[Brad Watson (OP)]

(MOD EDIT
A number of comments have been removed because they sterotype religious belief and make untrue accusations against members of this forum. Further infringements will result in this, or other threads, being locked.
To be placed in the main sections of this forum a thread needs to be a specific question and discussion on a scientific principle or theory. It should also be noted that the fact that a book or DVD has been published, or that a website exists, does not constitute scientific proof as can be seen from the large number of pseudoscientific publishings.)

(REPLY
The information here is true. It's the work of astronomer Michael Molnar, a well-respected professor at Rutgers University and his book was published by the Rutgers University Press. I've seen Molnar's discovery reported on the BBC, Discovery Channel, 2 programs on History Channel, CNN, FOX and the CBS Christmas Special as well as all over the Internet. 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Astronomer Michael Molnar wrote the book 'The Star of Bethlehem - The Legacy of the Magi' (Rutgers University Press, 1999) after discovering that Jesus* son of Joseph was born on April 17, 6 BC (17.4.748 AUC / 29 Nisan 3755 HC). The following is from his website...

"Superposed on the photograph of the coin is what I found: Jupiter underwent two occultations ('eclipses') by the Moon in Aries in 6 BC. Jupiter was the regal 'star' that conferred kingships - a power that was amplified when Jupiter was in close conjunctions with the Moon. The second occultation on April 17 coincided precisely when Jupiter was "in the east," a condition mentioned twice in the biblical account about the Star of Bethlehem. In August of that year Jupiter became stationary and then 'went before' through Aries where it became stationary again on December 19, 6 BC. This is when the regal planet 'stood over.' - a secondary royal portent also described in the Bible. In particular, there is confirmation from a Roman astrologer that the conditions of April 17, 6 BC were believed to herald the birth of a divine, immortal, and omnipotent person born under the sign of the Jews, which we now know was Aries the Ram (Lamb). Furthermore, the coins of Antioch and ancient astrological documents show that there was indeed a Star of Bethlehem as reported in the biblical account of Matthew.


Revealing the Star of Bethlehem - The Legacy of the Magi

Most people have heard of the story of how the Star of Bethlehem led the Magi to the infant Jesus. There have been many theories about what appeared in the sky that caused the Magi to embark on their journey to find the new King of the Jews. As an astronomer, I too have wondered what the Magi saw, but never thought that I could find it until I stumbled upon an important clue.

My investigations show that there indeed was a Star of Bethlehem exactly as reported in the Bible. My book describes the evidence I gleaned from ancient coins and astrological records - important information that was unnoticed by earlier investigators. Here are some of the important findings in my book:
​
A serendipitous discovery, originating from Roman coins of Antioch, revealed that Aries the Ram was the sign of the Jews and that the Magi's star appeared in that sign of the zodiac. (pp. 3-4)
The Magi were highly respected "wise men" who practiced Greek astrology, the precursor of modern astrology. (p. 42)
Ancient stargazers described in detail the celestial conditions for the births of kings and emperors. Their writings describe the Magi's star. (p. 64)
The star was not a comet, nor was it a supernova. (pp. 17-25)
The people of Jerusalem did not see the star because they did not understand Greek astrology - but Herod did and took action. (p. 11)
As stated in the Bible, the Magi's star did indeed appear "in the east" in Aries. The book describes the unusual celestial conditions of that day, which signified the birth of the Messiah. (p. 89)
The Magi rejoiced that the star later "went before and stood over" - a secondary sign confirming the birth of the King of the Jews. (pp. 87-96)
December 25th was not the birth day of Jesus, nor does the Christian Era (A.D. 1) determine the year Jesus was born. (pp. 55-57)
A Christian Roman astrologer wrote that the celestial conditions I describe marked the birth of a "divine and immortal" person - a likely reference to the birth of Jesus. (pp. 104-108)
The ancient documents show that the horoscope for this day was more significant than the important horoscopes of the Emperors Augustus Caesar and Hadrian. (pp. 98-102)
The Magi's star appeared two years before the death of Herod, which explains why two year old children were condemned as threats to his throne. (pp. 117-118)
The account of Luke refers to the "census" of Quirinius under Augustus Caesar - a connection to the Roman coins of Antioch. (pp. 121-123)
Emperor Nero was marked as the biblical Antichrist - a prophecy related to the presence of Aries the Ram in his horoscope. (pp. 109-116)
​
I hope that you will find this new information as fascinating as I did."


