Last week I wrote a bit about the Star of Bethlehem, and how I think it is not much more than a fish story; something that started small and has grown in significance over the millennia. I also talked about it on Coast to Coast AM last night; they had a link on their site about a Notre Dame astronomer who thinks it might have been a conjunction of planets plus a supernova.
Ignoring for the moment my own objections to this story in general (the star in the story stays in the East, which is impossible, and why do people who believe in miracles try to back them up with science, negating their entire premise?), I still have doubts over the cause. We don’t know when Jesus was born, making this a difficult proposition to start with. There were several planetary conjunctions in the time range in question (say, 8 to 2 BC), and a few comets as well.
The new thing in that article linked above is the idea that the Star may have been inspired in part by a supernova, an exploding star. The astronomer, Grant Mathews, points to a supernova remnant called Kesteven 75 as the possible culprit (note in the article that name is misspelled).
I looked up that remnant, and found a few papers. The age of the expanding gas cloud (the debris from the star’s explosion) is difficult to determine, and ranges from a few hundred to several thousand years. That doesn’t help much. However, when the core of the star collapsed, it formed a fantastically dense neutron star. This star has a strong magnetic field and spins rapidly, making it a pulsar: a star that appears to emit blips of light like a lighthouse does.
The ages of pulsars can be determined with more confidence (the rate of spin of a pulsar slows as its magnetic field sweep up material, like a parachute catching the air, and this can be used to backtrack when the star first formed). The age estimates determined for the pulsar in Kesteven 75 all converge to around 700 or so years, far too young to be the Star in the legend. While these are still estimates, and may be off by quite a bit, it’s a stretch to say this explosion could have been the basis of the Star of Bethlehem.
So I still stand by my original premise: the very fact that people are scrounging around looking for the possible cause of the Star makes it very unlikely to have been a single, real, spectacular event. Had it been such, the root source would be easier to find (and would be in several cultures’ legend and writings). This, coupled with the uncertain date of Jesus’ birth, the vague nature of Biblical writing, and the very real tendency to exaggerate such events when writing them down to increase their perceived importance, makes me think that the Star is a nice story, but very unlikely to be true. Maybe there is some basis in fact, but it’s almost certainly been puffed up over the centuries.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Phil:
“… coupled with the uncertain date of Jesus’ birth, the vague nature of Biblical writing,”
To which I’d add the undertainty -OF- Jesus’ birth.
Had to mention that, I’m reading Christopher Hitchens’ “God Is Not Great”, and am half way through. He’s a major character. I met him briefly up at Monticello and gave him one of my home-made CAS planispheres as a token gift. He said he’d give it to his daughter. It’s always good to open up the skies to a kid! Great guy! He should be invited to one of the TAMs… Ya think?
Rich
December 28th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
My unfounded guess is that sometime around 2 – 10 BC there could have been an event like this, supernova, conjunction, whatever. Maybe it was a more localized big meteor. All sorts of stories/myths developed around this event and when the christians came along 80 or so years later (thats when the first gospels were actually written) they co-opted this myth into the nativity story (along with lots of other myths and legends).
December 28th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I’m mostly of the same opinion in terms of figuring it’s likely a mostly non event grown large. I see no particular reason “We have this noteworthy astrological configuration” couldn’t turn into “they saw stars aligned which guided them” into “the stars very clearly pointed out this spot” into “there was a brilliant star hovering over the spot”.
I did, however, always consider “from the east” to mean the the men themselves were from the east as in “from Asia/the more eastern middle-east parts in decent” rather then that they were literally eastward of the place itselft. Rereading the passages it’s probably not so and more likely a misconception I haven’t bothered looking into (being not at all christian having an idea of what the bible says is more of a hobby then a commitment). Could be a similar confusion distilled into truth though in terms of “racially/by birth from places east of here” convoluted into “traveling from west to east in relation to the earth”.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I think the story of the star of Bethlehem is a fine little fable.
I do wonder though, how the bit about how the seeing the star “in the east” is actually written. Does it literally mean seeing the star which is in the east, or is it that they in the east saw the star?
Anyone know a linguist who might clue us in?
I agree w/ Mark H up there… I think many of these things have there start from an actual event that gets woven in to various myths
December 28th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
[...] according to Christians. These stories are not at all about what really happened. Phil Plait does an excellent job dealing with what may or may not have really happened, and he’s probably right that the tale [...]
December 28th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
An entry called “The Star” about a supernova remnant that someone claims to’ve been the Star of Bethleham, and not one reference to the Arthur C. Clarke story on the subject?
December 28th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
As far as I know, the story of the star is commonly regarded as a pious legend – which much of the records must be regarded as. There are contemproary (non-Biblical) records of some of the stories regairding Jesus which it would seem foolhardy to dismiss instantly (one might as well dismiss the fact that Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo) but the star of Bethlehem is often regarded as a fable intended to illuminate the truth of the Nativity.
Now, bearing that in mind, it makes little sense to look for an actual cosmic event that took place at that time. Bear in mind that the wise men (as they are described) are reputed to be astrologers (held in high regard 2000 years ago) and one can see the problems in this section of the Bible.
Now, those who are vehemently anti-Bible will start to accuse me of chery-picking and not adhering to the infallibility of the Bible. In which case, there is a huge misunderstanding about the nature of the Bible – one which the fundamentalists have also fallen into in that, the Bible is not a historical source, but also a source of allegory.
So. The star of Bethlehem. Good story. It is there to note a number of the properties of the Messiah. But it is not literal truth.
Oh, and scholars believe that, even if it were literal, Jesus would have been 2 years old, and no longer resident in a stable by the time these events took place. But that usually slips under the radar.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
The more scholarly interpretation, as I learned it in college, is that the wise men were actually astrologers. When they say “They saw his star”, they’re really saying they saw the astronomical event that they had been taught to interpret as the sign of the savior.
The reality of the nativity stories (there are contradictory ones in the bible) is that they were written, not from reality, but to provide “evidence” that Jesus was the real Messiah and not any of his competition.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Nah, it was a UFO in geosynchronous orbit, Jesus was an Alien!
December 28th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Richard B. Drumm says: ” ‘… coupled with the uncertain date of Jesus’ birth, the vague nature of Biblical writing,’ To which I’d add the uncertainty -OF- Jesus’ birth.”
I was going to make the same point. There was a DVD advertisement that used to float through this blog some months ago, “The God Who Wasn’t There.” I finally broke down and bought a copy. Very interesting. It makes a compelling case that the Jesus story is COMPLETELY fabricated, and is based on many previous theologies with the exact same pattern. It’s not a scholarly treatment, of course, but it is more than a simple religion-bashing show.
