Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trans sorry for the late reply, I did say it would take awhile, as there was much to search out especially when you look into different fields of historical evedence. Anyway I said I would put together an artical on the nativity to show it is historically founded. This is quite big so will be posting it in a few different posts. enjoy.
The Nativity
Preface
Are the gospels historically reliable? To the atheist the answer is no, to the Christian the answer is a resounding yes.
The atheist and most scholars of today use the historian Josephus to point out that the gospels nativity of Jesus is not historically accurate. They do so because of 3 things Josephus mentions.
1 being the eclipse
2 being the length of reign of Archelaus
3 being the date of the census believed to be in 6 C.E.
When these 3 things are looked at together via Josephus writings we get a date of the death of Herod the great placed in 4 B.C.E. and as no census is recorded by Josephus as taking place during the last days of Herod the great the atheist and modern scholar leap to the conclusion that the gospels are not historically accurate. The atheist even go further in stating the gospel are nothing more than a myth perpetuated up mankind by the Christians.
What this amount to (and I have belabored this in the past) is that the atheists have made Josephus their bible of historical facts. Thus if anyone disagrees with what Josephus states; those disagreeing with Josephus are wrong and Josephus is correct.
Now I have heard atheist say many times that Christians cannot use the bible to defend the bible, the atheist call this circular reasoning. Yet when it come to Josephus that circular reasoning that they say the Christian cannot do with the bible the atheist does with Josephus; Because Josephus says something that is good enough for them.
I have tried to point out that to be historically accurate the historian has to use all available information they can find before they come to a conclusion of what is historically accurate and what is not. This has fallen on deaf ears, as the atheist will not take any historical evidence supplied by any Christian whether that Christian is a historian or not. Their defence for this is simply they are Christian so cannot be trustworthy. Now to other atheist this simple reply by atheists is enough to persuade other atheist, which is a shame, however all the atheist is really doing is ignoring any evidence contrary to their own belief in order to not have to deal with the evidence the Christian historians provide.
Before I go on with the evidence of whether the gospels are historically accurate or not I need to point out one other thing I have encountered in dealing with this subject is that the historians, scholars and atheists seem to have the habit of lumping together events that have nothing to do with each other. A prime example of this is they try to lump the census of 6 C.E. with what Luke says in his nativity. Another example is how they lump together Matthews’s nativity with that of Luke. In neither case can they be lumped together in the fashion that they do so, as the one is separated by about 8 or 9 years and the other is separated by about 2 years. Does one really then have to wonder why there is so much confusion concerning the historical accounts recorded in the gospels.
However the historian, scholar and atheist today would point out that Cyrenius is the common link that lumps Luke gospel and Josephus tax account in 6 C.E. together as speaking of the same event. Now this might seem like a good argument for lumping Luke’s account and what Josephus says, but is it really? Using this same type of argument we could then say World War 1 and World War 2 are the same event as General George Patton was in both wars. True Patton was not a General in WW1 as he was in WW2, but then again Cyrenius was not a Governor in Luke’s account as he is in Josephus account. Therefore we can see that lumping together 2 separate events because someone is mentioned in both events would lead to nothing but confusion of the actual events. Yet this is what the historian, scholars and atheist of today have done and why there is so much confusion of the nativity events that took place.
So let’s proceed to the evidence.
As it is Josephus and only Josephus were the atheist gets their defence against the gospel nativity I will start with Josephus.
In the past I have pointed out where Josephus get chronological dates mixed up; and although the atheists will cry about me attacking their bible, the fact that Josephus has a habit of getting his chronological dates mixed up does come into play historically speaking. And if this is so, and it will become evident that it is, then we must question the dating of Achelaus reign that Josephus gives as either 9 or 10 years as Josephus sates in one place that Achelaus reigned 9 years and in another place that Archelaus reigned 10 years.
Josephus states that Herod the great started his reign when Herod was 15 years old (Josephus,*Antiquities*XIV.158–159.), however today we know that Herod did not being his reign until he was about 25 years old.
Jospehus states that Archelaus reign 9 years in (Josephus,*War*II.111.) and 10 years in (Josephus,*Antiquities*XVII.342.)
Josephus states in (Josephus,*Antiquities*XVII.342; Life, 5.) that Hyrcanus was 81 years old at his death, but historians clearly realize that Hyrcanus was in his early 70’s when he was killed
In*Antiquities, XV.181 Josephus related that the interval between Pompey’s restoration of Hyrcanus to power and the time of Antigonus’ usurpation was more than 40 years, but that span of time was actually only about 23 years.
