E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Clay Frost / NBC News
The leading explanation for the blblical "Star of Wonder" is that the Three Wise Men saw a series of planetary conjunctions. Click on the image to launch a Flash interactive about the astronomical side of the Nativity story.
The Star of Bethlehem is one of the best-known parts of the Christmas story, celebrated in the Gospel of Matthew as well in as a constellation of holiday songs. It was that star that led the Three Wise Men to the infant Jesus — at least if you believe the Bible. But is there anything in the astronomical record that supports the story of the "Star of Wonder"?
The answer is, maybe. The case of the Christmas Star illustrates how slippery things can get when you try to mix scripture and science.
First of all, there's no way to show a definitive connection between any astronomical phenomenon and the tale of the Nativity. On one hand, you could just say that the star was a miraculous apparition. In that case, no further evidence would be needed. On the other hand, you could say that the whole Nativity story, including the part about the Three Wise Men, is fictional. In that case, trying to find the Christmas Star would be as fruitless as trying to determine the real-life location of Dumbledore's tomb in the "Harry Potter" saga.
But if you go along with the astronomers who have looked into the likeliest scenarios to explain Matthew's references to the Christmas Star, the line of reasoning takes some surprising twists: The star could have been a series of planetary conjunctions, or a comet, or perhaps a nova. These events didn't occur during the year A.D. 1, which most people assume was the year Jesus was born. Instead, they occurred at least a couple of years earlier. They also didn't occur anywhere close to Dec. 25.
And here's what might be the most surprising twist: All this meshes with the views generally held by scriptural scholars.
Matthew's story tells of "wise men from the east" — who were actually priestly astrologers. What they saw in their astronomical calculations led them to alert Judea's king, Herod the Great, to the birth of the "king of the Jews." Herod told the astrologers to look for the infant in Bethlehem and let him know what they found. Matthew says they came upon the infant Jesus, but were warned in a dream not to go back to Herod.
Historical accounts suggest that Herod died around the 4 B.C. — although some scholars suggest the date could have been as early as 5 B.C. or as late as 1 B.C. Using this time frame, astronomers have checked the historical records and run computer simulations of the night sky — and they've come up with these leading candidates for the Christmas Star:
Planets: The simulations show that there was a rare series of planetary groupings, or conjunctions, in 3 B.C. and 2 B.C. The first conjunction was on the morning of June 12 in 3 B.C., with Venus close to Saturn in the eastern sky. The second conjunction was a spectacular pairing of Venus and Jupiter on Aug. 12 in the constellation Leo, which ancient astrologers associated with the destiny of the Jews.
Between September of 3 B.C. and June of 2 B.C., Jupiter would have passed by the star Regulus in Leo, reversed itself and passed it again, then turned back and passed the star a third time. This reversal was due to the planet's apparent retrograde motion — a phenomenon familiar to the astrologers but not necessarily noticed by the casual observer. In his book on the Christmas Star, astronomer John Mosley says this would have been a significant event, because ancient astrologers considered Jupiter the kingly planet and regarded Regulus as the "king star."
The crowning touch came on June 17 of 2 B.C., when Jupiter was so close to Venus that "they would have looked like a single star," Mosley said. His scenario implies that the climax of the Nativity story came in the spring of 2 B.C.
There's a problem with this scenario, however: It doesn't work if Herod died in 4 B.C. An astronomer at the University of Sheffield, David Hughes, has proposed a different series of planetary conjunctions in 7 B.C. This was a triple conjunction, in which Jupiter and Saturn would appear to approach each other three times between May and December. "Events indicate that Jesus Christ was probably born in the autumn of that year, around October, 7 B.C.," Hughes wrote in a paper published by the journal Nature.
Comet: Other astronomers have considered the idea that the "star" was actually a comet. The likeliest candidate would be a comet recorded by Chinese astronomers in the year 5 B.C., in the constellation Capricorn or Aquila. Comet Halley would have been visible in 11 B.C., and the record suggests that other comets might have been seen in the time frame between those two dates. "The snag is that they're not that rare," Hughes told the BBC. "They were also commonly associated with the 'four Ds' — doom, death, disease and disaster. So if it did contain a message, it would have been a bad omen."
