The Star of Bethlehem (A Documentary/website)

runningdude · #1 Nov 28, '10, 9:37 pm

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/dance/dance.htm

I saw the documentary version of this today with a youth group that I started helping at - yowsers! In it, he tracks down the prophecies in Isiah, Micah, etc, and using information from the Gospels, to reverse engineer what he contents to be the exact date of the first Christmas (December 25, 2 BC)**!

He uses modern astronomical software to retrace the stars, and concludes that, on this date, and the month prier, the Maji would have been able to track the motions of Jupiter to determine the time that the Prophets predicted that the our Lord would be among us! Its a powerful and convincing story, and I'm confident enough to say that it is probably true!

**Note, the date the Magi visited at least, not necessarily His birth

steve53 · #2 Nov 30, '10, 7:33 pm

Naw. The Star of Bethlehem was probably Halley's Comet. It appeared in 12 BC, Jesus' probably birth date. (source Hagan "Passover")

CalCatholic · #3 Nov 30, '10, 9:05 pm

I bought the CD from the web site, it is very good, and this is a good time of the year to show it to a Bible study or RCIA class.

Vince1022 · #4 Nov 30, '10, 10:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve53

Naw. The Star of Bethlehem was probably Halley's Comet. It appeared in 12 BC, Jesus' probably birth date. (source Hagan "Passover")

I've never read anything suggesting that date. The scholars I am familiar with suggest 4-6 B.C., given the history of the calendar and Herod the Great's reign.

I think Hagan's opinion is a minority one (for what it's worth).

runningdude · #5 Dec 1, '10, 2:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve53

Naw. The Star of Bethlehem was probably Halley's Comet. It appeared in 12 BC, Jesus' probably birth date. (source Hagan "Passover")

The DVD discussed this possibility. The biggest problem with it was that comets were seen as an ancient symbol of doom - not exactly what the savior of man kind was going after

.

To each his own on this one. The teaching about the star presented on the DVD is certainly not dogmatic (binding) by Catholic standards, but I am at least convinced enough that his theory is sound. Watch it for yourself if you ever get the chance

runningdude · #6 Dec 1, '10, 2:29 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince1022

I've never read anything suggesting that date. The scholars I am familiar with suggest 4-6 B.C., given the history of the calendar and Herod the Great's reign.

I think Hagan's opinion is a minority one (for what it's worth).

The exact date of Christ's death is fairly easy to calculate if you make the assumption that the bible's description of a "preparation day" (Friday), during Passover of a certain Jewish month describes the correct date (as to one chosen out of pius tradition by the Gospel writers).

The date, based on this assumption, then is April 3 of 33 AD. April 7 of 30 AD also technically works, though based on history provided in the narrative, and the presence of an eclipse, Rick Larson prefers the former. Thus if Christ were "about 33" at the time of his death, he was born in about the year 0 AD! (even if the 30 AD were correct, that makes 4BC approximately accurate)

The website's logic is very clean. It just follows the words of Isiah and Micah, and shows how the Maji from the East might have predicted the arrival of the Messiah using these prophecies and careful observation of the stars.

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm

JM3 · #7 Dec 1, '10, 10:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by runningdude

The date, based on this assumption, then is April 3 of 33 AD. April 7 of 30 AD also technically works, though based on history provided in the narrative, and the presence of an eclipse, Rick Larson prefers the former. Thus if Christ were "about 33" at the time of his death, he was born in about the year 0 AD! (even if the 30 AD were correct, that makes 4BC approximately accurate)

There is no year 0 AD.

Evan · #8 Dec 2, '10, 1:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by runningdude

The date, based on this assumption, then is April 3 of 33 AD. April 7 of 30 AD also technically works, though based on history provided in the narrative, and the presence of an eclipse, Rick Larson prefers the former. Thus if Christ were "about 33" at the time of his death, he was born in about the year 0 AD! (even if the 30 AD were correct, that makes 4BC approximately accurate)

Sorry, there was no eclipse either. The crucifixion took place during a full moon (so no solar eclipse) and 'darkness covered the earth' would make no sense for a lunar eclipse.

FaithfulAndTrue · #9 Dec 2, '10, 2:13 pm

The Star is an awesome presentation! Highly recommended and goes waaaaay beyond just "the Star".