In*Antiquities, XV.231 Josephus said that Mariamme was executed late in 29 B.C.E., but in his*War, I.442 he said it was in 34 B.C.E.
In War*II.115 Josephus states that Archelaus married Galphyra, wife of King Juba of Mauritania, after Juba died,*but he was clearly in error. It is well known that Juba was alive about 20 years after Archelaus married Galphyra.
In War 70 Jospehus states that the first year of Cyrus the great was in what today is known as 570 B.C.E. Yet in Antiquities*X.233 Josephus says it was in 578 B.C.E. and yet again in Antiquities*X111.301 Josephus says it was in 586 B.C.E. whereas historians today believe the first year of Cyrus was in 538 B.C.E.
Has it not become obvious that Josephus is not a very reliable source for looking at the chronological years of things?
Because of these obvious discrepancies in Josephus chronological time table historians and scholar today suspect the motives of Josephus in writing his history.
The German scholar Ethelbert Stauffer sums it up very nicely when he said:
“The past fifty years of research on the work of Josephus have taught us to be severely critical of his method and presentation. Josephus had an ax to grind. His historical journalism was intended as a self-defense and self-aggrandizement. He wrote to glorify his people and to eulogize the Roman Emperor. He was an ardent sympathizer with the pro-Roman collaborationists among the Jews and an opponent of all the anti-Roman and anti-Herodian partisans of the Palestinian resistance movement. Crucial parts of Josephus’ historical works, moreover, were casually patched together from older sources of uneven value: consequently they were replete with gaps and contradictions, are muddled and misleading. This is particularly true of his remarks on Augustus, Herod, Quirinius, and the census. Of course, Josephus remains an invaluable source: but he is not to be read uncritically.”*
Now in light of all these chronological discrepancies and the witness of historians and scholars the dates that Josephus gave of the reign of Archelaus, that of 9 or 10 years must come into question.
Not only are there chronological discrepancies in Josephus writings there are also discrepancies between the older versions of Josephus writings and the writings that are common today.
One of those discrepancies, which is important to the subject at hand, is that of the son of Herod the great, Philip. According to Josephus Philip reigned for 37 years and died in the 20th year of Tiberius. This would bring the start of Philips reign to 3 B.C.E. This all coming from the manuscript copies from 1700 C. E. until today. However D. Beyer in his work Josephus re-examined: Unravelling the Twenty-second year of Tiberius states the earlier manuscripts, those written before 1544 C.E. all state that Philip died in the 22nd year of Tiberius. Thus the start of Philips reign would have started in 1 B.C.E. Now this date is significant as I believe Herod the great died in 1 B.C.E. and the earlier manuscripts of Josephus actually back up that belief.
So far, without even looking at the gospels nativity account, we can see from the works of Josephus alone that the reign of Archelaus is very suspect; therefore we cannot use what Josephus says about the reign of Archelaus to back date the death of Herod the great to 4 B.C.E as both historians and scholars of today do. We have also seen via the older manuscripts of Josephus Philip started his reign in 1 B.C.E which he obviously did not start to reign until the death of Herod the great.
So let’s look at the other factor that historians and scholars use to date Herod’s death in 4 B.C.E
Let’s look at what Josephus states about this eclipse that took place just before the death of Herod the great. Josephus states the very night that Herod the great burnt Matthias for his sedition there was an eclipse of the moon. Antiquities*XVII–167.
Scholars and historians today place this eclipse on March 13, 4 B.C.E
However this date for the eclipse cannot be attained if we take into account everything Josephus tells us about the eclipse, the death of Herod and the Passover. Why the Passover? Because Josephus makes it plain that after Archelaus buried his father he left for Rome to report to Augustus before the Passover.
From the time of the eclipse to the death of Herod the great to the springtime Passover is 29 days.
As already noted the eclipse happened the very day Herod burnt Matthias for his sedition. Josephus then goes on to say that Herod’s illness became worse and the people attributed Herod’s sickness the burning of Matthias. Antiquities*XVII–167.
Now for the people to learn that Herod’s illness had become worse and attribute it to the death of Matthias must have been at least a day or two.