Nova or supernova: The Chinese were particularly good at chronicling supernovae, and the fact that none was recorded during the time frame in question has led most astronomers to discount a supernova as the explanation for the Christmas Star. However, astronomer Mark Kidger argues in his book, "The Star of Bethlehem," that the comet seen by the Chinese in 5 B.C. was actually a nova — that is, a suddenly brightening star. The temporary brightening may not have caused a worldwide marvel, but if it came after a series of planetary conjunctions, it could have been enough of a signal to send the wise men on their way.
Kidger's scenario calls for the climax of the Christmas Star story to come in March of 5 B.C., after months of buildup. He even names his candidate for the Christmas Star: DO Aquilae, which is just faintly visible today.
What scholars say: None of these scenarios would be consistent with Western Christianity's traditional schedule for the Christmas season, which calls for the "12 Days of Christmas" to begin on Dec. 25 and wind up with the arrival of the Three Kings on Epiphany, Jan. 6. However, scriptural scholars have pointed out that none of the Gospels refers to the date of Jesus' birth. In fact, the Gospel of Luke’s account about shepherds being out in their fields might make more sense if the birth occurred during the spring lambing season.
So how did Dec. 25, A.D. 1, get set as Jesus' birthdate? The current counting system for years (A.D. and B.C.) was set up in the sixth century by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus, who combined his reading of scripture, Roman history and end-of-the-world numerology to pick Year 1. Scriptural scholars now agree, however, that the timing of the Nativity story would make more sense if the birth occurred earlier than that — because of the timing of Herod's death as well as a better understanding of the chronology for Roman emperors and governors.
As for the December date: Scholars say that the early Christian church wasn't all that interested in marking the day of Jesus' birth. For example, a 3rd-century theologian named Origen mocked the Romans for making such a big deal over divine birthdays.
Around the year 200, Clement of Alexandria noted that the favored dates for the birth were in the March-April-May time frame — which would be consistent with the astronomical scenarios for the Christmas star.
It wasn't until the mid-4th century that Dec. 25 started showing up in church literature. The conventional wisdom is that Christmas was set in December after Constantine the Great's conversion to Christianity in 312, to bring the Christian holiday into line with pagan celebrations of the solstice. But Andrew McGowan, warden and president of Trinity College at the University of Melbourne in Australia, argues in favor of an alternate explanation: that church leaders wanted to link their date for Jesus' conception with the presumed date of his death, on March 25. If you add nine months to March 25, you get Dec. 25 as the date of birth.
"Connecting Jesus' conception and death in this way will certainly seem odd to modern readers, but it reflects ancient and medieval understandings of the whole of salvation being bound up together," McGowan writes in this month's essay for Bible History Today.
The tale of Christmas and the Star of Wonder shows how astronomy and numerology can get tangled up with religion. But we're familiar with that, right? After all, we've just been through the apocalyptic angst surrounding the turnover of the Maya Long Count calendar. Fortunately, this week's turn of the calendar has a much more positive spin. So here's wishing you a wonderful holiday season of your choice — whether it celebrates Christmas or the solstice, the new year on the Gregorian calendar, or the new baktun for the Maya.
More about the science of the season:
- Five surprising facts about Christmas
- The Christmas sky: A gift for stargazers
- Gallery: 10 gifts of science for Christmas
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
A lot of scholars believe that Herod did not die in 4 BC and that he died much closer to 1BC. One presentation that I watched on this suggested that 3 BC would have been when Mary was found expecting and that in 2 BC the third conjunction would have been the star the wise men were following and that shortly after that would be the date of his birth. A lot of scholars are shifting to the 2 BC dating because of the possible change in the dating of Herod's death. I personally believe that 2 BC is the correct date. He most likely was born some time between June 17th and before cold weather came, because the shepherds were in the fields. I think possibly in Sept, but I don't know that for sure.
Actually, Herod died in 1 BC. The star of Bethlehem wasn't a star but rather the close alignment of two planets which gave the impression of a bright star. However, only the astrologers were aware of this phenomenon. The Wise Men arrived in Bethlehem around the time of what we would call December 25th, the point at which the celestial display would have been the brightest. At the time of their arrival, Jesus was already a toddler.
