The Star of Bethlehem

[GrapesOfWrath]

Another old BABB recycled thread:

The Star of Bethlehem

Imagine that you are an ancient astrologer, in the evening of late summer of 1BC, and you are watching the bright planet Mars in the east as it turns retrograde to pass through Pisces. Pisces is regarded as the zodiacal sign where evidence of the messiah will appear. Mars will be at opposition in Pisces in mid-September, and at its brightest (magnitude -2.5). In that dark area of the sky, there are only a small number of stars brighter than sixth magnitude, and as Mars slowly backtracks through it, you notice that there is one new star, about magnitude 5.7. It is not on your charts, and even more amazingly, it is moving, and also moving west! It continues to move west through the month of November, as Mars returns to prograde and passes by it less than a degree away. The new star continues its westward journey.

No planets are so dim, and it is clearly not a comet, and no other stars move. Your colleagues are convinced it is a sign and decide to follow the star west towards Jerusalem. You arrive in early December, and the star seems to have stopped, and stood still. For two weeks, it stays within an area of the sky of less than one arcminute in radius, after having spent the previous four months moving almost 240 arcminutes--about the width of the full moon every two weeks. After your conversation with the king, you observe the star that evening. It is nearly directly south, and you follow it to Bethlehem.

In the next month, the star vanishes in the sunlight, and is not found again for centuries. Of course, it wasn't really a star, but a planet: Uranus.

Kinda interesting, don't you think?

<font size=-1>[Fixed paragraph formatting]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2001-11-05 08:52 ]</font>

[GrapesOfWrath]

In particular, I would be very interested in some comparisons of the results of planet simulation software, whether they actually agree on things that happened 2000 years ago.

For instance, in an unrelated example, do two different astronomy packages show the same configuration for Jupiter's moons on Mar. 15, 532BC?

[James]

The Star of Bethlehem

Imagine that you are an ancient astrologer, in the evening of late summer of 1BC, and you are watching the bright planet Mars in
the east as it turns retrograde to pass through Pisces. Pisces is regarded as the zodiacal sign where evidence of the messiah will appear. Mars will be at opposition in Pisces in mid-September, and at its brightest (magnitude -2.5). In that dark area of the sky, there are only a small number of stars brighter than sixth magnitude, and as Mars slowly backtracks through it, you notice that
there is one new star, about magnitude 5.7. It is not on your charts, and even more amazingly, it is moving, and also moving west! It continues to move west through the month of November, as Mars returns to prograde and passes by it less than a degree away. The new star continues its westward journey.

No planets are so dim, and it is clearly not a comet, and no other stars move. Your colleagues are convinced it is a sign and decide to follow the star west towards Jerusalem. You arrive in early December, and the star seems to have stopped, and stood still. For two weeks, it stays within an area of the sky of less than one arcminute in radius, after having spent the previous four months moving almost 240 arcminutes--about the width of the full moon every two weeks. After your conversation with the king, you
observe the star that evening. It is nearly directly south, and you follow it to Bethlehem.

In the next month, the star vanishes in the sunlight, and is not found again for centuries. Of course, it wasn't really a star, but a planet: Uranus.

Amazing. To think that the timing of when Uranus was visible and when Jesus was supposedly born(there are variations on when he actually was born, but another topic) was such that it would convince three men to travel to Bethlehem and be there in time for the birth of someone who'd be responsible for practically flipping the world on its head. To think that all of that was because of a planet that some people have to joke about.

Amazing. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

And to think that in the Weekly World News they have predicted that the star of Bethlehem would reappear soon and so heralding the return of Jesus. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
Guess it never happened. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Diogenes]

Amazing. To think that the timing of when Uranus was visible and when Jesus was supposedly born(there are variations on when he actually was born, but another topic) was such that it would convince three men to travel to Bethlehem and be there in time for the birth of someone who'd be responsible for practically flipping the world on its head. To think that all of that was because of a planet that some people have to joke about.

