The Star of Bethlehem

[Alcott]

Planets do not move in the sky like stars. They can rise and set in seemingly strange places, can stop and even move backwards. They're called "wandering stars." The word planet itself comes from a root meaning "to wander."

Since you know that, you should be able to deduce when planets "align" [the closer eclipses the futher from earth's perspective] that may produce an unusual brightness, but it would be short-lasting. In fact, if this lasted much time at all, it would have to be Saturn and Jupiter, the only 'outer' planets identified, and because of their distance the brightness produced would not be that bright.

Your reference to the use of trigonmetry to determine the 'star' was directly above the Christ child is on the laughable side. Just think... all they would need to determine they are directly below a mark in the sky is a string with a small weight held above them. Gravity holds the weight and string directly 'down' and they could sight the line of reference that way. And maybe they did... they left Jerusalem and saw the phenomenon, used some similar 'instrument,' and determined they needed to travel southest and they were rapidly getting close. Still, the house in which the child was located would need to be quite isolated-- if their guide was truly a star(s) and/or planet(s). If it was a miraculous phenomenon, as 'big' as a hot air balloon, there would be no need.

Another possibility is a comet; not likely a magnificent one, but one which atronomers (which necessarily included astrologers; there was no division between the 2 for many centuries yet) would notice and study. A comet would be easier to get a fix on, it could have appeared once for days or weeks, then appeared again on its 'return' after the gravitational acceleration from the sun; and they were considered to be omens of new kings, or fallen 'old' kingdoms... like England in 1066, when an appearance of Halley's Comet encouraged William to invade and conquer. In this sense, astrology, per se, has truth in that it did influence worldly events.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Regarding using stars to locate a position, that is what navigators have done for millenia. I'm not sure when trigonometry was used in celestial navigation.

For a star to "hover" over a position, it would be located directly above a point on the earth and stay in that position despite the rotation of the earth for that night. If you were at the north or south pole, a star that is not directly above you moves in a circle for that night because of the rotation of the earth. For a "star" to stay in the same position in the sky throughout the night, it would be moving with the rotation of the earth. While not possible with stars because of their great distance from the earth, it is technically possible for planets to do this because of their orbits relative to earth.

I believe by the time of Christ, the difference in orbits between stars and planets was known to astronomers like the Magi but they still referred to planets as stars.

 

[Alcott]

For a star to "hover" over a position, it would be located directly above a point on the earth and stay in that position despite the rotation of the earth for that night.

True, I suppose (in the relative sense), but is it being assumed that the 'star' "hovered?" It (or 'they') were only utilized for 2 things; to give the Magi the message that the awaited King of the Jews was born (or perhaps soon to be born), and 2 years later to point Him out by identifying where he was at the time. If it 'stood' over Him just long enough to do that (perhaps a very bried moment), its purpose was fulfilled.

If you were at the north or south pole, a star that is not directly above you moves in a circle for that night because of the rotation of the earth.

Stars "move in a circle" no matter where on the earth you are; it's just more obvious nearer to the polar regions.

For a "star" to stay in the same position in the sky throughout the night, it would be moving with the rotation of the earth. While not possible with stars because of their great distance from the earth, it is technically possible for planets to do this because of their orbits relative to earth.

Well, sort of. When the earth overtakes Mars, for example, Mars seems to hesitate, then move 'backwards,' and make a 'loop' and move 'forward' again; all because of the relative motion of the earth in its closer orbit overtaking the larger orbit of Mars.

I believe by the time of Christ, the difference in orbits between stars and planets was known to astronomers like the Magi but they still referred to planets as stars.

Yes, naturally, since they had no way of knowing what makes up planets (or stars). All they could tell were that a certain few stars changed position relative to the vast majority of other stars, so there was obviously something different about them. But all they knew was that they were "wanderers," the meaning of the world "planet."

 

[Gold Dragon]

Stars "move in a circle" no matter where on the earth you are; it's just more obvious nearer to the polar regions.

Of course. At the north pole it looks like a circle. Around bethelem it would be a line in the sky.

My point about the north pole was to say that stars still do hover. Polaris is constantly hovering over the north pole (more or less). For that to happen closer to the equator it would have to be a planet or something else. Or the rotation of the earth changed and the Magi definitely would have noticed that.

For the star of Bethelehem to hover like that, it wouldn't be a star in the sense that we now understand stars as balls of gas that emit light from outside of our galaxy because of the rotation and orbit of the earth.

It would be a star from the Magi and gospel writers' perspective of a point light source in the night sky.