FaithfulAndTrue · #10 Dec 2, '10, 2:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by runningdude

The exact date of Christ's death is fairly easy to calculate if you make the assumption that the bible's description of a "preparation day" (Friday), during Passover of a certain Jewish month describes the correct date (as to one chosen out of pius tradition by the Gospel writers).

The date, based on this assumption, then is April 3 of 33 AD. April 7 of 30 AD also technically works, though based on history provided in the narrative, and the presence of an eclipse, Rick Larson prefers the former. Thus if Christ were "about 33" at the time of his death, he was born in about the year 0 AD! (even if the 30 AD were correct, that makes 4BC approximately accurate)

The website's logic is very clean. It just follows the words of Isiah and Micah, and shows how the Maji from the East might have predicted the arrival of the Messiah using these prophecies and careful observation of the stars.

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm

Larson concluded on a birth year of 2BC based on the triple conjunction of Regulus with Jupiter (extremely rare) and extremely close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter (never been seen before by man). So he concludes the "star" is the latter conjunction because it would have been the brightest object in the sky that man had ever seen.

Very interesting and his research is quite good.

redrosetea · #11 Dec 2, '10, 3:14 pm

I am having a St Nicholas party for my scripture class..I will be showing this video

I saw Our L:Lady of Guadalupe in the sky, as plain as day

steve53 · #12 Dec 2, '10, 8:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaithfulAndTrue

Larson concluded on a birth year of 2BC based on the triple conjunction of Regulus with Jupiter (extremely rare) and extremely close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter (never been seen before by man). So he concludes the "star" is the latter conjunction because it would have been the brightest object in the sky that man had ever seen.

Very interesting and his research is quite good.

Hard to believe that any conjuncture of planets would outshine Halley's comet. There have been reports of supernovas that would certainly be brighter than any conjuncture as well.

BTW, how do you explain in the Gospel of John, in the months before his crucifixion, Jesus was criticized by Temple priests for preaching with authority thought Jesus was "not yet fifty"?

NHInsider · #13 Dec 3, '10, 4:20 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve53

Hard to believe that any conjuncture of planets would outshine Halley's comet. There have been reports of supernovas that would certainly be brighter than any conjuncture as well.

I don't recall that the assertion was that the conjuncture would have been brighter, only that it would have been interpreted by astrologers as the Magi reported.

Quote:

BTW, how do you explain in the Gospel of John, in the months before his crucifixion, Jesus was criticized by Temple priests for preaching with authority thought Jesus was "not yet fifty"?

Pretty sure they were not challenging him for being too young to teach with authority. On its face the remark is a challenge to his statement that Abraham rejoiced to see the Incarnation.

FaithfulAndTrue · #14 Dec 3, '10, 8:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve53

Hard to believe that any conjuncture of planets would outshine Halley's comet. There have been reports of supernovas that would certainly be brighter than any conjuncture as well.

It's not just about "outshining", the Star has to behave as it does in the Biblical account to qualify. If you watch the video you'll see how a comet doesn't qualify and how a conjunction of planets does. It has to do with how they move in the sky (retrograde motion).

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve53

BTW, how do you explain in the Gospel of John, in the months before his crucifixion, Jesus was criticized by Temple priests for preaching with authority thought Jesus was "not yet fifty"?

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything? If Jesus was born in 2BC and crucified in 33AD, that would make him "not yet fifty".

Vince1022 · #15 Dec 3, '10, 10:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by runningdude

The exact date of Christ's death is fairly easy to calculate if you make the assumption that the bible's description of a "preparation day" (Friday), during Passover of a certain Jewish month describes the correct date (as to one chosen out of pius tradition by the Gospel writers).

The date, based on this assumption, then is April 3 of 33 AD. April 7 of 30 AD also technically works, though based on history provided in the narrative, and the presence of an eclipse, Rick Larson prefers the former. Thus if Christ were "about 33" at the time of his death, he was born in about the year 0 AD! (even if the 30 AD were correct, that makes 4BC approximately accurate)

The website's logic is very clean. It just follows the words of Isiah and Micah, and shows how the Maji from the East might have predicted the arrival of the Messiah using these prophecies and careful observation of the stars.

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm

I was asking about the date of birth, not death, and nowhere does the Bible say Jesus was "about 33" does it? What source(s) are you referring to in order to suggest Jesus was about 33 when he died?

The discrepancy in the year of Jesus' birth has nothing to do with when he died.

Rather, it was an error (many think) in the revision of the calendar done by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century.