It would be a pity if people threw out all the positive aspects of Christianity just because a bright star might not have 'stopped' over a stable, 2000 years ago.
Yes indeed. But the sort of Christianity that is agnostic about the star seems incompatible with the sort of Christianity in which believing certain propositional truths is what marks out the saved from the damned.
The gospel was written in the days when everyone believed that stars were just lights in the sky.
I beg to differ. The Babylonians had a well-developed discipline of astronomy by the 3rd Century BCE. At about the same time the Greek scientist Aristarchus of Samos proposed the theory the earth and the planets rotated around the sun. I think it was well known the stars were more than just lights in the night sky.
Another point about doubt and faith: the enemy of faith is not doubt, but certitude.
OK. Everyone apart from those who were very clever. I was referring to the knowledge of the average person.
Were the Gospel writers just average people? Mark created a new genre of writing. Tradition holds Matthew was a tax collector. It is all but agreed Luke was a physician. Seems like The Disciple Whom Jesus loved was quite a wordsmith too. Far from just average people, in my book.
The star that was close enough to hover over a particular place in Bethlehem was mentioned by Matthew the tax collector. Not Matthew the learned astonomer
It would be a pity if people threw out all the positive aspects of Christianity just because a bright star might not have 'stopped' over a stable, 2000 years ago.
Yes indeed. But the sort of Christianity that is agnostic about the star seems incompatible with the sort of Christianity in which believing certain propositional truths is what marks out the saved from the damned.
The gospel was written in the days when everyone believed that stars were just lights in the sky.
I beg to differ. The Babylonians had a well-developed discipline of astronomy by the 3rd Century BCE. At about the same time the Greek scientist Aristarchus of Samos proposed the theory the earth and the planets rotated around the sun. I think it was well known the stars were more than just lights in the night sky.
Another point about doubt and faith: the enemy of faith is not doubt, but certitude.
OK. Everyone apart from those who were very clever. I was referring to the knowledge of the average person.
Were the Gospel writers just average people? Mark created a new genre of writing. Tradition holds Matthew was a tax collector. It is all but agreed Luke was a physician. Seems like The Disciple Whom Jesus loved was quite a wordsmith too. Far from just average people, in my book.
The star that was close enough to hover over a particular place in Bethlehem was mentioned by Matthew the tax collector. Not Matthew the learned astonomer
That is true, but my point is that because of their respective positions, the Gospel writers are more than average people and likely could have known what other disciplines were thinking at the time.
The Babylonians indeed had a well developed science of Astronomy, but I don't think that necessarily means they had the faintest idea what stars actually are. From a point of view of observing from the earth, they (unlike the planets which the Babylonians charted very accurately) might as well be points of light. Until you can measure stellar parallax you have no way of knowing they aren't fixed.
Aristarchus and Anaxagoras (Greeks) both suggested that stars were distant suns, but they were both regarded as freaks and their ideas rejected. Ptolemy then suggested the stars were fixed lights on the inside of a sphere and that was the model until Copernicus and co. centuries later.
It would be a pity if people threw out all the positive aspects of Christianity just because a bright star might not have 'stopped' over a stable, 2000 years ago.
Yes indeed. But the sort of Christianity that is agnostic about the star seems incompatible with the sort of Christianity in which believing certain propositional truths is what marks out the saved from the damned.
The gospel was written in the days when everyone believed that stars were just lights in the sky.
I beg to differ. The Babylonians had a well-developed discipline of astronomy by the 3rd Century BCE. At about the same time the Greek scientist Aristarchus of Samos proposed the theory the earth and the planets rotated around the sun. I think it was well known the stars were more than just lights in the night sky.
Another point about doubt and faith: the enemy of faith is not doubt, but certitude.
OK. Everyone apart from those who were very clever. I was referring to the knowledge of the average person.
Were the Gospel writers just average people? Mark created a new genre of writing. Tradition holds Matthew was a tax collector. It is all but agreed Luke was a physician. Seems like The Disciple Whom Jesus loved was quite a wordsmith too. Far from just average people, in my book.
The star that was close enough to hover over a particular place in Bethlehem was mentioned by Matthew the tax collector. Not Matthew the learned astonomer
That is true, but my point is that because of their respective positions, the Gospel writers are more than average people and likely could have known what other disciplines were thinking at the time.
