jerusha

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3077385/

Wondering about the ‘Star of Wonder’

...
Through the years, astronomers and others have proposed a variety of objects for the Christmas star — comets, an exploding star or a grouping of planets. Some suggest that the star was a miracle created especially by God. Such a suggestion cannot be proved or disproved, and it is entirely outside the realm of science. But there’s no need to resort to miracles, given the actual astronomical events of the time.

The first thing is to determine the approximate date of Jesus’ birth. Then we look into the sky of that period and try to identify the star. It doesn’t work the other way around: Since virtually any year can boast at least one reasonably interesting sky event, the astronomy must follow the history.

Ruling out prime suspects

Let’s assume, as many historians have, that the most likely time frame for the birth of Jesus was between 3 B.C. and A.D. 1. Let’s also assume that the Star of Bethlehem could be observed by skywatchers elsewhere in the world, and not just by the Magi — who are known as “wise men” or “kings” but were actually priests who relied on astrology.

. . . .

... And the mere existence of interesting celestial events does nothing to prove that the birth of Jesus was accompanied by a star, that the Magi existed, or even that the Nativity took place as described in the Bible.

...

:banghead: :notworthy

[edited by Toto to remove cut and paste beyond fair use to avoid copyright problems - please consult the link.}

Please also note this from the article:

This article is based on John Mosley’s 1987 book, “The Christmas Star,” which is available from the Griffith Observatory. “The Christmas Star” addresses many other questions about the season, such as: When was Christ born? Who were the Magi? Why is Christmas observed on Dec. 25?

Krosis

Read the short story by Arthur C. Clark called "The Star".

-cheers

sakrilege

What I would like to know is how can someone follow a star/supernova/planet to a particular position on the earth? Does it have to be directly overhead to be at the point it is pointed at?

Following a comet would get you to some point on the earth but it's moving too fast to be able to follow.

catalyst

This seems more like a BC&H topic.

Catalyst

CX

Discussions like this irritate me. There is no reason to conclude that the infancy narratives are historically true. Consequently trying to find a "scientific" explanation for the star is like having a rational discussion about where the Simpsons live.

Amaleq13

I cannot believe a fellow Chicagoan would allow for the possibility that the Simpsons might live in some Springfield other than our own!!!!


“Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true. Facts shmacts.” --Homer Simpson

contracycle

You can't, any more than you can follow the moon to a specific place. This claim in the legend is one of the biggest giveaways that they were NOT describing real events in reaction to a real phenomenon.

Bede

For what its worth, the magi were astrologers and would have seen patterns that only experts recognise. If the Star was anything, it was an unimpressive tous, but highly significant to an astrologer, conjunction of major planets such as the one that happened, IIRC, in April 4BC.

Matthew didn't know what he was talking about.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

nermal

Assuming it's a star in the east, as the story claims:
Well, if you sleep during the day, and start as soon as you see the star, then follow it until you can't see it any more, you'll go back to sleep about where you started.

Ed

sakrilege

Mat 2:1-2
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Here's another problem, if the wise men followed a star to the east wouldn't they be described as being from the west?