Was the star of Bethlehem a real astronomical event?

[LastPoet]

Cox, if you want virtual pats in the back for your belief, you'd better off in christianforums or something like that, not saying you should leave, but if you came to swim with the sharks, expect to be bitten.

People have tried to explain you how an Astronomical event, albeit beautifull, means nothing. And you keep pressing the issue, as if our words are meaningless, just because you want to believe so much. It does not anger me that you believe in god or whatever, but it angers me grealy that you are so blinded by religion that you can't see the criticisms made to your claims.

[KichigaiNeko]

Cox, if you want virtual pats in the back for your belief, you'd better off in christianforums or something like that, not saying you should leave, but if you came to swim with the sharks, expect to be bitten.

People have tried to explain you how an Astronomical event, albeit beautifull, means nothing. And you keep pressing the issue, as if our words are meaningless, just because you want to believe so much. It does not anger me that you believe in god or whatever, but it angers me grealy that you are so blinded by religion that you can't see the criticisms made to your claims.

Perchance Cox has read one too many astrological charts??

Though the http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space...stery.html is very interesting and occurs around the same time period.
stupid xtians

[CoxRox]

Whilst checking out these 'astronomical' claims these last few weeks, I've emailed John Mosley a few times. He kindly sent me some information which I've emailed to Stimbo for his purusal. I've no doubt that the 'astronomy' is correct (as presented by Larson), but as John Mosley himself asserts, these events of 3/2 BC do not prove the Biblical account of a star. In the last two weeks, I've felt uneasy with the 'astrological' implications, which you just cannot separate from Larson's 'star' ie messages in the stars! For that reason I will not be pursuing this any further. It's not been a wasted exercise though, as some of the historical 'support' for Larson's star, has a bearing on some points that Minimalist raised earlier:

I'm going to email Larson regarding this. I'll continue to check it out.

You do that. And while you're waiting read this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...inius.html

Conclusion

There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of at least one of the two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus

This is now my new project. It may take me some weeks or months to check these things out, but when I do, I will message you Minimalist, if that is ok.

[Minimalist]

Just call me "Min" for short.

Whenever you're ready.

[Cyberman]

Hi, C-R, and thanks again for the documents. I have been going through them, though I haven't had the emotional strength of late to devote as much time to them as I would have liked. I did try to find out more about Mosley though, I'd never heard of him before this and I was a little uneasy about some of his conclusions. The only references I've been able to unearth about him have been about this Beth Star 'theory' which seems to have shifted many books for him. There are a couple of articles I thought were interesting enough to present for general dissection: this summary of a TV debate or documentary from 1994, which makes some bold claims about Herod among other things; and an article addressing "Common Errors in "Star of Bethlehem" Planetarium Shows" with similar claims.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't understand Cox. You're obviously searching for something magical, so why not astrology? Why is this kind of magic to be avoided as childish and ignorant, but the divine kind of magic to be searched for? What are the prerequisites for the type of magic you want to find? If you can't accept astrology then maybe you've set the bar far too high for god? Astrology at least refers to things that exist in it's explanation of things that don't. Not so much for the divine.

[Minimalist]

The ancients were always looking for some portent or other to announce great events.

What kind of 'god' would this jesus have been if he didn't have a few bullshit stories made up about him.

http://books.google.com/books?id=nmB2sHX...ts&f=false


(Caesar's "comet" of 44 BC)

[CoxRox]

Hi, C-R, and thanks again for the documents. I have been going through them, though I haven't had the emotional strength of late to devote as much time to them as I would have liked. I did try to find out more about Mosley though, I'd never heard of him before this and I was a little uneasy about some of his conclusions. The only references I've been able to unearth about him have been about this Beth Star 'theory' which seems to have shifted many books for him. There are a couple of articles I thought were interesting enough to present for general dissection: this summary of a TV debate or documentary from 1994, which makes some bold claims about Herod among other things; and an article addressing "Common Errors in "Star of Bethlehem" Planetarium Shows" with similar claims.

I got the impression from reading Mr Mosley's booklet, that he is not presenting these 'events' of 3/2 BC, as proof for the biblical 'star', as Larson does. These 'event's as shown in the planetaria shows, make interesting viewing from an astronomical perspective, but of course, for those who belive there was a 'star' in Bethlehem 2000 years ago, then, it is interesting to consider that these events could well be 'it'.

I'm going to email you something else which is more private, which may be of interest to you.

---

I don't understand Cox. You're obviously searching for something magical, so why not astrology? Why is this kind of magic to be avoided as childish and ignorant, but the divine kind of magic to be searched for? What are the prerequisites for the type of magic you want to find? If you can't accept astrology then maybe you've set the bar far too high for god? Astrology at least refers to things that exist in it's explanation of things that don't. Not so much for the divine.

I think there is something to this 'message in the stars', but I do not see it as magical. Larson likens the signs in the stars e.g the constellation of leo representing the Jewish nation, or rather the tribe of Judah, as like a thermometer: a thermometer can tell you if it's hot or cold, but it can't affect the temperature. So too with these 'signs' in the heavens. It's not astrology that we are familiar with today e.g reading your horoscope to see how the planets etc are affecting your life. Stars etc don't affect us of course. I'm not decided about Larson's claims of 'poetry in the stars' but there does seem to be something to this. As I don't feel comfortable about it, I won't pursue it any further.

So, no, I'm not searching for something magical. The power that created the universe and the stars is supernatural I believe.

[Jaysyn]

So, no, I'm not searching for something magical. The power that created the universe and the stars is supernatural I believe.

And not a whit of difference between the two.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nor is there any difference between a horoscope or "signs in the stars". Astrology isn't just horoscopes. Astrology is only horoscopes when the subject of inquiry is a human being.

All of this stuff is magical. Why believe in such a power when it very much appears to have been nothing of the sort? I'm only asking this because there isn't anything other than magic to be found in the places that you're looking, or in the thing you're looking for. The proposition itself, at the most bares bones level, of a "supernatural creative power" is exactly equivalent to a spell being cast that brought everything into existence, like Gargamel and smurphs.