The Babylonians indeed had a well developed science of Astronomy, but I don't think that necessarily means they had the faintest idea what stars actually are. From a point of view of observing from the earth, they (unlike the planets which the Babylonians charted very accurately) might as well be points of light. Until you can measure stellar parallax you have no way of knowing they aren't fixed.
Aristarchus and Anaxagoras (Greeks) both suggested that stars were distant suns, but they were both regarded as freaks and their ideas rejected. Ptolemy then suggested the stars were fixed lights on the inside of a sphere and that was the model until Copernicus and co. centuries later.
My point remains. How can a star hover over a a town let alone a specific house ?
It would be a pity if people threw out all the positive aspects of Christianity just because a bright star might not have 'stopped' over a stable, 2000 years ago.
Yes indeed. But the sort of Christianity that is agnostic about the star seems incompatible with the sort of Christianity in which believing certain propositional truths is what marks out the saved from the damned.
The gospel was written in the days when everyone believed that stars were just lights in the sky.
I beg to differ. The Babylonians had a well-developed discipline of astronomy by the 3rd Century BCE. At about the same time the Greek scientist Aristarchus of Samos proposed the theory the earth and the planets rotated around the sun. I think it was well known the stars were more than just lights in the night sky.
Another point about doubt and faith: the enemy of faith is not doubt, but certitude.
OK. Everyone apart from those who were very clever. I was referring to the knowledge of the average person.
Were the Gospel writers just average people? Mark created a new genre of writing. Tradition holds Matthew was a tax collector. It is all but agreed Luke was a physician. Seems like The Disciple Whom Jesus loved was quite a wordsmith too. Far from just average people, in my book.
The star that was close enough to hover over a particular place in Bethlehem was mentioned by Matthew the tax collector. Not Matthew the learned astonomer
That is true, but my point is that because of their respective positions, the Gospel writers are more than average people and likely could have known what other disciplines were thinking at the time.
The Babylonians indeed had a well developed science of Astronomy, but I don't think that necessarily means they had the faintest idea what stars actually are. From a point of view of observing from the earth, they (unlike the planets which the Babylonians charted very accurately) might as well be points of light. Until you can measure stellar parallax you have no way of knowing they aren't fixed.
Aristarchus and Anaxagoras (Greeks) both suggested that stars were distant suns, but they were both regarded as freaks and their ideas rejected. Ptolemy then suggested the stars were fixed lights on the inside of a sphere and that was the model until Copernicus and co. centuries later.
My point remains. How can a star hover over a a town let alone a specific house ?
It didn't. Unless it was a comet on a trajectory that at midnight it was always pointing to the house in Bethlehem, so the Parthian Magi could follow it from Persia for a month or so. They'd probably had synchronized a dream or some such.
FWIW, I suspect the Magi saw an astronomical phenomenon - a conjunction in a particular Zodiac sign for example - for which their interpretation was a new King. By the time this story had gone through a few people who wouldn't know much about conjunctions and astrological Zodiac signs, it had become a star (because that's what Magi study) hovering over Bethlehem (because they said it led them there).
It's significant, I think, that they apparently went to Jerusalem first - the logical place - and had to learn there that the local traditions said Bethlehem was the place.
It would be a pity if people threw out all the positive aspects of Christianity just because a bright star might not have 'stopped' over a stable, 2000 years ago.
Yes indeed. But the sort of Christianity that is agnostic about the star seems incompatible with the sort of Christianity in which believing certain propositional truths is what marks out the saved from the damned.
The gospel was written in the days when everyone believed that stars were just lights in the sky.
I beg to differ. The Babylonians had a well-developed discipline of astronomy by the 3rd Century BCE. At about the same time the Greek scientist Aristarchus of Samos proposed the theory the earth and the planets rotated around the sun. I think it was well known the stars were more than just lights in the night sky.
Another point about doubt and faith: the enemy of faith is not doubt, but certitude.
OK. Everyone apart from those who were very clever. I was referring to the knowledge of the average person.
Were the Gospel writers just average people? Mark created a new genre of writing. Tradition holds Matthew was a tax collector. It is all but agreed Luke was a physician. Seems like The Disciple Whom Jesus loved was quite a wordsmith too. Far from just average people, in my book.
