Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
'Jesus was born in June', astronomers claim
#1
Astronomers have calculated that Christmas should be in June, by charting the appearance of the 'Christmas star' which the Bible says led the three Wise Men to Jesus.
 
Last Updated: 5:08PM GMT 09 Dec 2008

They found that a bright star which appeared over Bethlehem 2,000 years ago pinpointed the date of Christ's birth as June 17 rather than December 25.

The researchers claim the 'Christmas star' was most likely a magnificent conjunction of the planets Venus and Jupiter, which were so close together they would have shone unusually brightly as a single "beacon of light" which appeared suddenly.

If the team is correct, it would mean Jesus was a Gemini, not a Capricorn as previously believed.

Australian astronomer Dave Reneke used complex computer software to chart the exact positions of all celestial bodies and map the night sky as it would have appeared over the Holy Land more than 2,000 years ago.

It revealed a spectacular astronomical event around the time of Jesus's birth.

Mr Reneke says the wise men probably interpreted it as the sign they had been waiting for, and they followed the 'star' to Christ's birthplace in a stable in Bethlehem, as described in the Bible.

Generally accepted research has placed the nativity to somewhere between 3BC and 1AD.

Using the St Matthew's Gospel as a reference point, Mr Reneke pinpointed the planetary conjunction, which appeared in the constellation of Leo, to the exact date of June 17 in the year 2BC.

The astronomy lecturer, who is also news editor of Sky and Space magazine, said: "We have software that can recreate exactly the night sky as it was at any point in the last several thousand years.

"We used it to go back to the time when Jesus was born, according to the Bible.

"Venus and Jupiter became very close in the the year 2BC and they would have appeared to be one bright beacon of light.

"We are not saying this was definitely the Christmas star - but it is the strongest explanation for it of any I have seen so far.

"There's no other explanation that so closely matches the facts we have from the time.

"This could well have been what the three wise men interpreted as a sign. They could easily have mistaken it for one bright star.

"Astronomy is such a precise science, we can plot exactly where the planets were, and it certainly seems this is the fabled Christmas star."

Mr Reneke, formerly the chief lecturer at the Port Macquarie Observatory in New South Wales, added: "December is an arbitrary date we have accepted but it doesn't really mean that is when it happened.

"This is not an attempt to decry religion. It's really backing it up as it shows there really was a bright object appearing in the East at the right time.

"Often when we mix science with religion in this kind of forum, it can upset people. In this case, I think this could serve to reinforce people's faith."

Previous theories have speculated the star was a supernova - an exploding star - or even a comet. But Mr Reneke says by narrowing the date down, the technology has provided the most compelling explanation yet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christ...claim.html
Reply

#2
Sounds neat,but if you know the story of his birth you'll see the disparity. The star LED them. Meaning that as they moved towards his position,so did it. While stars have a natural precession throughout the night following them isn't exactly a benefit to get to a location. Unless your heading north. This opens up two questions for me then.
First could the Earth's position [it's axis] have been much different in those times? If so then perhaps their calculations my be right but off by virtue of this [the axis positioning of the planet]. The positions of stars would have been different if it were. 2000 yrs is a long time and things can change over time. If they calc the position to get a time frame,and the positions were different,a few deg could mean a few mos then.

Second was it a star or one of those bright unidentified spheres of light people are seeing now? They tend to move according to whatever course they are navigating at. It would make much more sense if IT was what led them to the exact location,as they wouldn't have know where in the city to look. After all,the inn's were full,and he ended up being born in a stable. How would they know which stable to go to? As there would have been as many,as there were dwellings.

Call it the unidentified GPS theory ;).
Reply

#3
Unfortunately,neither date is correct.He was born in March.
Astronomers of today,know nothing.
Reply

#4
[color="#0000ff Wrote:Moon Child[/color]]Unfortunately,neither date is correct.He was born in March.
Astronomers of today,know nothing.
Sounds like it. Neither one is technically correct. Maybe we should ask HIM.
Reply

#5
I heard that before about Jesus being born in March. In the thread below Rod says March 20th.

http://www.hyperspacecafe.com/view_topic.php?id=3825&forum_id=13&highlight=jesus+born+march
Reply

#6
Yea,that's correct.
Reply

#7
[color="#800080 Wrote:Richard[/color]]I heard that before about Jesus being born in March. In the thread below Rod says March 20[sup]th[/sup].
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.hyperspacecafe.com/view_topic...born+march

The Spring Equinox. These dates are important. He was the genetic creation and that means that everything was planned for the future genetic/political and experimental agendas. My conception occurred on the 20th March and I was born 9 days after Winter Solstice, and Prince William as one example, the Illuminati prototype, was born on the 21th June. These are scientific/genetic experiments by the Alien groups and/or Illuminati.

Though, there are many people born on the Illuminati rituals who are part of ritual ceremony. They are used to enhance ritualistic energies on that particular date.

http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_sw/ve/ve.php
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/riteofspring1.html


Reply

#8
Hmm,my mother said that I was late in arriving,by about a week.I would have to have been conceived when there was a full moon or perhaps even another ritual involved.
Reply

#9
The same with me, quite late in arriving. Well, I was awaiting the Moon in Leo.
Reply

#10
Well at least you were born looking like a normal baby.I looked a bit different from the other babies:P
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 Melroy van den Berg.