Their argument has what Phillip Morrison called “the ring of truth” to it. The part that was most interesting to me is that there is no mention of any event of the Christ story to be found in any historical record, e.g. Pilate really was governor of Judea in that time, but there is no mention of any of the monumental events surrounding the crucifixion (such as the temple being destroyed) to be found outside of Christian literature.
- Jack
December 28th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
The fact that Jesus would have been around 2 years old slips under the radar because it doesn’t make a good story. It’s just sooooo cute to have three (the bible does not say how many there were) wise guys, a flock of angels, a herd of shepherds, and a menagerie of animals all standing around a manger, staring down on the tiny, perfectly behaved baby Jesus.
I maintain my belief that this was more an astrological event, rather than an astronomical event. I too believe that the Bible is probably best interpreted in an allegorical sense on certain matters. Again, the thing that makes this difficult to accept literally is the lack of clear cut extra-biblical references.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Ya know things like the nativity are nice stories and they serve a purpose, to pass on something to another group or generation. It is important to remember that when examining this type of event. The event was first witnessed and interpreted and then retold by someone and it was told with their knowledge or perception and then it has been told and retold and each retelling reshapes the story a litttle, sometimes just interpretively, sometimes intentionally. Even the bible has been through several translations and is only a selections of ‘gospels’ in the first place so there is little or no chance of pinpointing the likely cause of the star as its meaning may have changed over time (see previous comment)
but its still a nice little story to give people the ‘warm fuzzies’
December 28th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
God apparently is a lousy source and worse copy editor.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
“God apparently is a lousy source and worse copy editor.”
All the more reason why the text should not be taken as literal.
The problem is that the ones who take it as literal make the most nose. And the ones who have the best arguments are arguing against the noisiest.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Selina, “The problem is the ones who take it as literal make the most nose.”
All I have to say is, “Boogers!”
December 28th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
The nativity stories were written 60-80 years after the fact by people who weren’t there when it happened and probably all the actual witnesses were already dead.
If we take the nativity stories literally, then we have the odd situation of lots of shepherds, drummer boys, and wise men being told of the coming of the messiah, flocking to the manger scene, giving rich gifts of gold, spices and incense, and then Jesus’s family falls into obscurity until Jesus takes up the ministry 30 years later.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
“If we take the nativity stories literally….” Having said that, many historical texts are written after a same length of time – no-one doubts that Hitler lived 60 years ago. Or Lenin. Or George IV. Or even Guy Fawkes.
From the number of texts, there are more that refer to Jesus than any other historical figure,
Drummer boys, wise men, oxes and asses are far fewer (and most of them are non-Biblical anyway).
December 28th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
It’s highly unlikely that the source for the tale of the Star of Bethlehem was an astronomical event of note. If there had been, it would have been associated with some major event recorded in Roman history, or the history of another empire around at that time. There were certainly plenty of battles and royal accessions, etc. going on throughout the period.
It is much more likely that the Star of Bethlehem was simply made up after the fact because it was traditionally thought that the birth of major historical figures, like Emperors and Messiahs would have been commemorated by whatever deity the nation or tribe worshiped. Later followers creating an astronomical event to coincide with the birth of Jesus would not be surprising in the least.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
It’s all astrotheology people, and all very simple. The three wise men are the three stars of Orion’s belt. The star they follow is Sirius, the brightest star in the sky. If you follow that line all the way to the horizon on December 24th, then that is the spot the sun rises on December 25th. That is where the Son/Sun of God was born.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I’m not sure why there is an emphasis in trying to link the Star of Bethlehem to an astronomical event. Even some ancient Christian writers note that, based on its behavior, it couldn’t have been a real star.
Nick
December 28th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
There meant to be link in my last post, but I guess the board software eat them:
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/Star%20of%20Bethlehem.htm
Nick
December 28th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I’ve been wondering about the Star in the East being followed from the East since Phil wrote about it. Literal vs allegorical or just plain made up aside, I always took St. Luke’s account to mean that the star first appeared in the East from Mary and Joseph’s perspective, nearly overhead of the Wise Men, who followed it back to wherever Jesus was by the time they got there, which was probably months to years later and in Nazareth or even Egypt.
Remember, this is a supernatural account or a new start that gradually moved ahead of the Magi, toward the Christ Child. Given everything else going on in this account, the “star” moving westward from the Magi perspective over the course of two years is pretty plausible, comparitively speaking.
Elwood, not a linguist either, just throwing in my own conclusion.
December 28th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Good one, Crucified! I like it!
Selina:
There are lots of texts as long as you’re only lookin’ in the Bible or at things that reference the Bible.
Look elsewhere and you find nothing that stands on its own. That’s the prob! You can’t use one mythology to prop up another.
All that said, those of you with Starry Night Pro, set the date to Jun 17 -2BC and see what Jupiter & Venus are up to! You might have to reset your location to Jerusalem…
I wanna see an conjunction like that! They almost touch! This would, however, have seemed like a super bright star to the unaided eyes of the era. Astrologers, however, would have noticed Jupiter and Venus drawing closer & closer night after night and would have known what was happening.
Rich
December 28th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
There’s a Star in the East on Christmas Day – that line alone is Christmas Carol gold. Well worth the exageration.
There is another astronomical event which is associated with the Holiday season, but it never gets atribution or taken seriously.
At 12 midnite on Dec 31st, the star Sirius reachs upper culmination. Sirius reachs upper culmination everyday, but it’s only on New Years Eve when it happens at exactly midnight.
I have searched the web in vain looking for the provenance of this astronomical miracle. Most people, if they mention it at all, simply handwave it away as coincidence. This can’t be true. There has to have been a point in time when astronomers decided that the year will start and end when the Dog Star reaches such a point at such a time.
Any thoughts or background on this topic?
December 28th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Unfortunately, Selina, there are no other CONTEMPORARY historical records of Jesus, except a brief notation from Josephus, the Jewish historian. There may be scant Roman references regarding an uprising referring to Jesus crucifixion. Other than that there are no references outside of the gospel accounts. Therein lies the problem.
BTW, one thing that may be escaping everyone’s attention is that the star or whatever it was, would not have appeared on Dec. 25, even if it appeared at the moment of Jesus’ birth. Most scholars agree that he was born either in late Spring, but more likely early Fall.
Since it is believed Jesus was a carpenter, it would be nice to find a building with words to the effect of, “Jesus wuz here”.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Papertiger,
Careful, this is a BAD ASTRONOMY blog.
Though, your post is clearly bad astronomy
, so appropriate.
Midnight–where? Do you claim it for GMT?
Is it true? Someone here will have the software.
We changed calendars (Julian, Gregorian),
so today’s Dec 31 is not that of ancient times.