The star that was close enough to hover over a particular place in Bethlehem was mentioned by Matthew the tax collector. Not Matthew the learned astonomer
That is true, but my point is that because of their respective positions, the Gospel writers are more than average people and likely could have known what other disciplines were thinking at the time.
The Babylonians indeed had a well developed science of Astronomy, but I don't think that necessarily means they had the faintest idea what stars actually are. From a point of view of observing from the earth, they (unlike the planets which the Babylonians charted very accurately) might as well be points of light. Until you can measure stellar parallax you have no way of knowing they aren't fixed.
Aristarchus and Anaxagoras (Greeks) both suggested that stars were distant suns, but they were both regarded as freaks and their ideas rejected. Ptolemy then suggested the stars were fixed lights on the inside of a sphere and that was the model until Copernicus and co. centuries later.
My point remains. How can a star hover over a a town let alone a specific house ?
Even if a star could be in a geostationary orbit, the place over which it 'hovers' could not be precisely enough identified.
Hence an isotropic comet, of which there is no record in 4 BCE, pointing with its tails exactly to the house, from SW, set in motion from the Oort cloud millennia before.
Or is there a supernova (unrecorded by the Chinese, Romans, India etc) remnant that passes low over SW Bethlehem? Clarke's Star?
Hence an isotropic comet, of which there is no record in 4 BCE, pointing with its tails exactly to the house, from SW, set in motion from the Oort cloud millennia before.
Or is there a supernova (unrecorded by the Chinese, Romans, India etc) remnant that passes low over SW Bethlehem? Clarke's Star?
Angels are described as stars.
Yes, I think Telford may be taking the word *star* too literally.
Angels as stars is an interesting thought. There are several hymns which reflect this idea, a well-known one being Stars of the morning, so gloriously bright (translated from the Greek by J M Neale), and often sung at Michaelmas.
Only one mention of a star in the whole of the Books of Christ and Telford wants to tear the claims of Christianity apart. Anyone hear of a literary device?
Angels as stars is an interesting thought. There are several hymns which reflect this idea, a well-known one being Stars of the morning, so gloriously bright (translated from the Greek by J M Neale), and often sung at Michaelmas.
That’s very much the cosmology that underlies the stories told in Genesis—the stars and other bodies seen in the heavens are or represent the Elohim, the divine beings, the host of heaven or divine council.
That still leaves various unexplained questions, such as why nobody else noticed the bright light.
Well, the magi were Zoroastrian priests, whose job description included astronomy/astrology. Watching the sky and interpreting what they saw was what they did. We’re not told that no one else noticed the star, nor are we told that the star was unusually bright or anything like that. We’re simply told how the magi interpreted what they saw, and what action they took as a result.
There was a planetary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn on the 21st of December. Did anyone else notice it? Just a few weeks before that there was the Comet Neowise. Did anyone notice it? Such events happen on a regular basis people may not have noticed anything unusual, unless you happen to be a Zoroastrian priest. Now, a Supernova would have been different...
There was a planetary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn on the 21st of December. Did anyone else notice it? Just a few weeks before that there was the Comet Neowise. Did anyone notice it? Such events happen on a regular basis people may not have noticed anything unusual, unless you happen to be a Zoroastrian priest. Now, a Supernova would have been different...
The planetary conjunction* was well-publicised here in the UK (not sure about the comet), but, of course, they didn't have the internet in 4BC (or whenever)!
*Yes, the timing so close to Christmas gave rise to speculation about the Star mentioned in the Bible.
That still leaves various unexplained questions, such as why nobody else noticed the bright light.
Well, the magi were Zoroastrian priests, whose job description included astronomy/astrology. Watching the sky and interpreting what they saw was what they did. We’re not told that no one else noticed the star, nor are we told that the star was unusually bright or anything like that. We’re simply told how the magi interpreted what they saw, and what action they took as a result.
If nobody else noticed it, then it was a shared vision. I doubt God would have destroyed star systems with the uv, x-ray and gamma burst of a nova. The one in the Crab... raised cancer incidence from a thousand light years. So, a comet or vision. Or a real sneaky angel.
O yes - that lovely hymn Ave Maris Stella (?), as translated by Athelstan Riley:
Hail, O Star that pointest
t'wards the port of heaven,
thou to whom as maiden
God for Son was given.
