Sparrow

After re-reading this I think I might need to make a slight correction. No planet wanders only at a particular time of day. The motion of the planets is distinct only with respect to the stars, and then from night to night. Much of the time a planet appears to be moving in a consistent direction (along the plane of the ecliptic) and speed. Due to the difference in the time it takes for Earth to orbit the Sun as compared to another planet, sometimes the planet appears to slow down, stop and even reverse course before once again resuming the original path. This can only be detected by comparing the position of the planet with respect to the stars over a longer period of time or a series of nights. It is never visible to the naked eye just by watching. Check out a planet tonight and see if you can tell it is moving.

Chris Weimer

Johann,

It's very poor form to ignore a question directed at you and then demand that others answer your own question, especially one that is entirely off-topic. Start a new thread if you have a question about walking on water, and pony up your evidence as soon as you get a chance.

Cheers.

judge

Yes, I didn't mean to imply this. I was trying to make sense of the statement that jupiter "became stationary among the stars." One way to observe the movement of a planet might be to note the movement WRT to stars at a aprticular time of day. However this would not mean that a planet only wanders at this time.
With the heavens (real stars) turning and the planets "wandering" or moving along the ecliptic, from one day to the next", and stars stopping due to retrograde motion, it is a complex situation to some degree.

So the statement that Jupiter "became stationary among the stars" is not a precise statement but none the less can convey its movement in some relative sense.
Yes, but perhaps it is possible to interpret the actions of the Magi in this light? That they observed these things over many days.


I probably need to go bush for a while to really get into it!

Sparrow

What I don't get is if the alleged sign were a planet or even a star, how would the night sky look any different over Bethlehem than Alexandria or Baghdad? If Jupiter appears to stop with respect to the stars, that would be true from every place on Earth.

judge

I can't see how this would be the case either. From what I can see the apologetic argument is that from Jerusalem Jupiter stopped
over the direction of Bethlehem.

Sparrow

I'm not convinced that a 68 degree angle corresponds to shining 'directly down on'. I'm still confused as to how the view would differ from some other place, given that Jupiter is very far away. And I'm still confused as to why we're focussed on Dec 25th, since we know the shepherds were in their fields tending their flock, which they only do Spring to Fall, not immediately after the winter solstice. Of course Herod was dead by 4 BCE so Jesus was already at least two years old when this astronomical event occurred. That is unless you believe the gospel of Luke where Jesus isn't born until the census that first took place in 6 CE.

judge

I don't think the article suggests it would be any different to any other place. From anywhere in that region at least, Jupiter would have apparently been in the southern sky. It is just that Bethlehem was apparently just south of Jerusalem. One had to be viewing from Jerusalem to get the Bethlehem connection.



I have not read the rest of the book so I am not sure how they might deal with this.

Yes this is that case if we acdcept the 34 years that has been discussed in a recent thread.

In that thread Spin posted ..and I see no way around what Spin argues there except trying to argue that Josephus got the number of years wrong there and on other occaisions.

Whether one can rely on this 34 years from josephus is another question.
Josephus clearly contracdicts himself WRT to date of the death of Herod. On the one hand he indicates it must have been around 4 BCE (some seem to think 3BCE), on the other hand he is quite plain that there was a lunar eclipse shortly before and that passover followed.

Using this data, also from Josephus 1BCE is the only year that fits.


Luke refers to the first Census under Quirinius, or perhaps the first one when Quirinius was governor.
Implying here that there were two census, or perhaps that Quirinius was governor twice.
Why would Luke include the word "first"?
If Luke wished to point to the Census in 6BCE he would just have the said "the Census when Qurinius was govenor" wouldn't he?

Johann_Kaspar

Who knows?

No evidence except that the "letters" appeared with Marcion and that they smell fabrication.

As said: Marcion.

Accepting something does not mean it has anything to do with reality. Paul is never dead. Is Tarzan dead?

1) Paul is literature, like Tarzan, Superman.
2) Nobody knows. All hypothesis are only hypothesis, that is guess work.

Johann_Kaspar

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
Fish, fishermen are directly linked to the sea. Didn't you know that?

Thanks for evading the question, though. And congratulations for your insight.

Ah and yeah, you know a lot about "form". :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

I'll be waiting in that other thread...

reddish

Now if only they could bring themselves to understand "this generation" as "this generation" (Mt 24:34).