A Mathematical Analysis of the Star of Bethlehem

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: KellyKill

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver

How does one mathematically analyse a mythical/allegorical light in the sky 2000 years after the event?

It is a made-up fairy tale, told by fairies...

I highly doubt that. Most fairies are socialist athiests

YOu mean people that care about other people who don't believe in fairy tales? Or hang out with other fairy types?

a reply to: KellyKill

God did make a rock to heavy for Himself to lift and then He lifted it

a reply to: KellyKill

I would not mind a room on the Moon, that could come in handy.

Not sure what bus goes there all the same. LoL

Wheres your Avatar again?

originally posted by: KellyKill

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: DpatC

Why not? ....nothing is impossible for God.

Can he make a rock too heavy for him to lift?

Yes, for the right price.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: KellyKill

I would not mind a room on the Moon, that could come in handy.

Not sure what bus goes there all the same. LoL

Wheres your Avatar again?

Judging by her posting so far today, she's not going to be a member long enough to need an avatar.

Literalists don't get it. We have them on both sides of the "religious" debate. Those who believe the Earth was created by God on 4004 BC on October 23rd at 9:00 in the morning and creation took 6 days don't get it. Those who point out that the Star of Bethlehem could not possibly have shone on the cradle of Jesus don't get it. Those who think the Holy Bible is the literal word of God don't get it. And those who utter sarcastic platitudes such that myths are "fairy tales told by fairies" are simply displaying their complete and utter ignorance. (My prediction: People like that will not last long here.) The basic idea here is that people who take mythological stories literally do not understand the role of mythology in culture.

Mythology is not MEANT to be taken literally. Study Joseph Campbell's "Power of Myth" or "Hamlet's Mill" to understand the role of mythology. None of it is literally "True," but it often contains "truths." An example is Noah's Flood. Did Noah actually live? Probably not. Did he create an ark at God's bidding? Umm, no. Did he get all the animals in the world on board two by two? Of course not. Did the entire world (ALL of it) experience a flood after 40 days and 40 nights of rain? Don't be silly. None of that happened exactly like that. It's absurd. Literalists will tell us why. There's not enough water, for one thing. There's not enough room on the ark for another. The list goes on and COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT

because there was a flood. Roughly 12,000 years ago the glacier cap melted suddenly, most likely due to a comet or asteroid impact, the kinetic energy of which was enough to melt a great deal of ice. The ocean sea level rose 400 feet in a matter of days. Any civilization close to a seacoast disappeared. The event and its results were recorded in oral histories from North America to China, to the deserts of the Middle East, hundreds of them. Each story received local embellishments and reasonings, only one of which is now known as Noah's Flood, caused by God because, you know, evil.

That such a disaster happened is now a theory supported by a great deal of evidence. Science in general does not support all of it, but it is coming around. The fact that the sea level rose 400 feet is no longer under serious dispute, for example. The "Younger Dryas cooling event," which threw the Earth back into an ice age from which it was recovering, is established scientific fact. If you don't think any of this is true, you haven't been paying attention. Frankly, you need to study up.

So when someone points out with mathematical certainty that the Star of Bethlehem could not have happened the way the myth describes, it doesn't really matter. It's like an Elementary School revelation that Santa Claus is not real. Though perhaps devastating to the delicate psyche of a seven year old, it doesn't really matter. It's just part of growing up. Get over it. Really.

just to satisfy my mind, I tried some searches>>>>

A popular explanation of the Star is that instead of being a single object it was actually a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn that occurred in 7 B.C. in the constellation of Pisces. This speculation goes back at least as long ago as the 13th century, but it was Johannes Kepler who was the first to argue this in depth in a tract published in 1606. The conjunction of 7BC was a rare “triple conjunction” when there were three separate close encounters of the two planets seen from Earth. In astrology, the constellation of Pisces apparently symbolises Jewishness, so the theory goes the Magi would have seen this as revealing an event important to Jews.

see: www.armaghplanet.com...

seems i am a little off in my "off the top of my head statement" the constellation was Pisces not Leo and it was 7 BC not 3 BC... (the new 'Stellarium' programs regressed the planets stars passings to discover this likely 'Star-of-Bethelem' candidate,,,
but it turns out to be a Rare triple conjunction of Saturn-Jupiter

It's the first i ever heard of Pisces as related to Jews though... i thought Pisces was more in line with the early Christian Cult as their symbol of recognition to one another...see Spartacus



something 'fishy' about this theory

a reply to: schuyler

And your opinion is valid and I should care, because?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: schuyler

And your opinion is valid and I should care, because?