Another typical mis-quote of the 'Bible', which says nothing about '3' Wise men.. Only '3' gifts.. gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

It also says they came into a 'house'.. not the 'Stable' of the 'Luke' narative.. When did Jesus' family move into a house in Bethlehem? They were only suppose to be there for the census when Jesus was supposedly born..

Also, this famous visit triggered Herod's slaughter of all male children in Judea under the age of 2, (Jesus/God gotta be proud of this one). Why '2' for christsake? (pun intended).. Which has to raise the question of the timing of the so called 'Star of Bethlehem' which supposedly heralded Jesus' 'birth'..

You would have thought Herod could have had someone follow the 'Wise' men and just murder the child in question.


P.S. You really should kick this around at the 'Bad Mythology' BB, not Bad Astronomy...

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2001-11-05 11:04, Diogenes wrote:
Another typical mis-quote of the 'Bible', which says nothing about '3' Wise men.. Only '3' gifts.. gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

Yep, this one almost everyone gets wrong, because it's been in the folklore for so very long.

It also says they came into a 'house'.. not the 'Stable' of the 'Luke' narative.. When did Jesus' family move into a house in Bethlehem? They were only suppose to be there for the census when Jesus was supposedly born..

Surely you're not suggesting that Mary get on a donkey the next day after delivering her baby? Suggest that plotline to your wife and/or mother, as the case may be, and see if she/they don't tear your ears off! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

Seriously, the Bible doesn't give, or pretend to give, all the details. Yes, the Magi find Jesus at a house, not the stable behind the inn, in Bethlehem, and... (continued after next quote)

Also, this famous visit triggered Herod's slaughter of all male children in Judea under the age of 2, (Jesus/God gotta be proud of this one). Why '2' for christsake? (pun intended).. Which has to raise the question of the timing of the so called 'Star of Bethlehem' which supposedly heralded Jesus' 'birth'..

...(continued) after they leave Herod orders the death of all male children two years old and under. Obviously, we're supposed to understand that from what the Magi told Herod, the Child had been born about two years (or more correctly, "no more than two years", as Herod might have just added a year to be sure he got the Right One) previous to their arrival in Jerusalem.

So although Joseph and Mary had been living in Nazareth, and "only" came to Bethlehem for the census, they decided to stay for a while. Remember that it was their ancestral home (both were descendants of David), so it's very possible that there were relatives who wanted them to stay for an extended visit (every maiden aunt likes to coo over a newborn Baby). It's even possible that one or the other became ill--or simply needed a couple of years to work themselves up to that long bumpy road back to Nazareth on donkey-back again. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] We're not told why they're still in Bethlehem two (or so) years after the birth of Jesus, just that they are.

Actually, if I can insert an opinion here, the Magi _were_ the reason that Joseph and Mary had stayed in Bethlehem for two years or so, even if they didn't know it themselves. God has a way of putting people where they're supposed to be when it's important, so rather than drive the Magi nuts by tracking the Star up from Bethlehem to Nazareth, He just kept the family there to await their guests. Maybe by telling them directly to stay (as He did later when He sent them to Egypt: they were told "Stay here until you hear Herod's dead", and He could have said something like "Stay here until you receive royal guests" in Bethlehem), or maybe by just keeping things from ever being 'convenient' for them to leave. As I say, that's just my opinion, but I think it's a believable one.

Getting back to the Star, it's pretty clear from Matthew's account that the Star did not continuously shine from the time of Christ's birth to the visit of the Magi. It shone at the time of His birth, which the Magi saw and noted the time and direction. They head off that direction and come to Jerusalem, but the Star is no longer visible, based on Herod's questioning:

002:007 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

002:008 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

In other words, he couldn't just step outside with them and say, "Oh, that Star over there! Well, we'll just all go to where that Star is, and worship Him together!" Then:

002:009 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

002:010 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

Now, if they had been following the Star itself for as long as it took them to get from 'the East' to Jerusalem, what's the need for celebrating. "Look, the Star's still where it's been for the past two years! This calls for a party!" Nah. Obviously, they had traveled based on where they first saw the Star, but the Star itself was no longer showing--until they left Herod when it appeared again, thus showing them that they were on the right track, and thus the celebration.