(*Synchronism: 12/6/16 11:26 "A new prophecy" 11:35 "This one is different, he carries starlight in his wake." - 'The Fires of Pompeii', 'Doctor Who' (S4/Ep2, 2008) on BBC AMERICA)

[Brad Watson (OP)]

Synchronism: After writing the op, I received in my mailbox my first copy of 'The Star of Bethlehem - The Legacy of the Magi'. I first heard of Molnar's work back in 1999 and only got around to actually ordering the book just two weeks ago from Amazon. Good timing!

[syhprum]

These stories of stars, virgin births, resurrections etc were written about 70 AD as recruiting propaganda for the new Christion sect who were no longer welcome in the Jewish place of worship.
It is not surprising that matters of astrological significance were incorporated I think the Saturn/Jupiter alignment was the best bet.

[alancalverd]

Did the Star of Bethlehem/Jesus' Birthdate occur on April 17, 6 BC?

Maybe. So what?

Except that whilst it might well have been BCE, it can't have been BC.

Anyway, 25 December is a far better time for a pissup - just time to get sober before the New Year pissup.

[Brad Watson (OP)]

syhprum,

The story of the "virgin birth" of a great king, i.e. Alexander the Great was a myth that was prevalent before the Jewish Messiah was born on Saturday April 17, 6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC / 29 Nisan 3755 HC. The term 'resurrection' like 'rebirth', 'transmigration', and 'metempsychosis' (Greek) back then all referred to what has been known as 'reincarnation' since 1800 AD. Science has recently proven reincarnation (google that).

"It is not surprising that matters of astrological significance were incorporated." Of course not. Astronomy/astrology was prevalent in 6 BC throughout the Roman Empire although the Hebrews with their belief in One GOD didn't worship the '7 Sacred Luminaires/Planets' ('7 Classical Planets') like their neighbors. 

[Brad Watson (OP)]

Did the Star of Bethlehem/Jesus' Birthdate occur on April 17, 6 BC? Maybe. So what?

Seriously? Jesus son of Joseph is the most important figure in history and if it is established that a BIG event in the heavens marked his birth, then that would be a proof of GOD/God-incarnate.

Except that whilst it might well have been BCE, it can't have been BC.

6 BC ('before Christ') is now well-established as the birth of the Christ.

Anyway, 25 December is a far better time for a pissup - just time to get sober before the New Year pissup.

A strange reply. Do you have a drinking problem?

[alancalverd]

No problem. The stuff slides down very smoothly, thanks.

Simply identifying one astrological date round about the time Jesus was born doesn't have any significance because we don't have any credible evidence of his actual birthday, and even if we did, and it was, coincidence is not an indication of significance.

In fact the only credible date we have is of the census of Judea, which took place about 12 years after the  exceptional astrological occurrence. Other occultations of Jupiter occur about 4 times every year.

[Brad Watson (OP)]

No problem. The stuff slides down very smoothly, thanks.

Cute. That's the kind of silly remark an alcoholic would make.

Simply identifying one astrological date round about the time Jesus was born doesn't have any significance because we don't have any credible evidence of his actual birthday, and even if we did, and it was, coincidence is not an indication of significance.

Look, you're an atheist who insulted church-goers on another thread (which I reported). Atheists are married to their dogma and will ignore or dismiss all evidence that proves them wrong.

'There Are No Coincidences' - everything is connected**.