That’s enough for a start.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Michael wrote:
except a brief notation from Josephus, the Jewish historian//
Even better than you said:
The ROMAN, and formerly jewish historian.
Clearly, Jesus is a fabrication. Just like Abraham, Moses, Buddha etc.
And Christianity is a sycretic fabrication of
mithraism and other eastern cults. That is why the “star” rose in the east. Magic stars conventionally rose in the east, and heroes conventionally travelled west.
“The dying and reborn king..”
“Tammuz, or was that Osirus, or
Mithra etc.?”
December 28th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Jim Dee gives a good rundown on the Christmas myth here: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/12/15/1215dee_edit.html
December 28th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
In reference to the Orions belt – Sirius post, I would be interested in opinions about this summery of that theory…if the term can be rightly applied to this discussion…after the lengthy intro babble (including a fun bit from George Carlin) and before the expected conspiracy stuff…seems to be a fairly clear synopsis (without references) of where the whole Jesus story comes from…maybe…uhm…What can i say? I’m a musician dammit! Not an astro-physiachiatrist!!!
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Crucified: nice story but you’ve got the earth rotating backwards!
Papertiger: starting the year in January goes back to the Roman calendar reform (IIRC in 153 BC) having nothing to do with Sirius which at that time transited at midnight around Dec. 11 not Dec. 31.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
I first heard the story about the wise men and the star at the Hayden Planetarium in the 1960s. They were giving one of those seasonal planetarium talks about the Star of Bethlehem. They introduced the usual suspects: a conjunction, a supernova, a comet and the like. I didn’t know much about Christianity back then, but as I’ve learned more, the story strikes me as odder and odder. Tibetan Buddhist priests follow a star to find the most recent reincarnation of their spiritual leader. No one in The Bible: The Old Testament followed a star to find a new Moses. Catholics don’t use astromancy to choose their pope. Of course, India was still Buddhist when “The Bible: The Sequel” was being written. Could the wise men have been Buddhist missionaries? They are sometimes associated with Ceylon. Could they have been Monkey, Pigsy and Sandy, Tripitaka’s assistants in his quest to bring Buddhism to China?
That’s going a bit far, but the tale is so Eastern, and it appears out of the blue. I can see how the idea might have been borrowed from an old religion based on reincarnation for a new religion based on reincarnation.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Hi Penny
I’m not sure if I’m ready to throw baby Jesus out with the bath-water, just yet. The Jesus I read about in the Gospels isn’t much like some of his nutty followers. To paraphrase Ghandi, “Jesus is cool. His followers give me a major headache, though.” When questioned about his faith, Larry Mullen Jr. (U2’s drummer) said words to the effect of, “I am a Christian, and no I don’t go to church because I can’t stand Christians.” In reality, it’s a pretty sad commentary when you think about it.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Kevin Conod says: “starting the year in January goes back to the Roman calendar reform (IIRC in 153 BC)”
It’s actually a bit later than that. The reforms were instituted by Julius Caesar (hence the “Julian” calendar) in 45 BC. Prior to that, the Roman calendar had 10 months staring in March (named for Mars) and ending in December (literally “tenth month”). This meant there was about a 60 day period where there was no calendar. This odd arrangement came about when Rome was a largely agrarian society, so the calendar tracked time from just before the spring planting to just after the harvest. They then “kicked back” for a few weeks before starting over again.
Since there was no one keeping track of the days during the slack period, the job of deciding exactly when to start the calendar again fell to the temple priests who were also astrologers. However, as Rome became a republic and more urban, the start date became a political football with politicians and merchants buying influence with the priests if there was some advantage to them starting the year a little earlier or later.
Things were getting really out of whack around the time that Julius crowned himself emperor, so one of his first tasks was to reform the calendar. He made it a year ’round thing with all the days accounted for by adding two more months. He also renamed Quintilis (”fifth month”) in honor of himself (July). His successor, Augustus, did the same thing with Sextilus (”sixth month”). Oddly, they didn’t bother renaming the other months, which to this day remain September, October, November and December, which literally mean “seventh month”, “eighth month”, “ninth month” and “tenth month”, even though they are now the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth months of the calendar.
There’s lots of other weird stuff about the Roman calendar, but that’s enough for this post.
- Jack
December 29th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Penny said “…Careful, this is a BAD ASTRONOMY blog.
Though, your post is clearly bad astronomy
, so appropriate.
Exactly – where else could I hope to get an answer to my bad astronomy question if not here?
Midnight–where? Everywhere on Earth I suppose.
Do you claim it for GMT? I notice that for crude (naked eye) occurances (besides accultations) it really doesn’t matter so much. We aren’t setting a polar axis or navigating the high seas.
Is it true? As God is my witness. (oh wrong audience – heh). You’ll just have to trust me until New Years, but at midnight after you get done tooting your tooters, kissing your honey, or downing your toddie, take a look due south then up from the horizon to about half way to zenith.
Someone here will have the software. – It’s more fun doing it the old fashion way.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:39 am
IIRC, Chinese and Persian astronomical records from that time frame are available and note no such event. If there is “a sign”, I’d call that a big one.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:42 am
There’s a Star in the East on Christmas Day
There’s a star in the East every day. Any morning it’s not cloudy you can look at it.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:18 am
Mark H writes:
[[All sorts of stories/myths developed around this event and when the christians came along 80 or so years later (thats when the first gospels were actually written)]]
A lot of scholars dispute a late date for the gospels. Want a list?
December 29th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Jack writes:
[[ It makes a compelling case that the Jesus story is COMPLETELY fabricated,]]
And that puts you in the same class as folks who believe in UFOs and the Bermuda Triangle, Jack. No historian in his right mind thinks Jesus never existed.
[[The part that was most interesting to me is that there is no mention of any event of the Christ story to be found in any historical record, e.g. Pilate really was governor of Judea in that time, but there is no mention of any of the monumental events surrounding the crucifixion (such as the temple being destroyed) to be found outside of Christian literature.]]
Jesus is mentioned at least briefly in Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Josephus, and the letter of Mara bar Serapion, not to mention the New Testament — but, of course, you would dismiss the whole New Testament as not being a “historical record.”
December 29th, 2007 at 6:25 am
penny writes:
[[Clearly, Jesus is a fabrication. Just like Abraham, Moses, Buddha etc.]]
“Clearly” if you have that kind of conspiracy-theory mentality, I guess.
[[And Christianity is a sycretic fabrication of mithraism and other eastern cults. ]]
ROFLMAO! The influence on Mithraism was the other way around, child.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:36 am
I know this is an astronomy blog, but obsessing about the star really misses the biggest problem with Matthew’s nativity account.
Am I the only one wondering why there are no contemporary accounts of Herod’s massacre of the infants? You’d think that something like that would leave a stain (sic) in the historical record, especially as the reign of Herod, as well as those of the Tetrachs that succeeded him, is otherwise pretty well historically documented…
As any sensible theologian will tell you, Matthew made up the massacre story to tie Jesus to Moses in the minds of his Jewish target audience. Many of the other unique elements of Matthew’s gospel (Matthew shares much text with Luke and Mark, the other “Synoptic” gospels) serve a similar purpose and are similarly symbolic, hot historical.
Unfortunately, many modern readers are far more literal-minded than the author(s) and original audience. In fact, it’s very likely that the very concept of “literally correct” was meaningless until quite recently (say, a handful of centuries ago?). Consider that Matthew deliberately conflates or modifies the Old Testament quotations he uses to support his presentation of Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and destiny (for example, Bethlehem goes from “not least in the eyes of YHWH” to “though small in the eyes of YHWH”), and nobody bothered to correct him *through centuries of copying in which many other changes were introduced*. Until very recently, it simply didn’t matter to copyists or readers or even theologians that the quotation wasn’t literally correct!
In other words, Biblical literalism is not merely stupid, it’s a modern invention with no basis in, uh, the Bible…
December 29th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Barton,
First, I am not a CHILD.
Second, you should learn some history.
You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras#Mithraism_and_Christianity
And, disbelief in religious dogma is NOT conspiracy theory. It is …rational thought.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:07 am
The church, of course, has its own invented history. So, the fact the second century church fathers claimed that
“Mithraism, was a diabolical imitation of
Christianity” is irrelevant.
The wikepedia article that I cited gives
the rest of the story–as discussed by secular historians.
Barton needs to listen less to his pastor ,and the dogma of his CULT,and more to HISTORIANS, who understand such things as the rules of evidence.
Good Darwin, Barton.
” So what is holy to the celebrated agnostic?”
” A child’s ability to learn the multiplication
tables.”–Inherit the Wind
December 29th, 2007 at 11:22 am
In the other thread, I posted a long diatribe about the Star. I will reprint it here, but I must make a note first: When I talk about December 25, 2 BC, I’m not referring to Jesus’ birth date. That’s just when the Magi came, which was after Jesus was born.
Here is the post.
At the risk of sounding like I’m repeating someone else’s conclusion or going off on a tangent…
There are nine qualifications for the Star of Bethlehem.
1. It signified birth.
2. It signified kingship.
3. It had a connection with the Jewish nation.
4. It rose in the east, like other stars.
5. It appeared at a precise time.
6. Herod didn’t know when it appeared.
7. It endured over time.
8. It was ahead of the Magi as they went south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.
9. It stopped over Bethlehem.
When the Magi came from the East to Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1), they asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him” (Matt. 2:2). Therefore, we can see that this section of Matthew lays out the first three prerequisites. Further, when the Magi said “in the east,” the original Greek is “en anatole,” which means they saw it RISING in the east. Since not all phenomena in the sky do this, number 4 is stipulated.
The Magi wanted to worship a Jewish king. Although one cannot prove this from the Bible itself, the Magi may well have been Jews; this would not only explain why a (Jewish) philosopher, Philo, would have admiration for them, but it would also illustrate why Herod and the rest of Jerusalem took them so seriously. If they were not, then they certainly carried a lot (this is an understatement) of power, because Jews did not take kindly to pagans. We know from historians that, at this time, sky-watching was in a period of intense activity. The Jews were also expecting the Messiah to come to fulfill prophecy, and omens from the sky were accepted as an announcement.
What was the reason that Jerusalem was quaking in its boots at this time? To see a possible explanation, one must rewind sixty years previous, when other magi made a similar declaration of the birth of a new king to the Roman Senate, which promptly ordered the killings of boys in an appropriate age range. Evidently, the Jerusalem Jews did not wish this to happen to them. So, by extrapolation, this was a sort of precedent in which the Bethlehem babies were slaughtered. But why Bethlehem, and not Jerusalem?
Matthew 2:4-7: “4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. 5 ‘In Bethlehem in Judea,’ they replied, ‘for this is what the prophet has written: 6 “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.”‘ 7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared.”
(The aforementioned prophet is Micah.)
Note that the star appeared at a precise time (5), and Herod did not know and had to ask (6).
Matt. 2:8-9: “8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, ‘Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.’ 9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was.”
Thus we can derive the final three stipulations for the Star: (7) It endured for a long period of time: The Magi traveled from some place to Judea and still saw it; (8) It went ahead of them–and it did not need to, for Bethlehem was only around five miles south of Jerusalem by the main road, so the Wise Men couldn’t miss it–and served as further confirmation; and (9) It stopped over Bethlehem.
Therefore it can be deduced that the Star was NOT one of the following:
-A meteor. These are too fleeting to have lasted that long and are not at all unusual phenomena.
-A comet. At this stage of civilization, comets were seen as harbingers of bad tidings. While God could have chosen to use such a symbol to signify His Son’s birth, what would be the purpose, since the event was a joyous occurrence for the benefit of mankind? Additionally, many civilizations (like the aforementioned Chinese) kept records of these events, and not one appears in the timespan of 3-2 BC. Also, comets are conspicuous.
-A nova/supernova. Again, novae were recorded, and none hail from this point in time; they were similarly conspicuous.
So what else could it be? How about considering the planets? The ancients called the planets “wandering stars.” The word “planet” is descended from the Greek “planete,” “wanderer.”
Jupiter has long been known as the King Planet. Since it has acquired this name, does it have anything to do with the birth of Christ? It would have to fulfill the previously stipulated requirements, and at the time of the Jewish Rosh Hashana (sp?), the Jewish New Year, of 3 BC, it began to do just that.
Jupiter goes into conjunction with Regulus about every twelve years. (Regulus comes from the same root word as “regal,” and it has long been associated with royalty: the Babylonians called it “Sharu;” the Romans, “Rex,” both of which mean “king.”) Ordinarily, this would be nothing special, especially if our Magi had had a fifty-year career or so. However, Jupiter then entered into retrograde motion…and made two more conjunctions, roughly tracing out a halo- or crown-shaped pattern in the sky. But this alone is not enough.
Judah has long been likened to a lion. In Genesis 49, for example:
“9 You are a lion’s cub, O Judah; you return from the prey, my son. Like a lion he crouches and lies down, like a lioness– who dares to rouse him? 10 The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.”
Since the Messiah came from the tribe of Judah, and a lion was symbolic of Judah, this is a clue. The triple conjunction of Regulus occurred in the constellation of Leo–the Lion.
Revelation is full of symbolism, which often deals with stars. Jumping forward to Revelation 12, a passage makes more sense when one looks at the sky in September of 3 BC:
“1 A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4 His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter…”
Guess what constellation rises after Leo? Virgo, the Virgin. At its feet was a new moon…and Virgo rose with the Sun.
Now, these symbols could mean a birth, but what if it meant a conception? Would there be something in the sky nine months later, in June of 2 BC? Indeed.
By this time, Jupiter had finished its coronation of Regulus and was on its merry way to one of the most spectacular conjunctions of all time, one displayed in planetariums today even by non-Christians because it makes for a good show: Jupiter and Venus would appear to join, indistinguishable to the naked eye. Humans had not seen anything like this before, and this could very well have alerted the Magi that something was up. But did the Jupiter-Venus joining appear in the south, like it would have had to if the Magi were to have followed it? In a word, yes. If our Magi had looked for it in the “wee hours,” there it was, in the south.
Now, eight requirements are fulfilled. But, as for the ninth: Did Jupiter really stop over Bethlehem? Could a planet stop?
Yes it could.
Thanks to retrograde motion, Jupiter would have appeared to have stopped over Bethlehem on December 25, 2 BC.
There were other signs at Christ’s death, as well, but as this forum deals only with the Star of Bethlehem, I will not get into them here. This may be viewed at http://www.bethlehemstar.com/
December 29th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Barton,
Here is a comment about how Christian scribes INSERTED the references by Tacitus
etc., into the books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
//
Some have suggested that this passage could be a later addition by Christian scribes.[Stein, Gordon, The American Rationalist, "The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell" (1982) http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml No early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution, although this is an argument from silence. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero.[4] Sulpicius Severus repeats the passage nearly verbatum without crediting Tacitus in Chronica, but it is unknown whether Severus borrowed from Tacitus, whether a Christian scribe inserted Severus into Tacitus or whether a third source was involved. The passage also mistakenly calls Pontius Pilate a procurator instead of a prefect, a mistake also made in a passage by Josephus.[5] This mistake, while possibly showing a common editor of Tacitus and Josphus could also be Tacitus using Josephus as a source or both of them using a common source.
//
Now, you know something, my CHILD,
it always feels like you have lost something!
December 29th, 2007 at 11:41 am
More from the same article:
//
Tacitus claims that an “immense multitude” of Christians were killed when there were not an immense multitude in Rome at the time. Tacitus calls Pontius Pilot a “procurator” instead of a “prefect” (Tacitus’ father was a procurator and he clearly knew the difference). Tacitus calls the followers “Christians” when it is unlikely that they had yet chosen this name. All of these mistakes could be due to exaggeration or errors in reporting when written by Tacitus in 116.
//
To be fair, the article also says that most historians consider the quote from Tacitus
authentic–but then, most historians are
christians. In the light of the above evidence, it is clear that the church copyists
changed or fabricated the passage.
They did this a lot.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Barton Paul Levenson says: “[[ It makes a compelling case that
> the Jesus story is COMPLETELY fabricated,]] And that puts
> you in the same class as folks who believe in UFOs and the
> Bermuda Triangle, Jack. No historian in his right mind thinks
> Jesus never existed.”
Let me get this straight. The fact that there is no independent supporting evidence for your claim puts me in the same category as those who say the lack of evidence is the support for their claim.
> — but, of course, you would dismiss the whole New Testament
> as not being a “historical record.”
I think my point got through.
- Jack
December 29th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Artifex, I still do not understand how you arrive at the date of Dec. 25, 2 BC as the date the Magi arrived. The only connection between Dec.25 and the Christian celebration of Christmas is the Roman festival, Saturnalia, which the Christians “converted”.
December 29th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Hi Michael,
Legends and myths speak to the deep unconscious–and you don’t have to throw the legend of “baby Jesus” out. Just know that it is a legend.
As to the followers, I agree. Much evil has been done, and, as the story says: “You shall know them by their works”. Not all
Christians are evil, but history shows that
intolerant dogmatists of this stripe have done horrors through the last two thousand years. And our current religious right is cut IMHO from the same cloth. They are America’s Taliban.
” And banners blazing and trumpets blaring, we will go straight back to the middle ages–when a man could be burned
for speaking his thoughts.”–Inherit the Wind
We are only a few hundred years from the Salem Witch trials, in this country.
To return to the utility of legends, one good
source is the works of Joseph Campbell, though nothing he says was original with him.
” And now you must pass from history into
legend”–Ann Rice, ending the Lestat series.
December 29th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Michael,
Of course, you already know that it’s a legend, but my last comments were addressed to your comments about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
No need to do that.
I don’t believe in Moses, or Krishna, or
Buddha, or the Miltonic Lucifer, but I find
it useful to quote them and find wisdom in
the words.
” The mind is its own master, and can make a heaven out of hell or a hell out of heaven”–Lucifer, Paradise Lost.
December 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Hi Penny, I totally agree with you. The extreme religious right truly horrifies me. Especially those that have the ear of the White House. What we would have considered “fringe” 10-20 years ago, is now becoming more accepted as a political force. It scares me that individuals that lead mega-churches, with mega TV ministries reaching millions, are supporting the ongoing mess in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and calling for the invasion of Iran. Didn’t US Intelligence recently conclude that Iran has given up it’s refining of weapons grade material? What is even scarier is that the followers of these evangelical megalomaniacs blindly follow their leaders’ every word. I guess there’s a reason they call their followers “sheep.”
December 29th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
As far as the existence of Jesus, I have no doubt such a man lived, and was an itinerant preacher in Judea. However, His message was far different than the message of many of his followers in this day and age. He shunned political power, yet today, many of his followers crave it. He railed against religious hypocrisy and bigotry. The main targets of his attacks were not regular folks like us, but religious leaders and the elite that held themselves up as being better than others.
The truth is, we may never know what the star of Bethlehem was. Undoubtedly we will see these arguments rehashed again this time next year. Someone will come up with a new theory. The fact is, people of faith will continue to believe it was a miracle, and reject any scientific answer. Rationalists will reject the miraculous element, and only accept a scientific answer. I think the main message of Christmas is what contains the magic: “Peace on Earth and Goodwill to men.” Unfortunately we have already seen that sentiment blown away.
December 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
There seems to be a slight confusion between the arrival of “Wise Men” in Matthew and the “manger scene”. They are not the same story and not at the same point in the life-legend of Jeebus. The former is from Matthew chapter 2. The latter concerns shepherds (not wise men) who visit Jesus (as a baby )and occurs in Luke chap 2. As always, commonly held beliefs are merely extra-biblical mythmaking.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Lonergan – to add to the irony,
Jesus Preached:
Against money and even employment (Matthew 6, Luke 16) yet his followers denounce anyone who does this.
He preached against assets/personal belongings of any kind for his followers. (Luke 18, Mark 10, Matthew 19 and eslewhere). Even says that you’re neither one of his followers nor allowed to heaven if you keep possesions.
Women are repeatedly denigrated and not considered worthy of the religion or even heaven, can’t speak whik ein chirch and must remain subervient yet the religion has female followers.
Jesus preached against anyone too dumb to realize he was speaking in parables (Mark 4:13) yet we have New Testament literalists.
Jesus repeatedly spoke AGAINST the family yet Xtians make loud quacking sounds about family values. (Matthew 10:35; Luke 12:52; Luke 14:26 and many more).
Jesus blames the gentiles from his coming death (Mark 10:33; Luke 18:32) yet we have Xtians who claim a biblical source for the their anti-semitism.
Galatians 2:16 tells Xtians they are above the law yet American Xtians tend towards federalist jingoism.
This is a man who preferred the company of criminals and repeatedly broke the law until ultimately receiving the death penalty. Yet his followers, claiming imitation, profess the opposite.
etc etc
etc, etc
December 29th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
How come your readers never list the evils of athiesm?
You wad up all the deaths due to religion throughout history (including the Muslims by the way) and it isn’t a patch to the amount of systematic murder perpetrated by atheists.
The Godless set a high bar.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
What the problem with this is is that we are viewing the Bible with a Western, modern, American mindset. We conveniently forget that this was an ancient culture, many years removed from us.
It is all right to have money–it is necessary for day-to-day life, because (and this is especially in America) stuff simply costs money–but when it starts to get to one’s head and be before God, THAT is when it becomes a problem. Similarly, it is not impermissible to have personal belongings. It’s when they take a place ahead of God that it’s the problem.
In Mark 4:13, Jesus was talking to the Disciples, who, as the Bible says in Luke 24:45, were unable to understand the Scriptures until He opened their minds to it.
The claim of women not speaking to which I believe you are referring (I Corinthians 11:6) was actually sent by Paul to a place where the women were beginning to be a bit of a distraction (Corinth).
That Galatians 2:16 is a blatant twisting of the facts. Jesus is saying that one is not going to Heaven by works (the “law” referred to being the Law of the Pentateuch) but by faith. However, when regarding the law (of man), if God is our Father, then our ultimate obedience must be to Him, and not to any earthly authority, when the two conflict.
Matthew 10:35 is not an attack against the family, nor are those other references. Luke 14:26 I will address first. The Bible here is making the point of some reasons why potential converts will not make the commitment. Note how it says to “hate [one's] own life.” This is not a literal “hate.” Jesus is telling people to consider the cost of commitment, for some will become disciples, then find they are unwilling to continue, and then be rejected. As for Matthew 10:35 and Luke 12:52-53 (I include verse 53 because it is a similar reiteration of Matthew 10:35), I will allow “Live Your Design” to explain (the link is at http://www.liveyourdesign.org/library/biblestudy/dying_to_be_normal/):
“Jesus is not dealing with people in this passage of Scripture, He is dealing with spirits. Jesus if all for family unity and loving one another in the family; but the reality is that the unsaved person does not understand spiritual truth (1 Corinthians 2:14). The natural mind hates and is opposed to spiritual truth (Romans 8:7). Therefore a saved person can experience division (variance) or even opposition from unsaved family members because the spirit of the flesh (Galatians 5:17) and the spirit of Satan (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) don’t understand, and actively fight, against God and His Word. A person should still love and seek a relationship with the lost family member, but there can never be a total unity between a saved and a lost person because they are of different spirits.”
In Mark 10:33, Jesus is not blaming the Gentiles for His betrayal. He says the chief priests will HAND HIM OVER to the Gentiles. This does not make anti-Semitism right in any way, shape, or form, however; Jesus forgave those who brought about His crucifixion (Luke 23:34).
While I’m on the subject, turning the other cheek and giving the robber your clothes don’t mean sitting back and taking it without a fight. To that culture, the turning of the cheek would involve using a different hand (the distinction between them was that one was “clean” and the other, “dirty”) to remind the hitter of what he or she was doing. Also to that culture, giving the person the tunic AND the cloak would leave a man naked, and it was shameful to look upon a naked man at that place and time.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:46 am
The evils of atheists, the evils of religion? How about the evil of humanity? I have seen just as much atrocity committed by both adherents to religious faith and dogma of many stripes, and those with no religious faith whatsoever. Both points of view can be used to justify almost any act, and one side is no less innocent than the other.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:50 am
Michael,
I agree, but far more evil has been committed by the followers of religion than by atheists.
Under atheist evil, I list Stalin and Mao etc.
All of this comes under the heading of
“restriction of free thought” and ” authoration mind set”. These are the worst qualities of organized religion, and Mao and Stalin carefully studied and utilized the process. Thus, in Mao’s China, no bible, but a “little red book”–used to justify a terror state. In Stalinist Russia, an atheist
inquisition–carefully modeled on that of
Christianity–different dogma.
But, in a society of free inquiry–atheists
( aka, in the terminology of the 19th century–”Free Thinkers”)
are a lot harder to herd into battle.
Do we still have such a society in America?
We have lost a lot of ground. Such things as the attempt of the creationists to control and destroy our science education.
We need to oppose them at every turn.
Science classes are not about “GOD”, they are about rational thought, repeatable proof, etc. We need to careful that the
enlightenment is not rolled back by the forces of ignorant darkness. They are trying VERY HARD.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:07 am
papertiger wrote:
You wad up all the deaths due to religion throughout history (including the Muslims by the way) and it isn’t a patch to the amount of systematic murder perpetrated by atheists. //
Who are you kidding?–or are you just delusional?
Ever hear of Ghengis Khan, Tammerlan,
Suliman the Magnificent,
the Roman Empire, The Persian Empire,
The Czars of Russia, The thousand years of Religious ( aka Christian vs Christian) war
that devastated Europe ,
the Nazis ( who were NOT atheists), and
don’t forget the Moslem take over of Costantinople–which lead directly to the Black Plague that killed half the population of Europe. How about the genocide of the native american aborigines ( aka Indians)
by westerners that didn’t believe they had souls? That alone exceeds in number the people killed by Mao, and Stalin combined.
Perhaps, we should also add the Moslem and Christian Slave Trade in Africa, the
excesses of King Leopold of Belgium in
Africa, …. I could go on and on.
Read “Gun, Germs, and Steel” by Jarrod
Diamond for a start.
December 30th, 2007 at 4:15 am
I’m coming to this a little late, as I’ve been away for the week. On a quick read-through of this post and the previous one it appears that our host and the majority of the commentators concentrate on the properties of the star (understandably, given the theme of the blog). It is however more profitable to look at Matthew’s nativity story as a whole – it becomes clear on close examination that the whole story is fictional (or mythical if you prefer). I did have a go at this some time ago:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/mistaeks/starofbethlehem.html
Hopefully some of you will find it interesting.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:56 am
I agree Penny, I was just trying to state that humans, no matter what their creed, or lack of creed, are capable of great atrocities.
December 30th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Michael,
Absolutely.
One thing that I like about atheism is that we are responsible for our own evils and our own goods. No pushing off moral responsibility to imaginary gods or devils.
No special reward for goodness, only the knowledge that you acted with good intent.
Anyway, it is pure human arrogance to assume that we are more than a link in an evolutionary chain–which MAY evolve a greater intellect ( or not).
It has never been the human race that is the source of my hopes and disappointments, it is what it may evolve into.
Although high intelligence is probably no panacea for evil, it has been my experience
dealing with some of the brightest mathematicians on the earth, that at a certain level–it becomes more interesting to understand the structure of the primes
( or the n-manifolds) than to dominate and enslave other people or to have lots of silly material toys.
I might hope ( probably naive) that, when our intelligence is three times that of today,
humans will be motivated by the search for
mathematical and scientific understanding.
Perhaps, they will be also motivated by artforms that we cannot even comprehend.
Right now, we are all that we have, and we are mass murdering each other over minor
variations on mythological fairy tales.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Then again, Heisenberg, Teichmuller, and Blaschke were Nazis–so, at least for current humans, I was being naive. Brilliance and math are not enough.
Sometimes my childhood programming
does break through. Too many optimistic
futurist essays.
Now very depressed, I am going to back to proving a theorem, in the hopes that a rational universe of mathematical thought will at least stop me from crying.
Now, I have learned something, and it
always feels like I have lost something!!
December 30th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Jack – yes I know all that…but I could swear I read somewhere that starting the year near the winter solstice started a bit earlier than the Julian calendar.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Optimistic futurist essays, and Science Fiction are almost as bad as religion–except that absolute truth is not invoked.
It’s still programming: Worse in some ways, as it is insidious.
Curse you, “Popular Science” and “Analog”!
I should add that part of my bad mood is that I just got back from trying to eat at a chicken restaurant and the crazy christian fanatic owner tried to convert me at my table!
It’s been quite a day. Sorry for the rant.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Penny, did you tip him?
December 30th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Kevin Conod says: “Jack – yes I know all that…but I could swear I read somewhere that starting the year near the winter solstice started a bit earlier than the Julian calendar.”
I’m willing to be enlightened, if you find the source.
- Jack
December 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I’ve always heard that it was a reference to an astrological event that became ‘misunderstood’ as some astronomical one…
something like a conjunction of planets in a region marking Israel or something…
I don’t really care though.
December 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Dear Michael,
Thanks, I needed some humor.
best
Penny
As it turns out, I went to bed and slept all this time. I had awful nightmares. But, I am feeling 70% better now.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:34 am
Brian Dunning of Skeptoid had a recent podcast which addressed the subject of body count with regards to atheists vs. Christians. The text is here: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4076
December 31st, 2007 at 8:30 am
penny posts:
[[Barton needs to listen less to his pastor ,and the dogma of his CULT,and more to HISTORIANS, who understand such things as the rules of evidence.]]
How silly of me to have a classics minor. I must not have been listening to the historians who taught me.
The word “cult” was originally a technical term in cultural anthropology, and referred to the ritual side of a religion. In modern American parlance, it has come to mean “a religion I don’t like.” For penny, I guess that would be pretty much any religion at all.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:32 am
penny writes:
[[Here is a comment about how Christian scribes INSERTED the references by Tacitus etc., into the books:]]
Right, penny. No one would have noticed, since nobody but Christians spoke Latin back then. ROFLMAO.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:36 am
Jeffersonian writes:
[[Women are repeatedly denigrated and not considered worthy of the religion or even heaven]]
Where did Jesus say that? You may be confusing Christianity with Gnosticism. “Women are not worthy of life” — Gospel of Thomas, Logia #114. Compare to Galatians 3:28 — “In Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, bond nor free, but ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
December 31st, 2007 at 8:37 am
Artifex — thanks for posting, my brother. I was feeling awfully alone here.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:41 am
Penny writes:
[[I agree, but far more evil has been committed by the followers of religion than by atheists. ]]
Let’s see. Antonov-Ovseyenko (1982), who had access to the records of the Central Statistical Administration of the USSR, estimated 100 million people had been killed under Stalin. But he was counting deficit births. Using a demographic model I wrote in the 1980s, I make it closer to 80 million.
I think the best estimate for the PRC is about 60 million. Add a few million by Pol Pot, Mengistu Haile Mariam, etc. Altogether, I’d estimate 150 million state murders for officially atheist regimes.
I don’t think all the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Witch Trials together add up to a million, although I’m open to correction on this point. If I’m wrong by a factor of ten, the odds are still heavily weighted toward atheism.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:44 am
Penny writes:
[[How about the genocide of the native american aborigines ( aka Indians) by westerners that didn’t believe they had souls? That alone exceeds in number the people killed by Mao, and Stalin combined. ]]
Which westerners didn’t believe the Indians had souls? And do you really expect us to believe that westerners killed more than 150 million native Americans? There weren’t that many native Americans!
There were millions of deaths in the west due to the European colonization, but more than 90% were from infectious disease, not genocide. That doesn’t excuse mistreatment of the Indians, but I think your tendency to blame everything you can on religion leads you to exaggerate a bit.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:47 am
Penny writes:
[[Although high intelligence is probably no panacea for evil, it has been my experience dealing with some of the brightest mathematicians on the earth, that at a certain level–it becomes more interesting to understand the structure of the primes ( or the n-manifolds) than to dominate and enslave other people or to have lots of silly material toys. ]]
How does that explain Werner Heisenberg working to manufacture an A-bomb for Hitler? Or Werner von Braun putting his expertise to work at bombing civilians in London? Or Mohammed Khan selling nuclear know-how to North Korea?
Intelligence not only isn’t a panacea for evil, it enables someone to perform evil more efficiently. Retarded people don’t tend to be mass murderers. Nor do MENSA members tend to be saints.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:49 am
Penny writes:
[[Optimistic futurist essays, and Science Fiction are almost as bad as religion]]
Gosh, I’m doubly a bad guy, since I have a religion and write science fiction.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:20 am
Penny:
I apologize for calling you “child” in my initial post. It was patronizing. From your posts I had you pegged as a teenager, but for all I know you could be an adult. Sorry about that.
-BPL
December 31st, 2007 at 9:40 am
Barton,
Stalin executed about one million people
for political offenses. Perhaps, four million might have died in the Gulag.