I don't really care if you do or not. At least I put some effort into explaining the issues. If you choose to ignore them, that's your prerogative. Now, exactly what have you contributed? Anything anyone needs to know about?

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
How does one mathematically analyse a mythical/allegorical light in the sky 2000 years after the event?

I don't know about mathematically, but Astronomers can (and have) recreated the night sky events on or near 0BC. There was a planetary conjunction that can easily explain the events.

Interestingly, in August of 3 B.C., Venus and Jupiter were prominent in the predawn eastern sky, and on Aug. 12 they came within just 9 arc minutes (0.15 degrees) of each other as seen from the Middle East. Incidentally, this sign would have been seen by men "in the east," explaining the phrase in the Book of Matthew. Ten months later, Venus and Jupiter got together again for an even more spectacular encore on June 17, 2 B.C., when at sundown from Babylonia they were separated by just 4 arc minutes of each other, about 35 degrees above the western horizon. As the sky grew dark, the two brightest planets drew closer to each other until finally at 9:15 p.m. local time they drew to within 36 arc seconds (0.01 degree) equal to the mean apparent width of Jupiter as seen through a telescope, at an altitude of 15 degrees above the horizon. To most people, the two planets must have appeared to coalesce into a single "star" somewhat brighter than Venus alone. Eyeglasses were many centuries in the future, so only people with unusually acute vision would have seen the planets separated.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Those same astronomers would also tell you that the celestial bodies were behaving as a direct result of physics completely unrelated to human politics.

a reply to: DpatC

You are looking at it wtong. Dont take things so litaray and uncerstand the language of what you are studying. The three wise men are stars in their own accord if that helps. The belt of orion.##

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: schuyler

And your opinion is valid and I should care, because?

I don't really care if you do or not. At least I put some effort into explaining the issues. If you choose to ignore them, that's your prerogative. Now, exactly what have you contributed? Anything anyone needs to know about?

I contributed that your opinion is irrelevant, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about and have no concept of theology
Probably no concept of history or understand the word myth

You came here to troll, you wouldn’t even know where Bethlehem was

You think you know something but have offered nothing but opinion like you can validate it, you can’t, you haven’t
Pointless

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: DpatC

You are looking at it wtong. Dont take things so litaray and uncerstand the language of what you are studying. The three wise men are stars in their own accord if that helps. The belt of orion.##

Interesting. Thanks. Do you have any other info on that issue?

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: DpatC

You are looking at it wtong. Dont take things so litaray and uncerstand the language of what you are studying. The three wise men are stars in their own accord if that helps. The belt of orion.##

So how did the stars speak to Herod and then give the gifts. Why did Herod thinkmthe stars mocked him when they didn’t return to tell him where the child was

Kinda doesn’t run with the narrative does it?

Outside of revelations where in the bible, gospels has that been done before, where are similar styles of writing that would indicate this logic you suggest.
Doesn’t run through as a theme

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: schuyler

And your opinion is valid and I should care, because?

I don't really care if you do or not. At least I put some effort into explaining the issues. If you choose to ignore them, that's your prerogative. Now, exactly what have you contributed? Anything anyone needs to know about?

I contributed that your opinion is irrelevant, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about and have no concept of theology
Probably no concept of history or understand the word myth

You came here to troll, you wouldn’t even know where Bethlehem was

You think you know something but have offered nothing but opinion like you can validate it, you can’t, you haven’t
Pointless

Wow. You think that displays your erudition? You have no idea the role of mythology plays in culture. What are you, a believer that Jesus died for your sins? I don't see your "contribution" so far as anywhere near credible. You're not even addressing the issues raised here. Wheres the beef?

a reply to: schuyler

And did you know that Adam and Eve had belly buttons, THEREFORE THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE FIRST MAN AND WOMAN!

God put them there as a test.

a reply to: Freeborn

What about male nipples?

I mean i dont mind them.

But their purpose has always somewhat mystified me from a Biblical standpoint.

The point here being that stars and planets are not prophetic.

a reply to: TzarChasm

All prophecy is self-fulfilling really, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior.