Science Channel had very interesting program on the Star of Bethlehem last night -

by JWoods 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  JWoods

  This is apparantly still a great theological/archeological/astronomical mystery (at least for those who insist on the literal truth of the story). This show did not try to deny the legend - rather, it brought up several theories by modern historical astronomers as to what this "star" might actually have been -

  Of the several theories, these seemed to be the main candidates:

  1) - the star was a comet. Early christian era art depicts a comet form, but probably was influenced by an appearance of Haley's comet.

  2) - the "star" was really an occultation of a rare Jupiter and Saturn orbital confluence by the Moon. It was barely visible to the uninitiated, but the Magi would have noticed it as they were astrologers familiar with such effects.

  3) - the "star" was a supernova which has somehow escaped other historical observation. Kind of a stretch, given the accurate and carefully recorded observations of the Chinese astronomers at this time in history.

  The program made some other interesting points - one being that the historical birth of christ was probably at least 5 bce and more likely about 7 bce. I was amused that they mentioned that the first creators of the A.D. western calender FORGOT THE ZERO YEAR just like the JWs did over a thousand years later.

  I always check out these religious science history programs - and especially this subject, because I was always completely baffled by the JW doctrine that SATAN put up the Star of Bethlehem in a failed effort to kill the christ child through Herod. That notion probably puts up more un-answerable questions than merely trying to identify what the star might have been in legitimate astronomical terms.

  Anyway, it is a good program - worth watching when they repeat it again.
• 

  notverylikely

  I've seen that show. Agree, it was good. They had one about the historicity of David too. That one was awesome. Taken literally, it pointed out what a muderous, greedy opportunist he was.
• 

  JWoods

  Agreed - it is very good. Although I was a little puzzled that they seemed to suggest that all supernovas originated only in binary stars - I thought the theory was they came from a single star large enough to collapse suddenly upon itself when its direct nuclear fuel cycles ran out.

  Just as a question for all the religious historians here on JWN -

  Is anybody aware of ANY other religion that teaches the Star of Bethlehem was a creation of Satan? I am not aware of a single one other than the JWs (and assume that this is an offshoot of their hatred of Christmas).

  Perhaps the Puritans of the early American colonies? - they also rejected Christmas and other Catholic holidays as pagan -
• 

  dissed

  And I always thought it was a glowing demon.....
• 

  JWoods

  And I always thought it was a glowing demon.....

  Pretty much the JW idea - But, I thought that Jehovah kind of imprisoned the demons after the flood so that they couldn't really appear directly in public? And why wouldn't god just put a stop to it if it was really designed to facilitate the murder of the baby Jesus? Makes no sense to me - BTW - this show also made a point that I never had noticed before: The NT story does not directly say there were three wise men - it just mentions that there were three presents. There could have been a dozen Magi, for all we know - given that it was such a hard desert journey all the way from Persia.
• 

  notverylikely

  Although I was a little puzzled that they seemed to suggest that all supernovas originated only in binary stars - I thought the theory was they came from a single star large enough to collapse suddenly upon itself when its direct nuclear fuel cycles ran out.

  Huh, I don't remember that from the show. I missed it I guess. Some supernova are binary stars yes, and others are stars that expand suddenly as their fuel runs out, they collaps, begin a secondary fusion reaction due to gravity and then rapidly expand again (rapidly expand is the same as "explode"), so yeah, you were right. Strange that they would suggest most come from binary star systems.
• 

  JWoods

  Strange that they would suggest most come from binary star systems.

  The reason, I think, that they were insisting on the binary star system is that they also suggested that perhaps these could flash in a sort of preliminary explosion and be visible in stages before the actual big supernova.

  This was supposed to show that maybe the wise men saw an initial burst, and then the real thing later on...again, the whole theory sounded a little "off" from other references I have read on supernovas.