You would have thought Herod could have had someone follow the 'Wise' men and just murder the child in question.

Actually, it's pretty certain that Herod just expected the Magi to fall for his statement that he, too, wanted to worship the Child; and in fact, if it hadn't been for God's warning, they most likely would have. Putting a spy on their tails might have warned them ("not all spies are good spies, we know this" [apologies to Tom Paxton]), whereas he had no reason to think they wouldn't want to tell the news to any interested party.

I'm pretty sure he was kicking himself about the idea of a spy later....

P.S. You really should kick this around at the 'Bad Mythology' BB, not Bad Astronomy...

Well, it's that time of year when everybody associated with Astronomy gets asked questions about the Star, so it is astronomy-related, even if only seasonly. As for "mythology", _that_ we could take to a different bulletin board. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

The (of course, it didn't happen in the dead of winter, anyway....) Curtmudgeon

[Diogenes]

Thanks Curtmudgeon, for a bit more analysation..

Of course, when all else fails, one can always whip out the old.. " God works in mysterious ways.."...

However, regards:

"Actually, it's pretty certain that Herod just expected the Magi to fall for his statement that he, too, wanted to worship the Child; and in fact, if it hadn't been for God's warning, they most likely would have"

It would have been nice of God to warn a few other families about getting out of Dodge, till Herod died, also.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Diogenes on 2001-11-05 16:31 ]</font>

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2001-11-05 16:30, Diogenes wrote:
Thanks Curtmudgeon, for a bit more analysation..

At least, I'm good for something! Over-analysation's a dirty job, but...ah, you know the rest.

...However, regards:

"Actually, it's pretty certain that Herod just expected the Magi to fall for his statement that he, too, wanted to worship the Child; and in fact, if it hadn't been for God's warning, they most likely would have"

It would have been nice of God to warn a few other families about getting out of Dodge, till Herod died, also.

This one we can go on with, and it certainly will be off-topic for BABB. There's a complete area of theology devoted to this question, Why does God let bad things happen? If your point is anything other than rhetorical (as I suspect), then send me a private message and I can probably start you on a reading list. But there's no easy answer to it, even for believers.

The (God certainly doesn't believe in making everything easy for us) Curtmudgeon

[Simon]

Actually, I've heard that the Star of Bethlehem might have been a supernova. Any stellar remenants found in that direction?

Well, actually, since there's dispute over when exactly Jesus was born, knowing the direction to look in would be tricky...

[Matherly]

{Carl blinks}

Awwww... all the cool insiteful things I wanned to say have already been said.

{Carl pouts}

Anyways, it is nice to see that people still read the Bible and think rationally about what it says instead of just parroting what other people tell them and assume that Jesus spoke English since that's what there Bible is writen it.

{Carl notices he is on a soapbox. He blushes and quickly scurries away}

[Peter B]

Folks

You're all missing one rather important fact.

Herod died in 4BC.

If he was involved in any shenanigans to do with Jesus's birth, then Jesus must've been born earlier than that.

Anyway, last Sunday I saw a program from the UK, hosted by some BBC correspondent that mentioned the significance of Jupiter entering another constellation (Sagittarius I think) in around 5 or 6 BC. In any case, the constellation was supposed to be the one which astrologers had assigned to the Judeans.

And I remember hearing something about about a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in September 7BC.

Golly, these significant astronomical events just keep happening.

Sorry folks, it seems that you can find something astrologically significant for just about any date you'd like to ascribe to Jesus's birth. It reminds me of a book which came out just before the last return of Halley's Comet which said that, well, yes, every major disaster on Earth CAN be associated with a comet.

Gimme a break.

[Matherly]

Actually, I had always heard that the Gregorian calandar was off (3 is usually the number of years quoted, but no one really knows).

On 2001-11-06 08:40, Peter B wrote:
Gimme a break.

O.K., I'll bite.

A break from trying to research/debate an astronomical event near/at the time of Jesus' birth?

A break from trying to research/debate an astrological event near/at the time of Jesus' birth?

Or a break for wanted to associate any event with Jesus' birth?

[Note: edit added to put new info in without double posting]
_________________
The poster formerly known as Carl Matherly

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Matherly on 2001-11-06 11:39 ]</font>

[DJ]

Two comments that came to mind as I read this fascinating thread:

1) The Gregorian calendar is off by quite a bit, possibly decades. It is unclear exactly what manipulations went on and why,

2) The answer to the other question: Why does God allow bad things to happen? Answer: Because nothing is really bad. When the tiger kills the gazelle, the only creatures that think this is bad are the humans. Tigers think it's a tasty meal, and gazelle's are just left wondering why they're chased so often.

[Matherly]

On 2001-11-06 11:35, DJ wrote:
Why does God allow bad things to happen? Answer: Because nothing is really bad.

While I personally wouldn't presume I knew the answer to the problem of Evil's existance, I have to admit that there is a degree of logic in that thought.

[Kaptain K]

... assume that Jesus spoke English since that's what there Bible is writen in...

Not only that, when was the last time you saw a picture of Jesus that portrayed him looking even slightly jewish? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]


_________________
All else (is never) being equal.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2001-11-06 11:45 ]</font>

[Matherly]

Oooooo... good point Kap'n K!!!

[Diogenes]

On 2001-11-06 11:35, DJ wrote:
Two comments that came to mind as I read this fascinating thread:

1) The Gregorian calendar is off by quite a bit, possibly decades. It is unclear exactly what manipulations went on and why,

2) The answer to the other question: Why does God allow bad things to happen? Answer: Because nothing is really bad. When the tiger kills the gazelle, the only creatures that think this is bad are the humans. Tigers think it's a tasty meal, and gazelle's are just left wondering why they're chased so often.

I somehow feel comfortable with my belief that Tigers chasing gazelles is somewhat different than the kings` soldiers disemboweling 2 year olds. Unless, of course they are going eat them later, or at least share them with someone who would otherwise go hungry. A slow tiger perhaps?

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2001-11-06 11:43, Kaptain K wrote:

... assume that Jesus spoke English since that's what there Bible is writen in...

Not only that, when was the last time you saw a picture of Jesus that portrayed him looking even slightly jewish? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

This is the one that really gets me when people start seeing pictures of Jesus, Mary, Satan, et-bloody-cetera in their tortillas/on their walls/in the WTC smoke, et-bloody-cetera-again.

We simply don't know what any of them really look(ed) like. Period. What they are really seeing is something that sort of reminds them of some Renaissance Italian's idea of what they might have looked like, at a time period when Jews were very much considered evil by the Church. Or maybe a Renaissance Dutchman (did Vermeer or Rembrandt even do religious paintings?). But anyway, as you point out KK, not a single one of those paintings looks Jewish. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

By the way, Jesus is always shown as a handsome man, perhaps even somewhat effeminate. The closest thing we have to a physical description is a prophecy by Isaiah, where he says that the Redeemer will have no physical beauty to attract people--people will follow Him because of who He is and what He teaches, not just because He looks like a pre-Hollywood superstar. I would suspect that most paintings of Shylock from 'Merchant of Venice' or The Wandering Jew look more like Jesus must have looked than those that purport to be "of" Him.

The (that comforts me, being ugly myself) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2001-11-06 13:15, Diogenes wrote:
I somehow feel comfortable with my belief that Tigers chasing gazelles is somewhat different than the kings` soldiers disemboweling 2 year olds. Unless, of course they are going eat them later, or at least share them with someone who would otherwise go hungry. A slow tiger perhaps?

Now there is something you and I can agree on, Dio. I would also disagree that the Slaughter of the Innocents is comparable, morally, to a tiger getting lunch (or a gazelle getting lunched [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] ).

Pedantic aside: Tigers are Asian, gazelles are African. Tigers should never lunch on gazelles except in a frightfully ill-managed zoo or wildlife park. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

The (hope my agreement doesn't frighten you off!) Curtmudgeon

[Peter B]

Matherley bit and wanted to know why I wanted a break.

Well, maybe I was getting a bit over the top there.

I suppose my point is that so many events in the Bible are now considered not to have ever taken place, so there's no reason to assume the Star of Bethlehem was real either.

Nevertheless, we now have at least three unusual astronomical events spread over about six years, any of which could be the star of Bethlehem. If you add to them one-off events which we have no way of checking (short of a time machine) such as comets and meteorites, you get a range of phenomena which COULD have been the Star of Bethlehem. And if you were to play around with an astronomical program set around that time, how many more unusual events might you find?

Another part of the problem is that the significant event of September 7BC was in a different constellation to the one at the top of this thread, yet both both claim to be the constellation associated with the Jews. This is starting to smack of pseudo-science masquerading as real science.

AFAIK, Jesus is supposed to have been born while Herod was still alive. He was presumably born in Bethlehem, though that might've been made up so that Jesus could later claim to have been meeting the prophecies.

Other things to remember is that two of the four gospels contain no birth stories, and the other two gospels disagree - one has shepherds and the other has wise men. Given that many would-be messiahs and gods in that part of the world made similar claims to those ascribed to Jesus, why are those of Jesus given more credibility?

[Peter B]

Just thought you might want some info about the calendar.

The BC/AD system was developed by the monk Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century. Up until that time, dates were reckoned in the year of the city of Rome. Dionysius did his sums, checking things like who was consul when, and so on, and came to the conclusion that Jesus was born in the year 753 of the city. He designated that year 1 in the year of the Lord (anno domini). The year before was 1 BC, because Dionysius lived at a time when the concept of zero was yet to be introduced to the West.

Unfortunately, he was out, by at least four years, but, AFAIK, no more than about eight. Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus, before Herod died, and was crucified when Tiberius was emperor and Pontius Pilatus was prefect or procurator in Judea.

[hullaballo]

Not only that, when was the last time you saw a picture of Jesus that portrayed him looking even slightly jewish? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

If someone could please tell me what does a Jew look like. We are talking a religious group. What does a christian look like?

[Matherly]

On 2001-11-07 06:27, Peter B wrote:
Matherley bit and wanted to know why I wanted a break.
<massive sniping>

Question answered. Thank you.

I do see your point. If nothing else, the truth of what happened is so hoplessly mired in the past that the only thing one can do is (dare I say it) have faith [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img].

As for why Jesus is considered the Christ...<shrug> there's that pesky faith again.

(And for those who are new, in the intrest of full disclosure- I am a Universalist. I believe that the hand of the Divine works as much in the Tao te Ching as it does in the Bible (just to pick two books))

[Chief Engineer Scott]

In an earlier The Curtmudgeon stated that both Joseph and Mary were of the house of David.
Mary's cousin Elizabeth is clearly stated in Luke to be a "daughter of Aaron", this makes them of the house of Levi.
In addition, as Joseph is supposedly NOT the father then his geneology doesn't matter either.

[Kaptain K]

If someone could please tell me what does a Jew look like.

Excuse my sloppy linguistic shortcut. Substitute Judean, Palestinian, Beduin, or any other term that refers to a native of region at the eastern end of the Mediteranean Sea known as the Middle East.

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2001-11-07 06:27, Peter B wrote:
...Nevertheless, we now have at least three unusual astronomical events spread over about six years, any of which could be the star of Bethlehem.

I'm fairly certain that if you dig a little bit, you'll find considerably more than just three astronomical events that have been, at one time or another, associated with the Star, not even counting the ephemerals that you mention.

...Another part of the problem is that the significant event of September 7BC was in a different constellation to the one at the top of this thread, yet both both claim to be the constellation associated with the Jews. This is starting to smack of pseudo-science masquerading as real science.

Yep, I caught that one, too. Is there a reputable astrology (I can't believe I just put those two words together! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img] ) book that can verify which planet, if any, really was associated with the Jews/Judea as of circa 1 AD +/- 10 years? Any classic Greek, Egyptian or Persian astrology texts?

...Other things to remember is that two of the four gospels contain no birth stories, and the other two gospels disagree - one has shepherds and the other has wise men.

(Note: emphasis added by me.)

Not disagreement, just different details included. Luke makes it clear that he's talking about the exact night that Jesus was born and the shepherds visited; Matthew's account, as I've shown earlier in this thread, obviously takes place approximately two years after His birth when the Magi show up. Since the two events are separated by that much time, there's no reason to believe that they couldn't both be true (except, of course, for those who choose to believe that the whole thing is a fantasy).

You might as well say that our favourite childhood tales of George Washington "disagree" because one has him chopping down his father's cherry tree and another has him throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac River. Surely, one story does not preclude the other in any way.

Given that many would-be messiahs and gods in that part of the world made similar claims to those ascribed to Jesus, why are those of Jesus given more credibility?

The main reason, of course, is the fact that His birth fulfilled so very many prophecies which were in written existence centuries before His birth. (The last OT book, Malachi, was written approximately 400 BC; other prophets are even earlier.) The other incidents you mention are conspicuous by the fact that the so-called signs of the "great" person's birth are totally unknown until after the fact.

F'rinstance, Sargon II of Assyria (or was it Shalmanesser? doesn't really matter which) was also supposed to have been born of a virgin, according to accounts written during his kingship. But there are no 400-year-older Assyrian writings prophesying that a great Assyrian king would be born of a virgin and extend the Empire to its largest extent ever. It's just that he writes he was born of a virgin, which proves that he's semi-divine, so therefore anyone that crosses him is guilty not only of lese majeste but also sacrilege. All of it very much ex post facto.

A second fact I'll put forward, without putting too much faith in it getting accepted here, is that no putative religion based on Sargon II (or Shalmanesser, whatever) being the "Son of God" survived after his death. Survived, in fact, in spite of extreme attempts to put a stop to it and everyone who followed it. If there ever was such a religion, it just "softly and silently vanish[ed] away" (apologies to LC and all snark-hunting bakers). False religions don't stand up against persecution very well.

The (we're getting waaaay too far off track now) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2001-11-07 08:10, Chief Engineer Scott wrote:
In an earlier The Curtmudgeon stated that both Joseph and Mary were of the house of David.
Mary's cousin Elizabeth is clearly stated in Luke to be a "daughter of Aaron", this makes them of the house of Levi.

That makes her of the house of Levi. It doesn't make Mary of the house of Levi, because of course we're not told on which side they're cousins. Jewishness is considered matrilineal (i.e., if your mother is Jewish, you're Jewish, no matter what your father is), but I think that tribal affiliation goes through the father. If Mary and Elizabeth are cousins because their mothers are sisters, then one could be a Levite and one a Judahite through their respective fathers. If tribal affiliation is also matrilineal, then the converse is true (i.e., their fathers could be brothers). Or one's mother and the other's father were sibs.

I've got plenty of Hodge, Houtsma, etc., cousins without having a drop of Hodge, Houtsma, etc. blood in me.

In addition, as Joseph is supposedly NOT the father then his geneology doesn't matter either.