 

[Aaron]

The Bible doesn't say the virgin birth is a miracle either. And the conclusion that this is a miracle is based on a host of unsubstantiated assumptions?

No. That conclusion is based on the well-known, incontravertible fact that in nature, virgins don't get pregnant.

Your conclusion that the star was a miracle is based on your unsubstantiated assumptions concerning the normal behavior of stars or planets, what astronomers in the first century knew, and what it was that Matthew was describing. An astonomer can read Matthew's description and come to a completely different conclusion about what was being described that you did. This star's behavior is something that astronomers see all the time. Note that Herod didn't see the star, nor did the astologers of Rome. Neither is there any record of some strange phenomenon in the sky at the time, and the skies were being watched very closely by all nations. The question that Larson and Molnar attempt to answer is, what was it that the Magi were looking at, and how did they interpret it to mean that the Messiah was born?

There is a Greek word for "calculate," and it is not used here.

It doesn't have to be used. Astronomers use math in their observations. In fact, math and charts were the primary means of reading the stars in the first century. Observations were made primarily to confirm their predictions or make adjustments, and secondarily to see if something new, like a comet or a nova, had appeared. We know they saw the star. Their method of observation is not specified, but it's almost inconceivable that math wasn't an integral part of their method.

 

[webdog]

No. That conclusion is based on the well-known fact that in nature, virgins don't get pregnant.

With invitro, virgins can become pregnant.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

but in vitro was only known by God at that time.

 

[webdog]

but in vitro was only known by God at that time.

Technically, one can become pregnant without invitro and still would be considered being a virgin....but I'm not going to get into the specifics here.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Actually, I believe any pregnancy, whether in vitro or other method, would be of human intervention... removing virginity.

The fact that Christ was born of God when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary is the only true case of a pregnancy to a virgin. For man had no role whatsoever in the conception.

 

[webdog]

Actually, I believe any pregnancy, whether in vitro or other method, would be of human intervention... removing virginity.

The fact that Christ was born of God when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary is the only true case of a pregnancy to a virgin. For man had no role whatsoever in the conception.

You are making up new definitions of what a virgin is.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If one can stay a virgin after in vitro fertilization or other methods, then thousands of women can clam they have fulfilled part of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14.

"a virgin shall conceive..."

 

[John of Japan]

Your conclusion that the star was a miracle is based on your unsubstantiated assumptions concerning the normal behavior of stars or planets, what astronomers in the first century knew, and what it was that Matthew was describing.

No, my conclusion is based on the grammar and vocabulary of the NT Greek, which I believe I have clearly substantiated. Interact with that if you must. I don't believe in interpreting the Word of God through the lens of science. I rest my case.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

We are not interpreting the Word of God through the lens of science. We believe that there was a star that guided the Magi to that house where the Christ child was. There is no doubt about that.

Science just reveals what that star was and the path that it took through the night sky.

I see no wrong in that. The psalmist wrote in Psalm 19

Psalms 19:1-3 <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

The stars, the planets, the sun... all communicate His Wondrous work.

 

[Allan]

We are not interpreting the Word of God through the lens of science. We believe that there was a star that guided the Magi to that house where the Christ child was. There is no doubt about that.

Science just reveals what that star was and the path that it took through the night sky.

I see no wrong in that. The psalmist wrote in Psalm 19

Psalms 19:1-3 <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

The stars, the planets, the sun... all communicate His Wondrous work.

But there is no math or science in the world nor it's history to show any star to stand over any specific location in the world, ie. house of Christ. At best it can only appear to stand still over an entire region but anywhere within that region will look like the star is directly over head.

 

[John of Japan]

We are not interpreting the Word of God through the lens of science. We believe that there was a star that guided the Magi to that house where the Christ child was. There is no doubt about that.

I was referring to Aaron, not you.

Science just reveals what that star was and the path that it took through the night sky.

Science adds to God's revelation? I'm sorry, I just can't buy that.

Here's the deal. What would a first century Christian understand from Matthew 2? He would read the Greek, and realize that somehow the wise men knew in the East that this was the star of the King of the Jews. Personally I believe that God directly revealed this to them without any astronomy/astrology knowledge. First century magi (wise men) did not have the science we do--they had a mix of astronomy and astrology, with the emphasis on astrology (something extremely unscientific both then and now).