In War*I.657 Josephus tells us that Herod tried one remedy after another in order to try and cure himself. In order to see if one remedy or another would work must have been at least another 4 or 5 days, as you would try one remedy and wait a day to see if there was any improvement before trying the next remedy. Thus about 1 week would have passed from the time of the eclipse.
As Herod was not getting any better his physicians recommended that he go soak in the mineral baths at Callirrhoe about 25 miles from Jericho. This trip to and from the mineral baths and a day or two for soaking in the baths must have been about another week. Thus about 2 weeks must have passed from the time of the eclipse.
Once Herod realised he was not getting any better and was going to die, He wanting people to morn his death so he hatched a plan to murder many prominent Jewish elders from all areas of his kingdom. Herod sent dispatches out to all areas of his kingdom, on pain of death for refusal, for these prominent Jewish elders to attend him in Jericho, whereupon Herod imprisoned them in the hippodrome.
Antiquities*XVII.174. This must have taken a few days for these messages to reach all areas of his kingdom and a few more days for the Jewish elders to all reach Jericho. Let say about 1 week. Thus about 3 weeks must have passed from the time of the eclipse.
After the imprisonment of the Jewish elders Josephus tells us that Herod received permission from Rome to kill his son Antipater. Upon receiving this permission Herod immediately had Antipater killed and then died 5 days later. Antiquities*XVII.177. Upon Herod’s death it was determined that the Jewish elders were not to be killed and they were released. All this must have taken at least another week. Thus about 4 weeks must have passed from the time of the eclipse.
Need I go on? Already we can see that about 28 of the 29 days from the time of the eclipse to the time of the Passover have elapsed and Archelaus has not even had the funeral for his father. Already we can see the eclipse of March 13, 4 B.C.E cannot possibly be the eclipse Josephus mentioned.
Do I really need to go on and tell about the funeral and the preparation time it would take for Archelaus to set up the march to Herodian, which was about 25 miles away? Do I really need to tell about how Josephus says they only marched 8 furlongs a day (1 mile) which means that it would have taken them 25 days to reach Herodian? Do I really need to tell how after the funeral Archelaus heard the people’s complaints about his father and how a small rebellion broke out before Archelaus could leave for Rome? Do I really need to ask how it was possible for the news to reach Rome of Herod death (about 1700 sea miles away) so that Augustus could send Sabinus to Judea and for Sabinus to have been able to be in Caesarea to meet Archleaus as Archelaus was about to board the ship to Rome?
Do we really need any more proof that the eclipse of March 13, 4 B.C.E is NOT the eclipse Josephus was talking about?
However if one would look at the eclipse of January 10, 1 B.C.E everything falls into place very nicely as from the time of this eclipse until the Passover was 12 and a half weeks.
Another issue with 4 B.C.E being the date of the death of Herod the great is what Jewish scholars refer to as the war of Varus that broke out following Herod’s death. No such war happened in 4 B.C.E. As a matter of fact no Roman wars happened between 7 B.C.E and 2 B.C.E.
Augustus tells us in Res Gestae that he was steadily discharging many of his soldiers, giving them handsome bonuses from 7 to 2 B.C.E. This would be strange indeed if a major war had broken out in Judea.
Sir Ronald Syme,*The Crisis of 2 B.C states that the discharging of the soldiers during this period was evidence that peace and security was found throughout the empire. “The titulature of the ruler[Augustus]*registers no fresh imperatorial salutation for many years after he was acclaimed ‘imp.XIV’ in 8 B.C.E.”*Salutations of these kinds were given to emperors when Rome had secured victories in war, but none were given from 8 B.C.E up to and including 2 B.C.E Syme goes on to say that the closing of the temple doors of the god Janus during this time was a sign that peace was throughout the empire.
This is clear evidence that no war was fought during these times, Thus a major war such as the war of Varus could NOT have taken place in the year 4 B.C.E.
With these facts in evidence we can see a 4 B.C.E death for Herod the great simply cannot be attained.
Thus again 1 B.C.E is standing out to be the year of the death of Herod the great.
So let’s move on to what the gospels tell us of the nativity of Jesus Christ.
Even though Matthew comes first in the gospels I will start with Luke as to follow the chronological order; as Luke nativity is about 2 years earlier then what takes place in Matthew.