Concerning the year of Christ Birth, I would be willing to accept him being born as early as BC 220 or as late as AD50.
Some citation with more details than "A lot of scholars" would be helpful...
A, made up story, to bring families together at a certain time of the year. Just like all of the other Holiday's, made up for each year. So, just enjoy it. Merry Christmas to all.
I agree. Biblical accounts of phenomenon, which should be readily observable to large numbers of people, for which there is no collaborating evidence, must be regarded as made up stories. Matthew 27:52 is another made up story.
Why must they be made up stories, simply because some refuse to believe. Many millions take it on faith - a faith you scoff at but will one day proven as true! Do you celebrate Christmas? If you do, and say you do not believe in God, you are a hypocrite!
Yes, a story, nothing but a story. Get over it and enjoy the season.
txlemke...do you follow the Bible 100% of the time...if not then you two are a hypocrite....
txlemke...faith? another name for foolish....think for yourself and stop following what some simple folk wrote based on their limited observations at the time.
It is made up because the events of Christ's life closely resemble those of other deities from civilizations that predate Christ. The similarities are striking. The only logical conclusion is that early Christian leaders and intellectuals borrowed stories from other religions in the area for whatever reason. Probably to make Christianity more palatable to the pagans of the time and thus make conversion easier.
Guys, the article is about astronomy - about the 'Star of Bethlehem' and what astronomical event it may have been. We don't really need to get into bickering about Jesus's existence or His divinity, or the lack thereof. The article is about the history and the astronomy of the time.
Humans have been celebrating the winter solstice and the rebirth of the "God Sun" for thousands upon thousands of years. Long before Constantine had Eusebius create a composite Deity that was forced upon the world at the point of a sword. The Sun reaches it's lowest point in the sky around the 21st, it then sits on the southern cross for approximately 3 days before being "born again" and beginning it's northwardly trek across the sky until June 21st when it reaches it's highest point in the sky. Oral history gets bastardized, misinterpreted and purposefully twisted over the millennia to suit those telling the story or those seeking to control the masses. The story of Noah was the story of the floods following the end of the last Ice Age, the story of the Forbidden Fruit was the story of humans consumption of flesh for the first time. Just as with the game you played in school where you sat in a circle and one child whispered a phrase in another childs ear, by the time the phrase got back to the original speaker it did not even slightly resemble what he said. Our history evolved in a similar manner but with even more extrapolation due to the purposeful twisting of the story by those seeking to control the masses.
So merry Solstice to all and a happy New Year
Odd how you think believing without proof (faith) is somehow more valid or valuable than disbelieving without proof.
The first is actually the definition of a SUCKER, the second is the definition of science.
Which definition took us to the moon? Which kept us shackled to ignorance?
I've never been able to accept any of the planetary conjunction hypotheses. A conjunction of planets is not "a star" and would never be confused with one. People are trying to force an explanation of events that occurred at unknown or inexact times. and the timing matters a lot.
Another thought: the addition of Jupiter's light to that of Venus would increase the light of Venus alone by around 15%, not exacting a startling amount. Also conjunctions of Venus and Jupiter are hardly rare, although one of these mentioned in the article is unusually close.
Aaaaa, no harm in speculating though.
Speaking of speculating, I'm going to throw this out... the three wise men reference the three stars in Orion's Belt. I'm sure people will have twenty different reasons why this is wrong and/or stupid. So have at it, folks! And Merry Christmas!
Do the "three wise men" and "the three kings" refer to the same people?
We three kings of Orient are...
We three kings are Orion's stars...
Beagle, that was song written in the 1800's.
@Beagle's Wake: The Bible doesn't say there were three of them, just that there were more than one (since the noun is plural). I'm not sure where the number three came from, but it was much later.
Regarding my second comment, I was just having a bit of fun because the three kings comment prior to that made me realize, coincidentally, that those two things sound somewhat similar. I wasn't trying to make a serious scholarly argument there. Thanks for the replies!
The idea that there were three wise men comes from the gifts mentioned, but even they have meaning 1)gold to show he was a king. 2)myrrh to show he would die. and 3) frankincense to show he was a priest more or less been years since i read the explanation. also saw an early explanation for the star was a planetary alignment but due to the zodiac the stars showed that Bethlehem was the destination
I found this to be both informative AND interesting. Thank you and Merry Christmas!