In fact the only credible date we have is of the census of Judea, which took place about 12 years after the  exceptional astrological occurrence.

Wrong. Herod I died in 4 BC. And Jesus son of Joseph was crucified on Friday April 7, 30 AD, thus the timeline works with April 17, 6 BC as his birthdate*. GOD=7_4 Theory also points to 17.4.748 AUC and 7.4.783 AUC.

Other occultations of Jupiter occur about 4 times every year.

Not in the sign of Aries the Ram/Lamb.

"Jupiter's appearance as a morning star occured on April 17, 6 B.C., and was accompanied by other powerful astrological aspects that pointed to a magnificent star-blessed birth." - p. 116-117


*Synchronism: 14:51 "What can his death teach us?" - Star Trek. **"Everything is connected." - ad on BBC America

[Brad Watson (OP)]

I am 1/2 way through reading Michael Molnar's 'The Star of Bethlehem - The Legacy of the Magi'. The BIGGEST thing I've learned so far is that the Magi may not have been Persian Zoroaster astonomers/astologers like I believed. According to Molnar, the entire Roman Empire practiced Greek astrology at that time and the prophecy of the Hebrews' Messiah was well known in the entire region.

Unfortunately, Molnar only uses the date of April 17, 6 BC. He doesn't recognize that it was a Saturday - the Jewish Sabbath which is significant. Also, the Roman Calendar date of 17.4.748 AUC is significant as is the Hebrew Calendar date of 29 Nisan 3755.

[Bored chemist]

Seriously? Jesus son of Joseph is the most important figure in history and if it is established that a BIG event in the heavens marked his birth, then that would be a proof of GOD/God-incarnate.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

At that time, superstition was rife. Anyone born on a date where something "big" happened would have had a head start when claiming to be the son of God, a prophet or whatever.

Your view seems to be completely divorced from science.

[alancalverd]

I'm easily convinced. Just show me a birth certificate and a reason to think it significant. I don't do dogma.

Luke also wrote that Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem for a census by Quirinius while she was still pregnant, and this event has been dated at 6 A.D., or ten years after Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. There have been no historical records to indicate that any Roman census was held prior to 6 A.D.

Typical bloody Romans, keeping contemporaneous records and screwing up a good myth. And being fairly sensible colonial governors, I bet they even held the census in June or July when it was easier to travel and there was less urgency about farming matters than in April.

I don't find anything exceptional or particularly exceptionable in the purported teachings of Jesus, but his historical impact was (and still is) far more through his name being used as an excuse for atrocity than anything he said or did.

No need for me to insult churchgoers. They insult themselves by going, and each other by inventing schisms.

[Luke Pullsy]

There's a few problems with your post that I feel need to be addressed.

1. You can't take the bible (Old or New Testament) as a historical account of anything. It has been shown to be blatantly wrong about events that have, or should have been verified in other contemporary accounts. For instance, and this is only one point of many, there are no records of Jewish slaves being used in Egypt during the time that the bible states (or after, as a matter of fact).

2. Your arguments, and those in the book you reference, rely heavily on horoscopes and astrology. Given you're posting on a science forum you should be aware that there is *absolutely* zero scientific basis for this sort of thing. I'm not saying that people didn't believe in it, but that doesn't make it real.

3. There are no contemporary accounts of unusual celestial movements during the period you're talking about. As a somewhat humourous aside, the "What If" portion of xkcd has an excellent take on the three wise men of the bible: what-if.xkcd.com/25/ and provides some comment on this.