Luke’s account of the Nativity
Luke 2:1-20
1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2(And*this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David
5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
6And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12And this*shall be*a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
15And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
16And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
17And when they had seen*it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
18And all they that heard*it*wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
19But Mary kept all these things, and pondered*them*in her heart.
20And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
First it needs to be pointed out that Luke is NOT talking about a tax, the word tax in the KJV is the Greek word apographe which simply means an enrollment or registration.
Now here is the problem, historians, scholars and atheist keep looking for a taxation of the people somewhere around 3 B.C.E and are unable to find one so they state that Luke must have been in error. They then proceed to lump together what Luke said with what Josephus said about a tax in 6 C.E. stating that they are one and the same tax. They have no evidence to support this lumping together of Luke and Josephus, it is all based on opinion and denies any evidence to the contrary. I have in the past (and will do so again) given evidence of a registration that did indeed take place in 3 B.C.E.
Note that Luke says there was a registration (NOT A TAX) that took place. Thus we are not looking for a tax but a registration that took place.
On February 5, 2 B.C.E. Augustus was given the title Pater Patriae*(Father of the Country) and all territories held by Rome had to swear an oath of allegiance to Augustus. This swearing of oath would have taken some kind of registration and indeed historical records state just that.
An inscription from Paphlagonia that date to 3BCE states this.
In the time of emperor Caesar Augustus, son of a god, during the twelfth consulship, in the third year, on the day before the Nones of March, in Gangris in . . . oath that was completed by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the . . . Romans . . . engaged in business (pragmateuomenoi) alongside them. By Zeus, Ge (Earth), Helios (Sun), all the gods and goddesses, Augustus himself, and all his children and descendents, I swear with word, deed, and thought to regard as friends any of those they may regard as friends and . . . to consider (?) . . . as enemies any they may judge to be enemies for my whole life. I will spare neither my body, nor my soul, nor my life, nor my children for their interests, but in every way will endure any danger for the things that involve them. Whatever I may notice or hear being spoken, planned, or done against them, I will report it and be an enemy to the one saying, planning or doing any such thing. I will pursue and defend against anyone they may judge to be enemies on land and sea using weapons and arms. But if I do anything contrary to this. . . oath (?). . . or anything not conforming to what I swore, I invoke curses of total and complete destruction against myself, my body, my soul, my life, my children, my entire family, and my interests till the end of all my successors and my descendents, and may . . . the bodies (?) . . . of my family and my descendents not be received by earth or sea, and (the earth) not bear fruit . . . for them (?). . . In the same way, everybody . . . in the land . . . swore in the Augustan temples in each . . . district (?). . . by the altars . . . of Augustus (?). . . Likewise, the Phazimoneitians who inhabit what is now called . . . Neapolis (?) swore together in the temple of Augustus by . . . the altar (?).
The Armenian historian Moses of Khorene said that the native sources he had available showed that in the second year of Abgar, king of Armenia in 3 B.C.E. also speaks of an oath being given to Augustus.*“to Armenia, bringing the image of Augustus Caesar, which they set up in every temple.”*
Furthermore the historian Orosius, VI.22 and VII.2. states this about the registration and oath.
"[Augustus] ordered that*a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled...This is the*earliest*and*most famous public acknowledgmentwhich marked Caesar as the first of all men*and the Romans as lords of the world, a published list of all men entered individually...This first*and*greatest census*was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made a part of one society"*
Also of note is that Luke indicates this registration was throughout the whole Roman Empire and the tax of Josephus in 6 C.E. is speaking only of a tax in Syria.
Thus we can see that there was indeed a registration that took place in 3 B.C.E just as Luke said there was. Thus there is no reason to lump Luke’s registration of 3 B.C.E with Josephus tax in 6 C.E.
Another reason historian and scholars lump Luke and Josephus together is that Luke say Cyrenius was governor of Syria at the time of Jesus birth and Josephus states the Cyrenius was not governor until the tax in 6 C.E. However Luke does not call Cyrenius a governor (Proconsul), Luke calls Cyrenius a hegemoneuontos. The term hegemoneuontos can refer to any type of administrational duties and is one of the terms used for a procurator.
That Cyrenius was a procurator is in fact testified by Justin Martyr in Apology,*I.34. Martyr states that Cyrenius at the time of the birth of Jesus was a procurator.