Arthur C Clarke wrote a marvelous short story on this subject, called "The Star". It is available on-line.
Yes, here's the link to the PDF file:
http://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/TheStar.pdf
Excellent. I was going to mention this if no one else had.
It is not likely that the 'star' was an astronomical body, but rather a representation of the 'presence' of God, similar to the descriptions of the 'pillar of fire' and 'pillar of cloud', that stood over the children of Israel during the days of Moses.
A comment about evidence and Christian faith:
Those who denounce the lack of evidence in Christianity seem to use the term "evidence" from a very narrow standpoint, generally a purely scientific one. The assumption goes that if it is testable by the five senses or scientifically verifiable, then it is knowable. Everything else is suspect. Ironically, the problem is that this assumption cannot be verified by the senses or science. In short, it is too limiting and runs against our native intuition which tells us there is more to this world than the physical.
If one considers a broader understanding of the word evidence and considers input from philosophy (namely logic), archeology and yes, even science, then God becomes a far more simple explanation for an orderly universe as we have it than not.
There are so many stories about gods in literature, and no indications that any of those gods are real, that even a modest amount of common sense should lead everyone to the simple conclusion that the origin - as well as the residence - of gods is the human imagination.
Indeed. There is just as much evidence to support the existence of the Abrahamic god as any other god or gods. None. So what makes Christianity the right path?
Umm, 'simple'? Sure. Truthful? No.
No mention of Rick Larson's research?
The date for Christmas was taken from the pagans. In fact most of the major christian holidays were taken from pagan holiday. The christmas tree and presents were added to the day much later. The word Christmas comes from Christ Mass. The holiday, unfortunately, has been made up from the whole cloth.
The star led the astrologers to Jesus (who was about 2 years old by then, BTW, and no doubt living in a house.) When he was a newborn in the stable it was shepherds who visited him- entirely different from the astrologers who came much later. Modern depictions of the star over a stable are wrong and misleading. It was an angel who told the shepherds to go to the stable, where they would find the newly born messiah. Since astrology (and astrologers) were forbidden by the God of Israel, it's ludicrous to assert that He would have led them w/ a star of any kind. Think about the fact that the star first led them to Herod, whose intention was to murder the child, which he then attempted to do by having all children 2 and under viciously killed. This is why an angel told Joseph to move his family to Egypt temporarily. The Bible says that the star led the astrologers first to Herod, then to where Jesus was... if it was of spirit derivation, the Bible writers understood well that it didn't come from anyone w good intentions. They never said it was a good thing, just that it happened. So much misinformation, and so easily remedied if only people who are interested actually would read the account for themselves.
The account? Really? Which one -- Matthew or Luke? Since they purport to tell the same story yet present two very different stories, I think that's a great example that the account is nothing more than incorrect. That's because it's just a fairy tale. Not that people aren't welcome to believe in it -- heck, if they want to worship Little Red Riding Hood and treat Grimm as gospel, they're welcome to do so. But to expect an intelligent discussion about the "true" implications of those fairy tales is just silly.
I say it was a spaceship--and I'm sticking with that story.
Yeah, but WHICH spaceship, from WHICH planet?
Scripture does not say 3 wise men. Three are assumed because three gifts were brought to the child. Secondly, you can not explain the supernatural with the natural mind.
Amen! Why must man, in his arrogance, insist on explaining everything. God defies explanation! That is what faith is all about. Non-believers have faith in evolution - a theory which has never been prove - but because they say it makes sense they believe it. Makes sense? That man evolved from creatures in the mud? You can believe that, and yet not believe in a divine God who created mankind in His own image. Read the book - what have you got to lose?
"Amen! Why must man, in his arrogance, insist on explaining everything."
Arrogance is not in asking questions, it's in assuming one already has the answers. Admitting ignorance is part of humility, the very opposite of arrogance. Science never assumes it has the 'final' answer on anything, merely closer and closer approximations of reality, always subject to change as new knowledge is found.
That's not how religion works. The only thing science takes on 'faith,' is the assumption that the Universe is understandable. It's been a reasonable assumption so far...