Fourteen million died because of a bad
agricultual policy ( ignoring evolution in biology, in fact), and THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING.
As to your eighty million, as you said, you made up your own numbers—In your model…etc.
The christians colonisers of the Americas
first tried to christianize the Natives ( of which there were tens of millions!), and when it didn’t work decided to kill them.
That was when the church decided that they didn’t have souls and were not really human beings. There was a systematic program of introducing diseases such as smallpox ( by giving out smallpox infected
goods etc.) to help it along.
Start With : “Lies, my Teacher Told Me.”
and ” A People’s History of America” and then read “Guns, Germs and Steel” to find out what REALLY happened.
As to “Nobody but Christians spoke Latin back then”, that is irrelevant , because we
had more than a thousand years where access to the roman classics was indeed only through versions copied and revised by Monks in a culture where most people were kept illiterate by the Church.
Pol Pott killed less than two million.
I notice that you chose to ignore my other examples–such as the Roman Empire–who were pagan but not atheists.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:49 am
Barton,
Yes, you are doubly bad because you write science fiction and have a religion ( smile).
I hope the science fiction is not as cryptochristian as “Perelandra” or
“The Day the Earth Stood Still” or ”
A Wrinkle in Time”.
I have been reading a very intersting book about the links between the practice of Black Magic and Science Fiction. Such people as Jules Verne got their inspirations
from Occult Brotherhood ideas ( such as Power X, and the Hollow Earth ). H.G. Wells
as well, with direct quotes of Satanic ritual
in ” The Island of Dr. Moreau”. Of course,
L.Ron Hubbard and Aleister Crowley, and
there are many more examples.
It is no wonder that many of the ideas of Science Fiction were poison–polluted by Christianity and its variant: Satanism.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:02 am
In fact, in my earlier post, which you obviously missed, I said much the same things as you have said about Nazi scientists etc.
Of course, the Moslem physicist you mention–who gave them the H-bomb
was also religious. Intelligence can be easily overwhelmed by religion.
The idea that greater intelligence tends to divorce a person from evil is one that I get from two sources:
My own experiences with very bright people.
Science Fiction and Futurist essays in my childhood.
Probably, the latter’s overvaluation of the moral value of intelligence stems from the Satanic Roots of Science Fiction. But, that is a conjecture.
Lastly:
You apoligized with:
//
From your posts I had you pegged as a teenager, but for all I know you could be an adult. Sorry about that.//
I COULD BE AN ADULT—what a backhanded and patronizing insult.
You have a facile tongue. Too bad that your “god given gift” of a silver tongued eloquence has been
serving the deviltry and decit of religous
rant.
For all I know, you are in elementary school.
Anyway, it was fun. I enjoyed fencing with you. What are the titles of your Science Fiction books or stories? I guess I could look it all up
on Amazon, but, hey, I am friends with the author.
Can you give us some summaries of them?
December 31st, 2007 at 10:10 am
Barton,
One last thing. I notice that you quote figures from Antonov-Ovseyenko (1982).
However, Antonov-Ovseyenko died in
1939 ( in fact, executec by Stalin).
He was hardly unbiased, as he was a political enemy (a Trotsky supporter).
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/a/n.htm
Maybe, you mean a different Antonov-Ovseyenko ?
Off the thread, as I have to do some work this week. It was fun.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Before I respond, I would recommend Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ.
Penny,
While estimates range from a low ten million to a high of one hundred twelve million (which I personally find doubtful) as a pre-Columbian Exchange population, it is believed that the vast majority lived in South America. In any case, most of the diseases were probably accidental, seeing as how smallpox had, up until that point, been a strictly Eurasian affair. Also, an oft-downplayed fact is that smallpox often went ahead of the Europeans, devastating indigenous populations before the Euros had contact with them (according to David Cook), and it is also asserted by Cook that there is no evidence of any intentional smallpox spreading by the Spanish, although it was seriously discussed by the British at Fort Pitt, during Pontiac’s Rebellion. (And, yes, I am familiar with Loewen. I have Lies Across America at home.) Also, historians like Las Casas (who described massacres) were writing for reform, and Las Casas was turned from support for the Spanish conquest because he believed it would lead to the collapse of Spain through Divine retribution; his views led to (read this) Native-protecting laws.
Of course, there was widespread killing of and discrimination and violence against Native Americans, and this is inexcusable.
When Barton said “nobody but Christians spoke Latin back then,” I think he was being sarcastic. When a large number of the historians wrote their texts (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.), the Roman Empire had not yet disbanded.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Penny writes:
[[I notice that you quote figures from Antonov-Ovseyenko (1982).
However, Antonov-Ovseyenko died in
1939 ( in fact, executec by Stalin).
He was hardly unbiased, as he was a political enemy (a Trotsky supporter).]]
I meant that guy’s son. Yes, the Old Bolshevik Antonov-Ovseyenko was eliminated by Stalin (along with most of the other Old Bolsheviks).
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I can’t believe I let this whole thread go by without once singing the atheist Christmas carol. Here it is:
God bless ye, merry atheists, may nothing you dismay!
Remember, there’s no evidence there was a Christmas day!
When Christ was born remains unknown no matter what men say,
Oh, tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact,
Oh, tidings of reason and fact.
There was no star of Bethlehem, there was no angel song,
There could have been no wise men, for the journey was too long,
The stories in the Bible are historically wrong,
Oh, tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact,
Oh, tidings of reason and fact.
We know our Christmas custom comes from Persia and from Greece,
From solstice celebrations of the ancient middle east,
In fact our so-called holiday is but a pagan feast,
Oh, tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact,
Oh, tidings of reason and fact.
I’d like to claim credit for this, but I got it from a song sheet at a Unitarian church in Charlotte NC in 1977.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
9 yrs ago I sat where you all seem to sit now and made many of the same arguments. In a final effort to either debunk the bible or understand it I started studying it, reading and cross referencing the prophecies from beginning to end. Seemed like a simple thing when I started, but over the next 12 months or so I found myself starting to understand and…choke, cough…yes…believe. Now (9yrs later) I say peace to you.
…excerpts from the book of Matthew; “I praise you, Father…you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children…”
“…the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
He called a little child and had him stand among them. And He said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. …Take my yoke upon you…learn from me…I am gentle and humble in heart…you will find rest for your souls…my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
“Here is my servant (Jesus) whom I have chosen, the one I love, …; I will put my Spirit on Him, …He will proclaim justice to the nations. He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear His voice in the streets.
A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoldering wick He will not snuff out, till He leads justice to victory.
In His name the nations will put their hope.”
All this has come to pass and still yet more is on it’s way.
Read the book for yourself before judging, cross ref. the prophecies, …or not. Freewill is a very cool thing? Cheers