“And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another*prophe,*Micah, foretold. He spoke thus:*And you,*Bethlehem, the land of*Judah, are not the least among the princes of*Judah; for out of you shall come forth a Governor, who shall feed My people.*Micah*5:2*Now there is a village in the land of the*Jews, thirty-five stadia from*Jerusalem, in which*Jesus Christ*was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under*Cyrenius, your first*procurator*in*Judæa.”
Not only does Martyr tell us that Cyrenius was a procurator at this time; Martyr in writing to the emperor Titus tell the emperor that what he is saying can be ascertained from the registers.
Now this would be a very stupid statement by Martyr if in fact there were no such records as Titus could easily check the registers to ascertain the truth of the matter. Thus this statement by Martyr is a clear indication that Cyrenius was indeed a procurator at the time of Jesus birth and that there were indeed records that bore this out.
The Cambridge Ancient History, vol, X, p. 216 states this about the roman procurators “Each province had its equestrian procurator who in the eyes of the provincials was almost as important as the governor himself.”*
Thus we can see that a procurator and a governor are not speaking of the same office. In fact a procurator was a financial officer who worked alongside the imperial governor but was not subordinate to the governor; and reported directly to the emperor. The procurator had his own staff, and was in charge of the provinces financial affairs which include the following.
· the collection of taxes, especially the land tax (tributum soli),*poll tax*(tributum capitis), and the*portorium, an imperial duty on the carriage of goods on public highways
· collection of rents on land belonging to*imperial estates
· management of mines
· the distribution of pay to public servants (mostly in the military)
Now when we add this information with what Josephus in ant.18.1.1 tells us about Cyrenius; which is that Cyrenius had passed through many other magistracies before 6 C.E when he in fact became governor and what Tacitus in Annals,*III.48 states about Cyrenius; which is that Cyrenius was one having considerable talent for business can we really doubt Luke’s account that Cyrenius was a hegemoneuontos in the days of Herod the great.
Thus we can see the historical records do bear out that Luke’s account is indeed historical.
But what about Matthews account? Is Matthews account also historical? Let’s take a look.
Matthew 2:1-23
1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
3When Herod the king had heard*these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
5And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
6And thou Bethlehem,*in*the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
7Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
8And 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.
9When 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.
10When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
11And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
12And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
13And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
16Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
17Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
18In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping*for*her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
19But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
20Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
21And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
22But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
23And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Matthew starts off in agreement with Luke’s account that Jesus was born in the days of Herod the great; and as we have seen Luke’s account is historically accurate I need not go into the details again here.
Matthew tells us that wise men followed a star to Jerusalem and were come to worship the king of the Jews.
No one really questions the fact that these wise men were Magi who were the astrologers of those days, so I will not even try to prove this point.
Now as any astrologer would do these magi studied the heavens for signs and seasons, and in fact that is what Genesis 1:14-16 states the heavenly bodies are for.
Now during the time in question historians tell us that there was a belief among the Jews that their Messiah was about to come into the world.
Josephus in War*VI.313 states that from the “sacred writings that about that time one from their country*[Judaea]*should become governor of the habitable earth.”
Suetonius in Vespasian, 4 states “A firm belief had long prevailed through the east that it was destined for the empire of the world at that time to be given to someone who should go forth from Judaea.”*
*
And Tacitus in history,V.13 states“The majority of the Jewish people were very impressed with the belief that it was contained in ancient writings of the priests that it would come to pass that*at that very time, the east would renew its strength and they that should go forth from Judaea should be rulers of the world.”
Now we can understand why Matthew said Herod and all Jerusalem was troubled, and why the rebellions started in the days of Herod the great. If one reads Josephus accounts of the rebellions that broke out one will see that it was started because of a holy fervour that took hold of the Jews of those days. We even see by Josephus account that some even set themselves up as king during the events in question. Thus if we put all these things in proper chronological order Matthews account and what Josephus states of the rebellions all fall into place historically.
Furthermore the magi*would have been well aware of this Messianic belief as one of their greatest teachers, long before the time in question, said that sometime in the future there would arise a king who would raise the dead and transform the world into a kingdom of peace and security and that the king would come forth from the stock of Abraham. The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics,*art. Zoroastrianism, XII.862–868.
As we can see the magi were well aware that a king coming from the stock of Abraham would come into the world and being astrologers they would have been watching the heavens for the time of this kings appearing. This is exactly what Matthew tells us of the magi, they saw this king’s star at its arising and followed it from the east to Jerusalem.
