Star of Bethlehem

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Even if we knew exactly what the authors meant in such scripts (which we don't !), we have no means to verify their accuracy.</font><br /><br />err... I really suppose this sums up about everything in this thread! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[wisefool]

I have examined the NGC and IC catalogs for Aries, including DSS images. There appears to be NOTHING in Aries that could be a candidate for a 2,000-year-old SN remnant. If indeed there were a SN on another galaxy in Aries, then it would have been extremely faint, beyond the naked eye, due to the extreme distance of the galaxies populating this portion of the sky. A comparable example of this sort of phenomenon is this year's SN2004et, visible only through telescopes, and visible in a galaxy much closer than any galaxy seen through Aries.

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">If you took the right position outside of Jerusalem, the star would 'come to rest' there. The same would be true for a wide area of Judea, Syria, Lebanon and other places. This does not bode well for the astrological hypothesis.</font><br /><br />TRU DAT.

 

[wisefool]

Let's see... I'm too sleepy right now to check on the written-decades-later Bible story, but the astrological hypothesis puts the three into the area only. Once there they probably asked around until they discovered The One.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Looked up the actual Greek, Alexandrian and other texts, and the word, very clearly, was 'aster', in the grammatical position, astera, meaning 'star'. GreekNewTestament.com. These are the OLDEST extent texts of the Gospels. Therefore, primary texts.<br /><br />Now, some have said this 'star' was a comet. The word comes from the Greek Komete, meaning long haired, & was known and used since at least the time of Aristotle for the observed 'comet' as we know it. So the Greek speakers would NOT have written 'kometes'. They wrote star. They meant a star.<br /><br />Now, was it a planet or a star? From Ptolemy, he used the phrase planetes asteris to mean a planet. A wandering star, to be literal. It was clear, the learned knew the difference between a planet and a star. They did NOT call it a planetes. It was a star.<br /><br />The Greek Biblos versions are primary and they ALL agree on this, Astero.<br /><br />That pretty much nails it down. It was NOT a confluence of planetes asteris, it was a single, note that, single Aster. One star. That pretty much rules out astrological events of more than one planetes or stars. It pretty much rules out an astrological event involving planets, in fact.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I just thought of another problem:<br /><br />Even if we do determine which really is the primary source, it really still isn't.<br /><br />The people who commited those Greek words to paper were not the witnesses of the event. That is certain. Matthew wasn't there when the wise men spoke with Herod, nor was he one of the shephards. In all likelihood, Matthew was either a small child, or not even born yet.<br /><br />So what's written down in the Gospels is not an eyewitness account, and probably not even a third-hand account. It is entirely possible that the original telling (presumably by the wise men to whomever carried the story out to eventually be told to Matthew, assuming of course that it all actua <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[thechemist]

A quick look at this amazing site <br /><br />http://www.perseus.tufts.edu<br /><br />reveals that Plato has already used the phrase "planetes asteres" to describe moving stars=planets. This phrase is also used in the New Testament, in the book Jude, chapter 1, verse 12 with the same meaning.<br /><br />Steve's analysis looks more or less correct to me, however, so are Calli's points. We cannot trust these texts for scientific analysis.<br /><br />It looks like this question will come up every year as Christmas is approaching. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>I feel better than James Brown.</em> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We cannot trust these texts for scientific analysis.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Correct. Of course, it's still fun as an intellectual exercise, so please don't let me rain on anybody's parade. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Sorry, Mark was one of the original apostles.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You are correct. But you are assuming, of course, that he actually wrote the Book of Mark. There has long been dispute over the authorship of all of the Gospels, as I'm sure you're aware, and also dispute over whether they wrote exactly what is now accepted as the Greek text, or something else which was transcribed and/or collated into the Greek text we have available today.<br /><br />Mark is generally (though not universally) agreed to be the oldest of the Gospels, and as such, is most likely to be accurate. Unfortunately, it doesn't say anything about the Star of Bethlehem, instead starting out with Christ's baptism, so it doesn't help resolve many of our questions in this thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I'm not suggesting that you apply scientific techniques, although really, the basic principles of critical thinking most certainly do apply. The scholars who have disputed the provenance of the Gospels have done so on the basis of historical and/or literary analysis. And I'm not saying I don't think they were written by those people. Please do not make assumptions about what I believe. I was merely pointing out that there isn't agreement within the theological community.<br /><br />Personally, I do think that Mark wrote the book of Mark.<br /><br />But I strongly doubt that Matthew actually witnessed the Star of Bethlehem, or that he personally spoke to the Wise Men. I mean seriously, how likely is it that he was personally there for every single event that occured? Some he witnessed. Some he was told about.<br /><br />Out of curiosity, do you speak Aramaic, and are you an expert in Aramaic and Greek dialects from 2000 years ago? I don't, and I'm not. But the guy whose lecture I described above is a professional linguist specializing in the languages of that part of the world, so I'm willing to accept his theory as a possible and highly plausible explanation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[wisefool]