To discuss the points you raised in the original post:
- "A serendipitous discovery..." Astrology is not real.
- "The Magi were..." Astrology is not real.
- "Ancient stargazers described..." Astrology is not real.
- "The star was..." Correct! Within the context of the wider discussion, it's not really meaningful though.
- "The people of..." So if you didn't understand Greek astrology you don't see stars? Or celestial movements? I'm not too sure that this can be considered as anything but a self-supporting argument.
- "As stated in..." The bible is not a historical account. You need to use independent sources to back this stuff up, and to reiterate point 1 above, there are no such contemporary records of unusual celestial activity.
- "The Magi rejoiced..." Astrology is not real.
- "December 25th was..." This is an outcome of the "evidence" (ahem) that is presented in the book. It is not evidence in itself.
- "A Christian Roman..." A biased source as the first reason to disregard this point, and using astrology for the second.
- "The ancient documents..." Astrology is not real.
- "The Magi's star..." Another circular reference: the author of this book is using "the Magi's star" as if it were real, to support his argument of "the Magi's star". Also, there is no historical record of such a purge of children.
- "The account of..." The bible is not a historical account. Linking a bible story to coins is speculative at best. However, in the interests of giving the author some credit (and I cannot comment on the coins themselves) let's give him this one.
- "Emperor Nero was..." Astrology is not real.

The book is simply a way to support its own message; that Jesus was real and that he was the son of god. I'm not seeing anything that even approaches actual evidence in the discussion. Sorry, Brad.

[Samuel Bisson]

I would sooner believe that alien craft are being referenced in the bible and that Jesus was an alien hybrid implanted into the virgin Mary than some mystical alignment of solar planets producing an heir of a non physical omnipotent being.

[alancalverd]

If the Magi followed a star in the east, they must have come to Bethlehem from the west, which casts doubt on any idea that they were Persian, Indian or whatever. Probably British, like all wise men.

[Brad Watson (OP)]

I would sooner believe that alien craft are being referenced in the Bible

They are in Ezekial.

and that Jesus was an alien hybrid implanted into the virgin Mary

False. The whole 'virgin birth' myth was just that. It had been around in other cultures for centuries, i.e. Horus and Alexander the Great.

than some mystical alignment of solar planets producing an heir of a non physical omnipotent being.

The alignment of planets didn't 'produce' God-incarnate, it marked his birth.

Are you an atheist that refuses to accept any evidence of GOD & God-incarnate? Are you willing to read Molnar's book?

[Bored chemist]

Are you an atheist that refuses to accept any evidence of GOD & God-incarnate? Are you willing to read Molnar's book?

If you can provide evidence we might find out.
Why would we read a book full of astrology? It's balderdash.

[Brad Watson (OP)]

-

There's one BIG problem with your post that I feel needs to be addressed.

1. You can't take the Bible (Old or New Testament) as a historical account of anything.

That is blatantly wrong. The Bible has some mistakes in it and the question of how to interpret it is a BIG question that many 'experts' get wrong, i.e. the birth of Y'shua bar Yosef.

You have a very strong negative bias that I assume comes fom you being a dedicated atheist(?) and this bias won't allow you to open-mindedly addess any scientific and historic evidence that would conflict with your dogma. The correct birthdate of April 17, 6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC for the birth of the Jewish Messiah proves much including one element of the GOD=7_4 program/algorithm; see that at http://GOD704.wikia.com . But that really scientifically proves atheism wrong, so...

[syhprum]

"And Jesus son of Joseph" Is this not slightly blasphemes when the blessed virgin tells us he was conceived when the holy ghost came upon her.

[syhprum]

Alancalverd

"I don't find anything exceptional or particularly exceptionable in the purported teachings of Jesus"

I have always thought John the Baptist was a more heroic and influencial  figure I would have organised my cult around him                                                                                 

[Brad Watson (OP)]

"And Jesus son of Joseph" Is this not slightly blasphemes when the blessed virgin tells us he was conceived when the holy ghost came upon her.

I've already stated that the 'virgin birth' was a myth. "Jesus son of Joseph, the Nazarean" - John 1:45

The topic here is scientific and historic proof that the astronomer Michael Molnar has gathered proving that Jesus was born on Saturday April 17, 6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC / 29 Nisan 3755 HC.