"Non-believers have faith in evolution"
Again, no 'faith' required, it's where observation and experiment takes us.
"theory which has never been prove"
What would you consider 'proof?' What do you have, other than ancient writings that cannot be tested or falsified in any way?
"...but because they say it makes sense they believe it."
They? Logic and 'sense' belongs to everyone. You don't invoke divine explanations, for that which can be explained without one.
"You can believe that, and yet not believe in a divine God who created mankind in His own image"
By what process? If God exists, it's at a deeper level than a 'rabbit out of the hat' Universe that's pretty much as we see it today. The observation of stars and galaxies more than 4000 light-years away is inconsistent with the idea of a recently created Universe. (Yes, some try to say that the speed of light was much faster in the past, but changing the value of the speed of light messes with physics in other ways that are also inconsistent with our existence...especially where nuclear reactions are involved.)
"Read the book - what have you got to lose?"
Which book, of which faith? There's no way, other than personal faith, to select between the creation stories of all religions. That simple observation, that they can't all be right, and it may be that none of them are right (and even that's apart from whether or not God[s] exist. They conceivably may, yet be different from anything that anyone has ever worshiped), is what pushed me to an Agnostic viewpoint.
Thank you. I find it fascinating t0 try to link the biblical story of Jesus' birth to astronomic events. This article adds to the Christmas season.
We don't have any holidays in June or August...maybe we should change it?
Really, while I do find this information extremely interesting, as an astronomy buff, it's too late to put Christ's birthday in any other month and outside winter. The horse has been let out of the barn centuries ago on this.
Plus, what would we do for a Christmas feast - have salads, watermelon and BBQ, instead of ham, turkey, seafood, mac 'n' cheese, sweet potatoes, lasagna and figgy pudding? No eggnog, hot toddies and mulled cider? Unthinkable!
I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year (at least we got that right. As long as you follow the Julian calendar.)!
"We don't have any holidays in June or August.."
Depends on who 'we' are. The Summer Solstice is also important in some times and places.
If you are a believer, you don't need science to prove or disprove the event. We all beleive in things, some believe in gods, others believe in the world around them without needing to worship any specific deities. Who cares which is right or wrong?
If people just treated everyone they meet like family, the world would be a much better place.
You don't know my family!!
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Whether you believe that a given phenomenon is a completely neutral phenomenon that's merely operating according to the physics of the Universe (if you want to say that was set by a divine entity, I'm okay with that...it may not be possible to know) or an expression of the explicit will of God, affects your behavior, decisions, and if you're in government, even public policy. That's why you should care who is right or wrong...or more appropriately, who has faith or evidence to support what they say.
Probably because it's nothing but a bunch of fantasy BS! None of that silly crap actually happened.
jpoochoo - I think many people confuse history with religion. The divinity of Jesus may be a myth, but that's significantly different than ALL the events of 2,000 years ago ALL being 'a bunch of fantasy BS'. There is very real history, very real astronomy, and very real archaeology that is very valid science. There was a Herod, there was a Pontius Pilate - that's just simply history. There quite likely was also a Jesus, and that may also be simply history. The historical and astronomical study of that time and of those events doesn't need to treated with such disdain, just because they are 'Biblical' times.
@ToddC,
I was referring to all the biblical nonsense, not to historically true facts. I should have been more clear in my disdain for that silly religious crap.
jpoochoo - As an atheist, myself, I have a disdain for silly religious crap, as well. However, many members of my family are Christians or believe in a higher power. I celebrate Christmas with them and don't push my beliefs on them, 'cause they're all adults and have made up their own minds as to what their beliefs are. I have made up my own, as well.
Unlike you and Mr. Ebenezer Scrooge, I totally enjoy seeing all the Christmas lights, the smell of evergreens and cookies, buying gifts and seeing the joy and happiness that they bring the giftee. I enjoy listening to Christmas songs (some of them) and the joyous ringing of bells from the church nearby. I also appreciate the fact that Christmas arises mainly as a celebration of the Winter Solstice and the customs adopted from those pagan traditions. I celebrate Christmas as a welcome distraction from all the human tragedies that have occurred, especially in the most recent days.