Not sure that quite fits in with the Journey of the Magi, but who knows? Maybe the *Star* was indeed Our Blessed Lady, leading them not to herself only, but to her Son?
That still leaves various unexplained questions, such as why nobody else noticed the bright light.
Well, the magi were Zoroastrian priests, whose job description included astronomy/astrology. Watching the sky and interpreting what they saw was what they did. We’re not told that no one else noticed the star, nor are we told that the star was unusually bright or anything like that. We’re simply told how the magi interpreted what they saw, and what action they took as a result.
If nobody else noticed it, then it was a shared vision.
Or something that only Zoroastrian astrologers paid attention to and attached significance to.
Matthew tells us very little: The magi saw the star “at its rising”/“in the East” and went to Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, Herod consulted priests and scribes not about what the stars might show—Jews of the time didn’t generally go in for astrology—but about what the prophecies said. Then Matthew said that as they went to Bethlehem, the star they had seen “went ahead of them” until it “stopped.” That’s pretty much it.
Matthew nowhere says the star was unusually bright or remarkable in any other way. The only people he identifies as having paid attention to it are the magi. He seems to suggest that either Herod and his court hadn’t seen it, or if they had seen it, they didn’t attach the significance to it that the magi did, because it is the coming of the magi, not the star, that prompts Herod to be troubled.
That the star was particularly bright or would attract the notice of people generally is, like the idea that there were three magi or that they were “kings,” something we’ve glossed onto what is actually a pretty sparse description in the text. It’s not in the text itself.
That still leaves various unexplained questions, such as why nobody else noticed the bright light.
Well, the magi were Zoroastrian priests, whose job description included astronomy/astrology. Watching the sky and interpreting what they saw was what they did. We’re not told that no one else noticed the star, nor are we told that the star was unusually bright or anything like that. We’re simply told how the magi interpreted what they saw, and what action they took as a result.
If nobody else noticed it, then it was a shared vision.
Or something that only Zoroastrian astrologers paid attention to and attached significance to.
That still leaves various unexplained questions, such as why nobody else noticed the bright light.
Well, the magi were Zoroastrian priests, whose job description included astronomy/astrology. Watching the sky and interpreting what they saw was what they did. We’re not told that no one else noticed the star, nor are we told that the star was unusually bright or anything like that. We’re simply told how the magi interpreted what they saw, and what action they took as a result.
If nobody else noticed it, then it was a shared vision.
Or something that only Zoroastrian astrologers paid attention to and attached significance to.
I thought I'd suggested this upthread.
You did, and I did too. But Martin was still suggesting that “if nobody else noticed it, then it was a shared vision,” ignoring what seems to me the more obvious possibility that you and I both already pointed out.
I must say I rather like the idea of the *star* actually being an Angel...
Having grown up in a subculture where lights in the sky that move in unexpected ways are considered to be UFOs rather than angels, there are other possibilities.
But people who discuss those possibilities too enthusiastically are generally considered to be a bit suspect...
That still leaves various unexplained questions, such as why nobody else noticed the bright light.
Well, the magi were Zoroastrian priests, whose job description included astronomy/astrology. Watching the sky and interpreting what they saw was what they did. We’re not told that no one else noticed the star, nor are we told that the star was unusually bright or anything like that. We’re simply told how the magi interpreted what they saw, and what action they took as a result.
If nobody else noticed it, then it was a shared vision.
Or something that only Zoroastrian astrologers paid attention to and attached significance to.
I thought I'd suggested this upthread.
You did, and I did too. But Martin was still suggesting that “if nobody else noticed it, then it was a shared vision,” ignoring what seems to me the more obvious possibility that you and I both already pointed out.
Indeed he did. Failing to see more than ignoring.
'We saw for of him the star in the east' transliterated. Which is fascinating. They saw it in the east and came south west. Where the star set. These guys were very smart and had more information than we have. Then 'and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. '. It's a very complex phenomenon.
Regarding the star “in the East,” some translations render that as “we have seen the star at its rising.” In English, the “in the East” can also be read as “we in the East have seen his star”; don’t know if that reading is possible in Greek.
Regarding the star “in the East,” some translations render that as “we have seen the star at its rising.” In English, the “in the East” can also be read as “we in the East have seen his star”; don’t know if that reading is possible in Greek.