Now historians, scholars and atheists think this star was a magical star of some type and even make fun of it, thus showing their ignorance of astrology. However to the astrologer there is nothing magical about this star. Astrologers are well aware that planets do become stationary to the human eye at the times for retrogradation. Before a planet goes into retrogradation it begins to slow down dramatically and then seems to stop in its tracks all together. In astrology this phenomenon is known as the station of a planet. When a planet goes retrograde it actually goes through the same span of the zodiac 3 times, forward then backwards, then forwards again. When the planet changes direction, this is called a "station" or "being stationary" (motionless). The planet's progress through the zodiac slows down until it pauses (the station). Then it gradually starts moving again in the opposite direction.
This retrogradation of a planet is exactly what the magi seen when the planet/star they followed stopped above Bethlehem.
Thus we can see this so called magical star is not so magical at all but rather a regular occurrence of a planets traverse through the heavens.
Thus we can see that Matthew’s account of that which took place did indeed take place just as he said it did. As a matter of fact for a period of 18 months from May, 3 B.C.E. to December, 2 B.C.E. the phenomena that took place in the heavens has evoked astonishment of modern astronomers.
Now it is not needful for me to go into detail of what planet this was that the magi followed I only needed to show that the magical star was not really magical at all and I have done this. However for those who are interested in which planet this was I will give a couple of links at the end that goes into really good detail of how the heavens declared His glory.
One more thing need to be addressed as it has been brought up as an issue and that is the 2 different accounts of the Shepherds and the magi. This problem is done away with if one just follows the chronological order of things. As I mentioned earlier there is about 2 year time difference between the 2 events. Luke tells us the Shepherds would find a new born babe/brephos and Matthew talks of the magi finding a young child/paidion. There is also Matthew’s account of Herod killing the children of 2 years and younger, which shows that the information the magi gave Herod of the time of the appearance of the star was about 2 years.
As promised here are the links to the heavens concerning the 18 month period from May, 3 B.C.E. to December, 2 B.C.E. and the phenomena that took place during this time.
Trans sorry for the late reply, I did say it would take awhile, as there was much to search out especially when you look into different fields of historical evedence. Anyway I said I would put together an artical on the nativity to show it is historically founded. This is quite big so will be posting it in a few different posts. enjoy.
The Nativity
Preface
Are the gospels historically reliable? To the atheist the answer is no, to the Christian the answer is a resounding yes.
The atheist and most scholars of today use the historian Josephus to point out that the gospels nativity of Jesus is not historically accurate.
I know many "resounding" Christians that rely on Josephus to say that Jesus was mentioned as a historical figure by a contemporary (although Josephus could have been talking about any other Joshua, as there were many, and Josephus would have been a child if Jesus had preached very late).
I also know many resounding Christians that take Josephus more seriously on the point of the claimed birth then even the non-canonical gospels or other mythological accounts.
Need I go on? Already we can see that about 28 of the 29 days from the time of the eclipse to the time of the Passover have elapsed and Archelaus has not even had the funeral for his father. Already we can see the eclipse of March 13, 4 B.C.E cannot possibly be the eclipse Josephus mentioned.
....
Cannot possibly be? No, we can see that we need to re-examine the evidence, not that it cannot possibly be. How did Josephus get all his information? He wasn't born then. He was born in 37 CE. He would have been how old when he started taking an interest in history?
I know many "resounding" Christians that rely on Josephus to say that Jesus was mentioned as a historical figure by a contemporary (although Josephus could have been talking about any other Joshua, as there were many, and Josephus would have been a child if Jesus had preached very late).
I also know many resounding Christians that take Josephus more seriously on the point of the claimed birth then even the non-canonical gospels or other mythological accounts.
Precisely! In the thread about the 'Historical Jesus', pneuma couldn't praise Josephus enough when he was using Josephus to claim that Josephus mentioned Jesus. He quoted Josephus profusely and took every opportunity to tell us that we should trust Josephus as one of the most accurate and reliable historians of history. He accused us of wanting to - "...pick and choose what is historical from the historians and what is not." And now he does just that. Now, when Josephus goes against what pneuma wants to be true, Josephus is untrustworthy, unreliable and is 'all over the place with his dates.'
Gosh. That's a lot of work. It'll take some reading. Thanks for the response anyway.
Fear not old beast. It's just more of the same that you have already soundly debunked.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
