fact that it is, is something that is special and which can be pointed out to unbelievers. I know of at least two cases in which Barry's work on this particular issue has brought men to Christ. Why shouldn't God work through the natural world? He created it!
There is nothing any less miraculous about the timing of what happened than if a special physical angel had personally led the wise men to the place where the Child was.
The Star, by the way, did not 'become' the Shekinah Glory cloud, despite your sarcasm. When the Magoi reached Bethlehem, the Shekinah Glory would very probably have been illuminating the area over the specific residence of Jesus at the time. We do not know if others saw it. We have no report yea or nay on that.
And 'committed to a naturalistic point of view'???
HARDLY! If there is ANYONE on this board who opposes evolution it is me! And for basic scientific reasons, as well.
There is nothing wrong with looking for 'naturalistic' explanations within the biblical frame of reference. They may or may not be there. If not, no problem. But as someone who has been involved in science, as a Christian, for a long time, I find it exciting when we can associate something that happened 'in nature' to something God refers to in the Bible.
We are not committed to the idea that the Star was something that we can actually know about astronomically, but the fact that it is, is something that is special and which can be pointed out to unbelievers. I know of at least two cases in which Barry's work on this particular issue has brought men to Christ. Why shouldn't God work through the natural world? He created it!
There is nothing any less miraculous about the timing of what happened than if a special physical angel had personally led the wise men to the place where the Child was.
The Star, by the way, did not 'become' the Shekinah Glory cloud, despite your sarcasm. When the Magoi reached Bethlehem, the Shekinah Glory would very probably have been illuminating the area over the specific residence of Jesus at the time. We do not know if others saw it. We have no report yea or nay on that.
You're dismissing the conjunction idea because you presuming that the "star" talked about in Luke would have been pointed out as "two". No, the "star" referred to would have been Jupiter, since it was the one moving. The fact that it conjuncted with Venus is what made this noticeable.
Scripture is silent on that issue. Scripture is referring to one specific sign at one specific time. For all we know, the conjunction might have been a sign of somethign else at different times, but those different times are irrelevant to the scriptural story. I see no reason why the conjunction idea must be dismissed when it stands up to the logic of the day.
My point is that Jupiter meets the qualifications of being the Star of Bethlehem.
That actually supports my view, not yours. In order for it to be a star, it would have been in the canopy of the heavens, like all other planets, moons, comets, galaxies, etc. It would not have been just above the house, as some claim (though scripture does not say this).So every planet, moon, comet, galaxy, and other light in the sky gets to be a star but this one?
prophecynut
New Member
Johnv:
"My point is that Jupiter meets the qualifications of being the Star of Bethlehem."
Jupiter moves east to west across the sky.
The star seen by the Magi rose from the west.
Two years later the star appeared again and guided the Magi north to south, from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.
Impossible for Jupiter to be the star.
"My point is that Jupiter meets the qualifications of being the Star of Bethlehem."
Jupiter moves east to west across the sky.
The star seen by the Magi rose from the west.
Two years later the star appeared again and guided the Magi north to south, from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.
Impossible for Jupiter to be the star.
Prophecynut, you are showing a pretty enormous ignorance of astronomy. Jupiter revolves around the sun. Therefore, from our point of view it moves east to west until it "stops" and then moves west to east. Please read the material. I think it will help you to understand what is being said. The star 'stood' to the south at the winter solstice. It did not need to move to the south. Nor was it a two year thing. PLEASE read the material before you make more comments from ignorance.
prophecynut
New Member
I read the article, Jupiter and other stars travel a "retrograde loop" in the heavens, as you described above.
Concerning the Magi's trip from Jerusalem to Bethlehem he said; "It (Jupiter) would have been in the southern sky, though fairly high above the horizon." This statement demolishes his theory that Jupiter could of been the star that "stopped over the place where the child was" (Mt. 2:9). It had to come close to the horizon in order for the Maji to see where Jesus was located.
No possible way Jupiter was the Bethlehem star.
Concerning the Magi's trip from Jerusalem to Bethlehem he said; "It (Jupiter) would have been in the southern sky, though fairly high above the horizon." This statement demolishes his theory that Jupiter could of been the star that "stopped over the place where the child was" (Mt. 2:9). It had to come close to the horizon in order for the Maji to see where Jesus was located.
No possible way Jupiter was the Bethlehem star.
don't know who you are quoting, but this is from Barry's paper:
"From that moment in Mid-November, Jupiter the King planet actually went before them in the sky towards Judea. Six weeks later, as the Magoi checked the pre-dawn sky, Jupiter was on the Meridian due south of Jerusalem. It would appear directly over Bethlehem 65 degrees above the southern horizon."
"From that moment in Mid-November, Jupiter the King planet actually went before them in the sky towards Judea. Six weeks later, as the Magoi checked the pre-dawn sky, Jupiter was on the Meridian due south of Jerusalem. It would appear directly over Bethlehem 65 degrees above the southern horizon."
Paul of Eugene
New Member
65 degrees above the horizon is fairly high above the horizon. Its more than 2/3 of all the way to zenith, which would be 90 degrees. So you guys are saying the same thing.
prophecynut
New Member
The Magi from far off saw the star rising, surely someone in the Bethlehem area saw the star. Does Scripture mention anyone?
Scripture implies that the star was not seen by all. For example, Herod didn't have a clue (he wasn't skilled in astrology). So he had to ask his astrologers for advice.
Indeed, to the average person, a point of light in the sky like Jupiter or any other planet would have been unnoticed.
Indeed, to the average person, a point of light in the sky like Jupiter or any other planet would have been unnoticed.