Regarding the star “in the East,” some translations render that as “we have seen the star at its rising.” In English, the “in the East” can also be read as “we in the East have seen his star”; don’t know if that reading is possible in Greek.
Regarding the star “in the East,” some translations render that as “we have seen the star at its rising.” In English, the “in the East” can also be read as “we in the East have seen his star”; don’t know if that reading is possible in Greek.
Regarding the star “in the East,” some translations render that as “we have seen the star at its rising.” In English, the “in the East” can also be read as “we in the East have seen his star”; don’t know if that reading is possible in Greek.
That's as I've always understood it
Erm, all stars rise in the east.
Yes. I suspect we all know that. It’s probably why the Greek word for rising is also the word for East.
Regarding the star “in the East,” some translations render that as “we have seen the star at its rising.” In English, the “in the East” can also be read as “we in the East have seen his star”; don’t know if that reading is possible in Greek.
That's as I've always understood it
Erm, all stars rise in the east.
Yes. I suspect we all know that. It’s probably why the Greek word for rising is also the word for East.
I forget who it was who argued that there cannot be indigenous Australians because at that time no missionaries had been sent to Australia and Scripture assures us that the gospel has been preached to all the peoples of the earth.
Something has been disproved, and I suspect it's biblical literalist Christianity.
The Vatican teaches that the existence of God can be deduced by reason. I don't think many philosophers today would accept that that is true.
Not sure how far philosophy counts as knowledge...
I forget who it was who argued that there cannot be indigenous Australians because at that time no missionaries had been sent to Australia and Scripture assures us that the gospel has been preached to all the peoples of the earth.
Something has been disproved, and I suspect it's biblical literalist Christianity.
The Vatican teaches that the existence of God can be deduced by reason. I don't think many philosophers today would accept that that is true.
Not sure how far philosophy counts as knowledge...
The Catechism subordinates reason to belief; it starts with "I believe":
Catechism of the Catholic Church
PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION ONE
"I BELIEVE" - "WE BELIEVE"
26 We begin our profession of faith by saying: "I believe" or "We believe".
35 Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.
III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH
36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".12
37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:
Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13
38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error". 14
IV. HOW CAN WE SPEAK ABOUT GOD?
39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.
Reason doesn't come first, even though they believe it can.
Personal influences come first.
Did anyone ever reason their way to the notion of God without first hearing about it from another person?
Doubt it.
Knowledge -v- faith. If you know something there is no need for faith.
Types of knowledge. Scientific reductionists would like to think there is only one way to know things. Beethoven, Shakespeare and Rembrandt would beg to differ.
Personal influences come first.
Did anyone ever reason their way to the notion of God without first hearing about it from another person?
Doubt it.
Knowledge -v- faith. If you know something there is no need for faith.
Types of knowledge. Scientific reductionists would like to think there is only one way to know things. Beethoven, Shakespeare and Rembrandt would beg to differ.
I await information as to how the arts can tell us whether God exists or not.
I think symbolism explodes notions of reason, as a particular symbol or image can get right inside me, without my volition or understanding. It can also exit as well.
Personal influences come first.
Did anyone ever reason their way to the notion of God without first hearing about it from another person?
Doubt it.
Knowledge -v- faith. If you know something there is no need for faith.
Types of knowledge. Scientific reductionists would like to think there is only one way to know things. Beethoven, Shakespeare and Rembrandt would beg to differ.
I await information as to how the arts can tell us whether God exists or not.
Not their role.
Not the role of science either.
The existence of God is something that can only be believed (or not) this side of death. It cannot be known in any meaningful definition of "know."
Personal influences come first.
Did anyone ever reason their way to the notion of God without first hearing about it from another person?
Doubt it.
Knowledge -v- faith. If you know something there is no need for faith.
Types of knowledge. Scientific reductionists would like to think there is only one way to know things. Beethoven, Shakespeare and Rembrandt would beg to differ.
They might, but science doesn't. We are evolutionarily genetically pre-wired for aesthetics since we were fish at least.
Personal influences come first.
Did anyone ever reason their way to the notion of God without first hearing about it from another person?
Doubt it.
Knowledge -v- faith. If you know something there is no need for faith.