Then the first century Christian would realize from the Greek grammar and vocabulary just what I've been saying from it in this thread: the star went ahead of the wise men to Bethlehem and they followed it (imperfect tense, continued action). Then the star actually stopped (aorist tense, a one time action) over where the baby was--obviously not just over Bethlehem, since they knew that already, but at a minimum over the neighborhood, but most probably over the very house where the baby Jesus was. The first century Christian, having common sense about the actions of stars, would know that no normal star could do this and would immediately think, "Miracle!" (Something evidently many 21st century Christians can't get from the English translation, unfortunately.)

Now, someone tell me what's wrong with my Greek exegesis (if you can) and quit dragging science into the exegesis of the Word of God.

Here is Ignatius (c. 50 to 115 AD), a first century Christian, telling what he thought of the star of Bethlehem (from his epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 19):

"1 And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord--three mysteries to be cried aloud--the which were wrought in the silence of God. How then were they made manifest to the ages? 2 A star shone forth in the heaven above all the stars; and its light was unutterable, and its strangeness caused amazement; and all the rest of the constellations with the sun and moon formed themselves into a chorus about the star; but the star itself far outshone them all; and there was perplexity to know whence came this strange appearance which was so unlike them. 3 From that time forward every sorcery and every spell was dissolved, the ignorance of wickedness vanished away, the ancient kingdom was pulled down, when God appeared in the likeness of man unto newness of everlasting life; and that which had been perfected in the counsels of God began to take effect. Thence all things were perturbed, because the abolishing of death was taken in hand."

I see no wrong in that. The psalmist wrote in Psalm 19

Psalms 19:1-3 <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

The stars, the planets, the sun... all communicate His Wondrous work.

This passage teaches general revelation, sometimes called natural revelation. That's "general," meaning that the stars cannot give specifics about God's revelation. Specifics are revealed by what is called special revelation, which is only through the Word of God.

Romans 1:20 tells us more specifically what can be learned through general revelation: God's eternal power and Godhead. We cannot learn salvation or how to walk with God through nature.

If we were to allow that God gives special revelation through the stars (which I see nowhere taught in the Bible), the details of His love and how to be saved, etc., then what is to stop us from accepting the special revelations that Charismatics give through their "prophecy"?

 

[John of Japan]

But there is no math or science in the world nor it's history to show any star to stand over any specific location in the world, ie. house of Christ. At best it can only appear to stand still over an entire region but anywhere within that region will look like the star is directly over head.

Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself! Ergo, it was a miracle. Forget astrology! :applause: :applause:

 

[Aaron]

But there is no math or science in the world nor it's history to show any star to stand over any specific location in the world, ie. house of Christ.

That's not true; astronomers calculate a star's ground point all the time.

At best it can only appear to stand still over an entire region but anywhere within that region will look like the star is directly over head.

Assuming that the Magi had no math, but that's merely an unsubstantiated assumption unsupported by the historical evidence. According to Molnar, an astronomer himself, their science was advanced.

 

[Allan]

That's not true; astronomers calculate a star's ground point all the time.

Please then, you should have no trouble finding a valid sourse document to prove that a star's 'ground point' is calculated all the time. I want to see where scientists calculate the exact location point of the star on the earths ground.

Assuming that the Magi had no math, but that's merely an unsubstantiated assumption unsupported by the historical evidence. According to Molnar, an astronomer himself, their science was advanced.

In other words you have nothing but big words and no evidence.
No one stated the Magi had no math. If he knows how advanced their science was, then why doesn't he show the world so we can catch up. Oh I forgo, it is because Molnar's view is merely an unsubstantiated assumption unsupported by the historical evidence.

 

[Aaron]

Please then, you should have no trouble finding a valid sourse document to prove that a star's 'ground point' is calculated all the time. I want to see where scientists calculate the exact location point of the star on the earths ground.

If you know how to use an Internet search tool, you will have no trouble finding any either.

 

[Baptist Believer]

If you know how to use an Internet search tool, you will have no trouble finding any either.

Ah yes... the classic, "I'm not going to give evidence to support my broad assertion" (something that should be relatively easy to do if the assertion is correct), and "I'm going to force you to disprove the unspecified evidence for my broad assertion" (which is almost impossible to do since you could always claim that your assertion is not based on the evidence that he disproves).

It's a classic case of failure to commit to any tangible position so that no one can actually discuss the issue and possibly demonstrate your error. Therefore, you are making a non-falsifiable faith claim (in the guise of a scientific claim), so your appeals to science are highly suspect.

Unless you are willing to commit to your own position, why should anyone else?

Until you are willing to actually present a credible defense of your assertion, Allan's position seems the most reasonable.