Everybody reading this series of posts should go back to my original site to read the MAJOR changes. For the first time a scientifically credible candidate for the Star of Bethlehem has been identified: http://members.cox.net/clarkt7/StarofBethlehem

 

[wisefool]

Steve, it's fine that you "did some more work on Matthew." You got lost half way, and came to some wrong conclusions. You still have some more work to do:<br /><br />First, you need to actually read the significantly modified web page that I put up: http://members.cox.net/clarkt7/StarofBethlehem <br /><br />Secondly, you need to read the comments that Dr. Molnar has put up on his own web page: http://www.eclipse.net/%7Emolnar/index.html<br /><br />Both sources will clarify your fundamental misunderstandings.<br /><br />Clark

 

[wisefool]

Steve, you may think you are arguing with me, but actually you are agreeing with me. I have gone beyond the purely astrological theory, and proven that there is a quality nova candidate exactly where it would have had the proper visual effect on the Maji. Furthermore, its altitude and azimuth in early evening of 4/17/-6 would have allowed it to both move and "point" toward Judea. There is no other remnant nova candidate nearby that satisfies these requirements; and there is no contemporary supernova candidate nearby at all. As an astronomer, I know where the supernova remnants are, and there are none nearby. A supernova is very different from a nova in many ways, especially in what it leaves behind. That is why I have both indicated that a nova may be involved AND I have been the first to point out which one.

 

[wisefool]

That nearby SN remnant to which you refer is much more ancient than 2000 years ago. The only other one in the region occurred 1000 years ago. If we are to keep with the time and place reference, then my nova is the only candidate in this area of the sky. But I am myself not "sold" in it, since the nova event would have had to be minimal, which is possible, to avoid comment from the Koreans and Chinese. They DID comment on one in 5 B.C., but that is disputable, possibly being a comet. Anyway, something to think about while the turkey digests!

 

[kmarinas86]

Comments on the Star of Bethlehem verses at bibletools.org...<br /><br />my commentary: If you were going to follow a celestial body as it travels in the sky, the path you walked would not be straight line. Over time, a Southern Celestial star seen in the East moves from the eastern sky to the southeastern sky to southern sky. So when the Three Wise Men began their journey, they had to walk 6 miles (10 kilometers) to get to the place of birth. The top speed of a camel fully loaded:<br /><br />1) <font color="yellow">The Arabian camel, generally used as a saddle animal, can cover more than 161 km (100 mi) in a day [12 hours].</font> 2) <font color="yellow">The Arabian (Dromedary) Camel has one hump. It's about 2 metres high at the shoulder, and can lope along at up to 16 km/h for 18 hours.</font><br /><br />Let's take the figure of 16 km/hr. Therefore, if this speed were achieved by the Three Wise Men to travel a distance of almost 6 miles which is about 10 kilometers, it would have taken approxiamtely 37.5 minutes. In this time period, a celestial body moves in a sky a distance of 9.375 degrees, which is about the width of a close fist at arms length. If the camel was slower then 16km/hr, then the movement of the celestial body would be greater.

 

[wisefool]

We can safely assume that they had some sort of local maps, at least in their heads, for how to get to Jerusalem. They would have known generally where to go when they started their journey. Remember, the three wise guys didn't show up on the day of Jesus' birth, but thereafter. Therefore, their camels would not have been tasked to chase a celestial body.