I also appreciate quiet moments of looking up at the stars on a cold winter's night. I admire the clarity of the stars and the appreciation of their being. It reminds me of how small I am, all humans are, and how marvelous the universe is.
So, no matter what your beliefs are, have a happy, joyous day and look up at the stars tonight and be thankful that you are still here to see them and all the wonders of nature.
Kris,
Xmas is the biggest load of crap of all. Nothing but commercialism gone amok.
Old Scrooge was absolutely right (at first anyway).
However, I do appreciate your good wishes - same back to ya!
Except we don't have "beliefs' to push on them. This is an important distinction because the religious like to claim that Atheism is somehow a religion. That notion is, of course, absurd. To state such "belief", as someone who lacks any in regard to supernatural beings, is counterproductive as it only fuels the ignorance of said religious.
Semantical interpretation on everyone's part. One definition of "belief" is that you accept something to be right and true. I believe there is no God, is as valid as someone saying, "I believe there is a God". I believe the belief in God is more closely aligned with "faith". I believe the stars will appear in the sky tonight is something that is right and true (unless it's cloudy in my part of the world. The stars exist, but are hidden from my view.)
If you're an atheist, it is true that you have no belief in God, but you may have other beliefs, as well, such as the example I gave above. Atheists are also thought to be amoral, as well. However, the atheists I know are among the most moral people in the world. It's the twisted, perverse methods of so-called Christians and other religions that have screwed things up - just think of the Westboro Baptist church, Spanish Inquisition, the belief that some people are less than you are: women, slaves, infidels, etc.
I am not counterproductive when I celebrate with the Christians in my family. We don't argue religion, politics, or the shenanigans of other relatives. We just socialize, eat, drink and be merry. Plus, we open presents, play games, watch movies and have a good time.
I truly don't believe I'm fueling their religious beliefs in celebrating with them, they're going to believe what they want. I don't force my lack of belief in God (is that what you're looking for?) on them, and they don't force their beliefs on me. I'm part of their family and I can't deny they exist. Besides they know I am an atheist and love me anyway. Nothing wrong with that.
Counterproductive only in the usage of the word - not in terms of family relations or celebrations.
As an atheist, I don't believe in God(s). You may very well believe other things, but in the context of this discussion that is the correct usage. I've had my share of debates and this becomes rather fundamental. Once you state that you believe God doesn't exist, the religious will jump at the opportunity to argue that your atheism is based on faith.
I'm glad your family accepts each other. However, that is not what I'm referring to . This has to do with public discussions such as this one.
If you believe, no proof is necessary. If you do not believe, no proof is sufficient.
Keep Christ in Christmas ! Merry Christmas !!
Nonsense. it's been over 5000 years and none of you has come up with ANY proof.
I, and millions of others, would love to see proof. Then you wouldn't have to listen to us anymore. If only you had some...
Christ was not in Christmas to start with. He was added in a stolen holiday.
@Bored,
Absolutely correct. It started out as a Pagan fertility ritual. It was adopted by the early Christian charlatans to appease the people that they were forcing their ridiculous religion upon.
Now it's just one big celebration of commercialism, nothing more.
I always thought the "Star of Wonder" was an angel guiding the Magi or so it's been said-it's not a real star at all.
I've read an interesting book on this subject..."The Star That Astonished the World" by Earnest L. Martin. Who knows...but wouldn't it have been interesting if they would've had our technology back then?
I don't know any other culture that can match the thousand-year Christmas tradition. It is a tradition that evolved and to some extent succeeded incorporating old pagan practices. It survived the long struggle of human civilization through famine, natural disasters, war and peace.
I am interested to see a scientific study of this Christ' mass behavior. How on Earth this simple man born more than 2,000 years ago was able to rally the world around celebrating his life and birth to this date? In modern history, I was most astonished to learn that one of the most evil group on record (the Nazis) even celebrated Christmas at the height of war in Europe!
Indeed, man is an exciting study as the electrons, the stars and galaxies...ah, but I already babble :)
It's definitely been a successful religion, full of inclusive compromises... both monotheistic and polytheistic (including a deified female, the Virgin Mary), acknowledging the guilt of the human conscience while providing a path to redemption through the worship of its martyr, Jesus. Many sects have claimed a connection to this vicarious redeemer, even if they dispense with the accoutrements of the other sects. So I should think to seek for the "secret" of Christanity's success in the guilt and absolution relationship, above all else.