Types of knowledge. Scientific reductionists would like to think there is only one way to know things. Beethoven, Shakespeare and Rembrandt would beg to differ.
They might, but science doesn't. We are evolutionarily genetically pre-wired for aesthetics since we were fish at least.
Aesthetics is one thing .... exploring the depths and facets of human nature and getting people to look "beyond" is another.
I belong to another forum, all of them atheists except me. I don’t talk about my faith there, the thing we have in common in Labradors and our conversations are based around our puppies and dogs.
They have no Faith, Christian or otherwise. But they certainly do ‘look beyond’ and have all sorts of beliefs and thoughts which I would call spiritual.
The forum has even invented its own unique way of praying, since two of our number became very ill and one of their husbands died.
I don’t think atheism means lack of ‘looking beyond’. It just lacks the vocabulary for it.
I forget who it was who argued that there cannot be indigenous Australians because at that time no missionaries had been sent to Australia and Scripture assures us that the gospel has been preached to all the peoples of the earth.
Something has been disproved, and I suspect it's biblical literalist Christianity.
The Vatican teaches that the existence of God can be deduced by reason. I don't think many philosophers today would accept that that is true.
Not sure how far philosophy counts as knowledge...
I belong to another forum, all of them atheists except me. I don’t talk about my faith there, the thing we have in common in Labradors and our conversations are based around our puppies and dogs.
They have no Faith, Christian or otherwise. But they certainly do ‘look beyond’ and have all sorts of beliefs and thoughts which I would call spiritual.
The forum has even invented its own unique way of praying, since two of our number became very ill and one of their husbands died.
I don’t think atheism means lack of ‘looking beyond’. It just lacks the vocabulary for it.
Sounds like an interesting forum -if I had any interest in dogs, I would ask for a link!
Personal influences come first.
Did anyone ever reason their way to the notion of God without first hearing about it from another person?
Doubt it.
Knowledge -v- faith. If you know something there is no need for faith.
Types of knowledge. Scientific reductionists would like to think there is only one way to know things. Beethoven, Shakespeare and Rembrandt would beg to differ.
They might, but science doesn't. We are evolutionarily genetically pre-wired for aesthetics since we were fish at least.
Aesthetics is one thing .... exploring the depths and facets of human nature and getting people to look "beyond" is another.
They have no Faith, Christian or otherwise. But they certainly do ‘look beyond’ and have all sorts of beliefs and thoughts which I would call spiritual.
The forum has even invented its own unique way of praying, since two of our number became very ill and one of their husbands died.
I don’t think atheism means lack of ‘looking beyond’. It just lacks the vocabulary for it.
That is very interesting @Boogie . Without wishing to pry into the contents of those prayers, can you say any more about what this "unique way of praying" involved?
Comments
The star that was close enough to hover over a particular place in Bethlehem was mentioned by Matthew the tax collector. Not Matthew the learned astonomer
That is true, but my point is that because of their respective positions, the Gospel writers are more than average people and likely could have known what other disciplines were thinking at the time.
Aristarchus and Anaxagoras (Greeks) both suggested that stars were distant suns, but they were both regarded as freaks and their ideas rejected. Ptolemy then suggested the stars were fixed lights on the inside of a sphere and that was the model until Copernicus and co. centuries later.
My point remains. How can a star hover over a a town let alone a specific house ?
It didn't. Unless it was a comet on a trajectory that at midnight it was always pointing to the house in Bethlehem, so the Parthian Magi could follow it from Persia for a month or so. They'd probably had synchronized a dream or some such.
FWIW, I suspect the Magi saw an astronomical phenomenon - a conjunction in a particular Zodiac sign for example - for which their interpretation was a new King. By the time this story had gone through a few people who wouldn't know much about conjunctions and astrological Zodiac signs, it had become a star (because that's what Magi study) hovering over Bethlehem (because they said it led them there).
It's significant, I think, that they apparently went to Jerusalem first - the logical place - and had to learn there that the local traditions said Bethlehem was the place.
Even if a star could be in a geostationary orbit, the place over which it 'hovers' could not be precisely enough identified.
Or is there a supernova (unrecorded by the Chinese, Romans, India etc) remnant that passes low over SW Bethlehem? Clarke's Star?
Angels are described as stars.
Yes, I think Telford may be taking the word *star* too literally.