Helen said:
We are not committed to the idea that the Star was something that we can actually know about astronomically,
Your rather aggressive efforts to convert me to your point of view on this rather inconsequential point suggest otherwise.
There is nothing any less miraculous about the timing of what happened than if a special physical angel had personally led the wise men to the place where the Child was.
On the contrary, there is nothing miraculous about a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus at all, or of the timing of this particular one. It can be predicted mathematically.
The Star, by the way, did not 'become' the Shekinah Glory cloud, despite your sarcasm.
I know it didn't, because Scripture says nothing about the "Shekinah Glory Cloud" at all.
We are not committed to the idea that the Star was something that we can actually know about astronomically,
Your rather aggressive efforts to convert me to your point of view on this rather inconsequential point suggest otherwise.
There is nothing any less miraculous about the timing of what happened than if a special physical angel had personally led the wise men to the place where the Child was.
On the contrary, there is nothing miraculous about a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus at all, or of the timing of this particular one. It can be predicted mathematically.
The Star, by the way, did not 'become' the Shekinah Glory cloud, despite your sarcasm.
I know it didn't, because Scripture says nothing about the "Shekinah Glory Cloud" at all.
prophecynut
New Member
God's presence can take on different forms besides the glory cloud, like the burning bush to Mosses and the pillar of fire that held back the Egyptian army.
The Shekinah Glory of God was present at Christ's transfiguration (Lk. 9:29) and when Paul saw the resurrected Jesus (Acts 9:3-9).
There is another NT Scripture passage on the Shekinah glory of God that the Magi saw, what Scripture is it?
The Shekinah Glory of God was present at Christ's transfiguration (Lk. 9:29) and when Paul saw the resurrected Jesus (Acts 9:3-9).
There is another NT Scripture passage on the Shekinah glory of God that the Magi saw, what Scripture is it?
When I tried to read some of this thread, it made my head spin. So, I'm just going to butt in and say, if...."and the Glory of the Lord shone round about them and they were sore afraid..." isn't Shekinah Glory, I don't know what is.
Lady Eagle,
Over and out
Lady Eagle,
Over and out
prophecynut
New Member
You did it, that's the Scripture!
An angel of the Lord, surrounded by the glory of the Lord, was seen by the shepherds.
"Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel"
"When the angels had left them and gone into heaven" the shepherds went to Bethlehem. Lk. 2:9,13,15.
The heavenly host and the glory of the Lord surrounding them returned to heaven.
The brilliant light surrounding the heavenly host is the star seen by the Magi rising in the western sky over Israel when Christ was born.
An angel of the Lord, surrounded by the glory of the Lord, was seen by the shepherds.
"Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel"
"When the angels had left them and gone into heaven" the shepherds went to Bethlehem. Lk. 2:9,13,15.
The heavenly host and the glory of the Lord surrounding them returned to heaven.
The brilliant light surrounding the heavenly host is the star seen by the Magi rising in the western sky over Israel when Christ was born.
prophecynut
New Member
Where is the king of the deniers? I saw him post and wonder were he is.
I'm bringing this up to present something that someone brought up at our Bible study last night. We read in Luke that the shepherds told the people in Bethlehem what they had seen and what happened:
"When they had seen him [Christ as a baby in the manger], they spread the word concerning what had been told them aboutthis child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them."Luke2:17-18
When we read in Matthew that 'the star stopped over the place where the child was' (2:9), we always seem to have assumed that the star stopped over the specific house, and so that the star must have been the Shekinah Glory -- and that may be right. BUT, since all Bethlehem, or at least a good part of it, had been aware of the Shepherd's story from a year or 15 months earlier, it would not have been hard for the Magoi to simply ask where this Child was and be directed to the exact house.
I don't know, but it was an interesting thought and I wanted to mention it here.
"When they had seen him [Christ as a baby in the manger], they spread the word concerning what had been told them aboutthis child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them."Luke2:17-18
When we read in Matthew that 'the star stopped over the place where the child was' (2:9), we always seem to have assumed that the star stopped over the specific house, and so that the star must have been the Shekinah Glory -- and that may be right. BUT, since all Bethlehem, or at least a good part of it, had been aware of the Shepherd's story from a year or 15 months earlier, it would not have been hard for the Magoi to simply ask where this Child was and be directed to the exact house.
I don't know, but it was an interesting thought and I wanted to mention it here.
Mel Miller
New Member
Thank you all for the interesting exchanges.
Now, under the Secret of the Seventy Sevens,
I have posted a view of the days that must
have fulfilled the "day" (Luke 19:42) and
the appointed "time" for the Triumphal Entry
to fulfill Zech.9:9 and Dan.9:26a for the
death of Christ on Friday, Day of Preparation,
in AD 32.
I had figured Jesus as being 1 1/2 years of age in BC 1 long before I knew about "The Star that Astonished the World" by Martin.
If BC 445 is correct for the Decree to build
Jerusalem's wall (as per the New KJV; Dan.9:25), then AD 32 is the only possible date for Christ's death at age 33 1/2.
Mel Miller, member First Baptist Church of Norfolk, VA.
Now, under the Secret of the Seventy Sevens,
I have posted a view of the days that must
have fulfilled the "day" (Luke 19:42) and
the appointed "time" for the Triumphal Entry
to fulfill Zech.9:9 and Dan.9:26a for the
death of Christ on Friday, Day of Preparation,
in AD 32.
I had figured Jesus as being 1 1/2 years of age in BC 1 long before I knew about "The Star that Astonished the World" by Martin.
If BC 445 is correct for the Decree to build
Jerusalem's wall (as per the New KJV; Dan.9:25), then AD 32 is the only possible date for Christ's death at age 33 1/2.
Mel Miller, member First Baptist Church of Norfolk, VA.