I think it's not much of the guilt and absolution relationship (as depicted in the Catholic Holy Week tradition). Neither on the celebration of birth (Christmas) and resurrection (Easter tradition). The ensuing effect of the latter to human psych may appear to give something 'to hope for' in the face of certainty, i.e., death. Corny as this may sound but what is the use (or meaning) of living when you are born to die? Christianity must have hit hard on the fear of man, then offered a rescue. Yet still, I think it's not there where its secret lies. Other religions, e.g. Buddhism, offer identical 'resurrection'.
The secret must lay somewhere on its year long and far more grand procession of pageantry and festivities - Christmas, Holy Week, Easter, Marian festivities, All Saints Day, etc. - which easily overwhelm other traditional cultures and practices. In fact, even modern commerce attempt to compete offering valentines day, black Saturday sales, halloweens, sports day, mothers/fathers day, pet day and whatever the Hallmark card company may further invent are no match to the rooted Christian holidays.
I will still maintain that the core appeal of the birth celebration is renewal, re-birth, purification, "born again" as brothers and sisters in Christ, innocent children of the Almighty God, freed from the guilt of sin. All these are pretty much evident in Christianity, almost to the point of being cliches, and thus no secret at all - even though there are obviously many more symbols in all the rituals and observances.
Could be any star or planet really. Everything in the sky sets in the west. The very well could have followed anything...even the moon or the sun. But even if the star stopped in the sky, how could you tell it was over a particular point?
Well, not everything sets...Polaris, for example (if you're in the northern hemisphere). And some stars set well to the north of due west, and others well to the south.
The astronomy doesn't interfere with the importance of Christ's birth which most Christians believe is celebrated on an arbitrarily set day. BC? AD? December 25? February 2? Who cares? It happened.
You can only believe what you feel in your heart, tired of people trying to apply their own so called smarts to faith, this world has too little faith in God and all the faith in themselves and sooooo far I think WE have done a pretty good job of screwing up the earth, our lives, with a more than 50% divorce rate, the senseless murder of children and others, our government can't seem to do anything right except drive the country deeper in debt, we allowed our government to make it politically correct to kick God out of the schools. So to tell you the truth I have NO faith in man as a whole, so I choose to believe in GOD rather then a screwed up man, my opinion I have fought in 3 wars to be allowed to say that and no one else opinions count when it comes to me and my family. So blast away you God haters, I'm sorry for you and love you for where your at in life.
Then stop mixing faith with government and education, then we'll stop applying intelligence to faith.
Enforcing them to stop teacher lead prayer only makes sense. Students are still free to pray. Teacher led prayer is too close to government endorsed indoctrination.
Thank you. That's very Christian of you. Unfortunately many of your fellow Christians are not so Christian.
There is much to consider in this article, both for the scientifically minded, and for the spiritually faithful. I fall into both catagories, and found the information facinating on both counts. I have always felt that science and faith are NOT mutally exclusive, and there is room in the human mind for both points of view.
I agree wholeheartedly. But Bible literalists don't, and they do a lot of damage in encouraging others to turn their back on science.
I don't care if a star magically appeared then vanished every Christmas morning over Bethlehem. I still could not force myself to be gullible enough to believe in the ridiculous claims of Christianity or the Bible. I DO believe that even the most devout Christian has a small voice screaming to be freed of the nonsense. Commonsense, reason, and ordinary decency rebels against the disgusting teachings of Christianity if not for so many minds falling for the traps of mass hysteria, indoctrination, and wishful thinking. It saddens me that I won't live long enough to witness the final days of Christianity as it is driven, cursing and spitting, back to the shadows by the brilliance of knowledge, reason, and compassion. For those who actually celebrate this day as the birth of Christ, remember you celebrate a prophet who yearns for this wonderful world to fall into evil and immense suffering in order for him to return with even more destruction. You celebrate a world where our one precious life is nothing more than a filthy welcoming matt. You worship a bully who demands we accept his torturous sacrifice or ourselves be tortured forever. For all that is good, we MUST learn to view this fascinating world with better eyes than Christianity could ever hope to offer.