Angels as stars is an interesting thought. There are several hymns which reflect this idea, a well-known one being Stars of the morning, so gloriously bright (translated from the Greek by J M Neale), and often sung at Michaelmas.
You can take your pick of references the BBC from 2012 or Astronomy magazine from December 2020. That still leaves various unexplained questions, such as why nobody else noticed the bright light.
The planetary conjunction* was well-publicised here in the UK (not sure about the comet), but, of course, they didn't have the internet in 4BC (or whenever)!
*Yes, the timing so close to Christmas gave rise to speculation about the Star mentioned in the Bible.
If nobody else noticed it, then it was a shared vision. I doubt God would have destroyed star systems with the uv, x-ray and gamma burst of a nova. The one in the Crab... raised cancer incidence from a thousand light years. So, a comet or vision. Or a real sneaky angel.
Hail, O Star that pointest
t'wards the port of heaven,
thou to whom as maiden
God for Son was given.
Not sure that quite fits in with the Journey of the Magi, but who knows? Maybe the *Star* was indeed Our Blessed Lady, leading them not to herself only, but to her Son?
Hmm...
Matthew tells us very little: The magi saw the star “at its rising”/“in the East” and went to Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, Herod consulted priests and scribes not about what the stars might show—Jews of the time didn’t generally go in for astrology—but about what the prophecies said. Then Matthew said that as they went to Bethlehem, the star they had seen “went ahead of them” until it “stopped.” That’s pretty much it.
Matthew nowhere says the star was unusually bright or remarkable in any other way. The only people he identifies as having paid attention to it are the magi. He seems to suggest that either Herod and his court hadn’t seen it, or if they had seen it, they didn’t attach the significance to it that the magi did, because it is the coming of the magi, not the star, that prompts Herod to be troubled.
That the star was particularly bright or would attract the notice of people generally is, like the idea that there were three magi or that they were “kings,” something we’ve glossed onto what is actually a pretty sparse description in the text. It’s not in the text itself.
I thought I'd suggested this upthread.
Having grown up in a subculture where lights in the sky that move in unexpected ways are considered to be UFOs rather than angels, there are other possibilities.
But people who discuss those possibilities too enthusiastically are generally considered to be a bit suspect...
Indeed he did. Failing to see more than ignoring.
'We saw for of him the star in the east' transliterated. Which is fascinating. They saw it in the east and came south west. Where the star set. These guys were very smart and had more information than we have. Then 'and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. '. It's a very complex phenomenon.
...on account of Angels being free agents, able to go where they will, and in whatever guise they choose.
Under God's instructions/Standing Orders etc., of course
Yes AIUI there are three possible readings
- we in the east saw the star
- we saw the star in the east
- we saw the star in its rising*
* possibly ‘in the ascendant’.That's as I've always understood it
Erm, all stars rise in the east.
Of course, the apology is mine.
And Turkey.
Something has been disproved, and I suspect it's biblical literalist Christianity.
The Vatican teaches that the existence of God can be deduced by reason. I don't think many philosophers today would accept that that is true.
Not sure how far philosophy counts as knowledge...
The Catechism subordinates reason to belief; it starts with "I believe":
Reason doesn't come first, even though they believe it can.
Did anyone ever reason their way to the notion of God without first hearing about it from another person?
Doubt it.
Knowledge -v- faith. If you know something there is no need for faith.
Types of knowledge. Scientific reductionists would like to think there is only one way to know things. Beethoven, Shakespeare and Rembrandt would beg to differ.
I await information as to how the arts can tell us whether God exists or not.
Not their role.
Not the role of science either.
The existence of God is something that can only be believed (or not) this side of death. It cannot be known in any meaningful definition of "know."
They might, but science doesn't. We are evolutionarily genetically pre-wired for aesthetics since we were fish at least.
Aesthetics is one thing .... exploring the depths and facets of human nature and getting people to look "beyond" is another.
They have no Faith, Christian or otherwise. But they certainly do ‘look beyond’ and have all sorts of beliefs and thoughts which I would call spiritual.
The forum has even invented its own unique way of praying, since two of our number became very ill and one of their husbands died.
I don’t think atheism means lack of ‘looking beyond’. It just lacks the vocabulary for it.
Is math science?
Beyond what to what?