Star of Bethlehem

[Yeticus_Rex]

@rfgdxm

Yep. And how the Magi would find Jesus is unanswed. Did they ask passers by “could you please point out where we may find the infant son of God?”

Yeah, pretty much.

@Molnar

How did the Star lead the Wise Men to Bethlehem?
The Star, namely Jupiter in the east, was in Aries the Ram. This along with the other important astrological aspects showed astrologers that a king was born in Judea, Samaria, Palestine, Idumea, or Coele Syria. Not knowing the precise location they went to the capital of these lands which was Jerusalem. King Herod’s advisors told the Magi that the prophecy said the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. So, the Magi went there. (p. 46-47)

Bethlehem as the actual site of Jesus’ birth is subject to debate as well.

[Yeticus_Rex]

@APB

And, as Euty noted in the Staff Report, ‘Some say Leo (the lion) was associated astrologically with the house of Judah, from which the messiah was supposed to arise.’

So which is it - Pisces, Aries or Leo?

With a quarter of Zodiac signs having been identified as the crucial one, that’s a lot of wiggle room. Pick any astrological ‘event’ and there’ll be a one-in-four chance that it took place in a sign that someone has already claimed was significant.

Molnar’s real challenge to the previous theories is not that he’s found a better astrological match (‘better’ in such matters will always be a bit subjective), but rather his claim that others misidentified which Zodiac sign was the one that mattered.

And then there’s the possibility that ancient ideas about the meaning of the Zodiac signs were so varied and flexible - to say nothing of modern interpretations of them - that, with sufficient ingenuity, you can come up with any match you want.

Constellation boundaries that we observe now were not the same constellation boundaries that astrologers used back then. Since Aries and Pieces border each other, it is quite possible that Aries had encompassed a larger/smaller arc (closer to 30 degrees on the ecliptic from the astrologer’s viewpoint), and precession might be a part of this too. Molnar addresses this too, but I would have go back and reread that part of the book.
As opposed to other theorists, Molnar bases his theory about Aries because he is an ancient coin collector and found coins that suggest that Aries is the sign of the Judea. Something that’s actually tangible…

From Molnar:

How did you find the coin and what did it tell you?
My hobby is collecting ancient Roman and Greek coins that have celestial symbols. In the spring of 1990 I purchased a lovely bronze coin from ancient Antioch which portrayed the zodiacal sign, Aries the Ram looking back at an overhead star. I bought the coin for $50. But the coin turned out to be priceless because I found that this was the sign of the zodiac that represented King Herod’s kingdom. The so-called “bible of astrology” the Tetrabiblos of Claudius Ptolemy explained that Aries the Ram controlled the people of “Judea, Idumea, Samaria, Palestine, and Coele Syria” – lands ruled by King Herod. I think the coin was issued by the Romans of Antioch to commemorate their takeover of Judea in AD 6. (p. 120-121) Maybe that’s not the entire answer to the coin, but the important point about the coin is that it led me to find where any celestial omen about the birth of a king of the Jews had to appear. That would have been in Aries, not the constellations proposed by other investigators. This finding started me to think more about the Star of Bethlehem.

What if the Tetrabiblos is wrong about Aries as the sign of ancient Judea?
There is very strong evidence that it is not wrong. In my book I give other supporting ancient sources (p. 46, 96, 111), but the best proof lies in my explanation of the report by the Roman historian, Suetonius, about an astrological prediction concerning the Emperor Nero. Suetonius says that astrologers claimed Nero would be overthrown in Rome and rise up in Jerusalem. I show how they looked to Aries the Ram in Nero’s horoscope to predict he would recover his lost throne in Jerusalem! Although he was overthrown he never made it to Jerusalem. But Christians and Jews feared he would arrive in Jerusalem, which is the basis for the stories of the rise of the antichrist (or as Jews called him, the antimessiah.) (p. 109, 113) This illustrates how ancient stargazers looked to Aries the Ram for events involving Judea. That is, Aries is where the Magi watched for the Star announcing the birth of the King of the Jews.

This guy did quite a bit of digging in Astronomy, Numismatics, Greek and Roman astrology, the writings of Ptolemy, Firmicus, Kepler, and other historical writers. I by no means say he is right…but he has thought this out quite well. I do recommend reading his book. Pretty easy to follow, even with the astrology stuff.

Again, this might explain the “Wise Men” and their travels, but then DtC already raised issues with the validity of Matthew and the whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or not.

[bonzer]

From Yeticus’s quotations from Molnar:

How did the Star lead the Wise Men to Bethlehem?
The Star, namely Jupiter in the east, was in Aries the Ram. This along with the other important astrological aspects showed astrologers that a king was born in Judea, Samaria, Palestine, Idumea, or Coele Syria. Not knowing the precise location they went to the capital of these lands which was Jerusalem. King Herod’s advisors told the Magi that the prophecy said the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. So, the Magi went there. (p. 46-47)

The so-called “bible of astrology” the Tetrabiblos of Claudius Ptolemy explained that Aries the Ram controlled the people of “Judea, Idumea, Samaria, Palestine, and Coele Syria” – lands ruled by King Herod.

What needs to be added is that the Tetrabiblos also associates Aries with Britain, Gaul, Germania and Bastarnia (part of Russia) in the same passage (see II, 3, 73). I suppose it all depends on what the “other important astrological aspects” are.

[Chronos]

Oh, don’t get me wrong: An occultation of Jupiter by the Moon is a pretty significant event, and I can see that it might be considered more significant if the Moon and Jupiter were both near the Sun at the time (if nothing else, a lunar occultation near New Moon is more visually dramatic, since the occulted object will disappear behind or reappear from the dark side of the Moon). If someone says that a new-Moon occultation of Jupiter would have been interpreted as a strong regal sign by ancient astrologers, I don’t know enough about ancient astrology to say if that’s right, but it’s at least plausible. But given that you have a new-Moon occultation of Jupiter, it adds absolutely nothing to observe that Jupiter went retrograde half a year later. Every time that Jupiter is near the Sun (which we’ve already taken into account), it’ll go retrograde half a year later, and this is exactly the sort of astronomical fact of which the ancient astrologers would have been well aware. The various other signs might be considered strong, but the retrograde in no way makes them stronger.

[Yeticus_Rex]

The point that Molnar was making about Jupiter’s retrograde motion was that it explained the second “appearance” of the Star that Matthew noted in the Bible. As Jupiter moved onward to Taurus, reversed (retrograde) on August 23rd, and stationed (“stood over”) back in Aries on December 19, 6 BC, was like a “double-wow” for the astrologers even though they were aware that Jupiter commonly retrogrades approximately every 13 months. I’m pretty sure Molnar (in the book) pointed out that the retrograde and reappearance in Aries was one of the componenets that elevated the status of this already regal king to a “messianic” and “immortal” king.

Either I have to bring the book to work, or I’m gonna have to post at home with the book in hand to be certain.