It does for some things. For example, I only mentioned Joseph's geneology to account for why they were in Bethlehem; you can take it for granted that as far as the Roman tax-farmers were concerned, his pregnant wife was bearing his kid and they were all going to Bethlehem to be numbered and taxed as a family.

Also, it does have a bearing on settling questions of Jesus's right to the throne of the Kingdom of Israel, if only to put to rest any conflicting claim. He inherits the throne both through His mother, which is His only actual human bloodline, and also through His adoptive father Joseph. By tying both claims together, any other possible contender is eliminated without the need for comparing whose claim is "closer".

The (no Hanoverian Pretenders for this throne!) Curtmudgeon

[ToSeek]

On 2001-11-07 14:15, The Curtmudgeon wrote:

On 2001-11-07 08:10, Chief Engineer Scott wrote:
In addition, as Joseph is supposedly NOT the father then his geneology doesn't matter either.

It does for some things. For example, I only mentioned Joseph's geneology to account for why they were in Bethlehem; you can take it for granted that as far as the Roman tax-farmers were concerned, his pregnant wife was bearing his kid and they were all going to Bethlehem to be numbered and taxed as a family.

I think the point is that the whole purpose of the genealogy given in the gospels is to prove that Jesus is a descendant of David (as he is required to be according to the Old Testament). But if it's a virgin birth there's no point in giving Joseph's family tree in support of this.

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2001-11-07 07:42, hullaballo wrote:

Not only that, when was the last time you saw a picture of Jesus that portrayed him looking even slightly jewish? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

If someone could please tell me what does a Jew look like. We are talking a religious group. What does a christian look like?

Nope, we're talking about an ethnicity. The word 'Jew' has two meanings, a follower of the Judaic religion, but also a member of the tribe of Judah, one of twelve (or thirteen, depending on how you count 'em) co-associated tribes descending from a common bloodline. As such, it's perfectly possible to talk about Jewish physical characteristics, especially as (until fairly modern times) almost all Jews married within the bloodline, which as any biologist or rancher will tell you, would tend to reinforce physical similarities.

Yes, there are followers of the Jewish religion who are not ethnic Jews--they're called 'proselytes'. Sammy Davis, Jr. did not look like an ethnic Jew, but religiously of course he was Jewish. A comparable point would be to say that there are American citizens who are not subject to American laws--if by the first 'American' you mean a citizen of either of the two American continents, and by the second you mean the laws of the United States of America. 'American' has two different meanings (a fact which often escapes or infuriates our cousins in the Frozen North, eh), but context usually makes clear which is intended.

The (I'm double-American) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2001-11-07 14:22, ToSeek wrote:
I think the point is that the whole purpose of the genealogy given in the gospels is to prove that Jesus is a descendant of David (as he is required to be according to the Old Testament). But if it's a virgin birth there's no point in giving Joseph's family tree in support of this.

(Note: emphasis added by me.)

That's geneologies, ToS. Compare the two geneologies in Matthew and Luke, and you'll see that Luke gives Mary's and Matthew (who is often very concerned with Jewish legal questions) gives Joseph's. It was important to the Gospel writers to provide both, but Joseph's is because he was Jesus' adoptive father.

The (geneologies-r-us) Curtmudgeon

PS: Damn, I seem to be taking over this thread as if I thought it was my very own. I really am not trying to dominate the discussion, just answer points that I see other posters raising, or where I think they've misread or misunderstood the Biblical text or comments that I've made earlier. I desperately do not want to be seen as trying to hammer-down, or out-shout, any opposition. It's just that while I can live with someone holding differing views on what the Bible means, I get a little miffed when someone claims the Bible says something other than what it does.

[Diogenes]

Dear Curtmudgeon,
Don't apologize. The thread has diverged a bit, but you are providing some inciteful(errr... insightfull)insight. heh, heh.. You seem to know what you are talking about, or otherwise have a high level of expertise in the search function. you are a good excuse to keep coming back.. I'm working on some food for thought which I will try to serve up later.. Don't go away.