Those here who say that Sirius in the eastern sky on December 25th is the star of Bethlehem are wrong. With it must come also the lie that says the Three Kings or wise men were also the three stars of Orion.
How convenient that reverence is given to Sirius as the star of Bethlehem, which is the very star of worship for thousands of years before Christ. Only in the tradition of Christmas do we proclaim there were three kings who came in search of Jesus. Scripture does not tell us how many wise men (though we can perhaps infer it from the three gifts... a very weak argument). Only in this tradition do we call the wise men "Three Kings", one of the many classical names given to Orion's Belt. None of this bears out in scripture and its further aim is to guide us to this nonsense of Sirius as the Star of Bethlehem, coincidentally right around the official status of December 25th as the date of Christ's birth.
Scripture does not ever claim them to be three kings. Scripture gives them a description of "magi" that was also translated as "wise men" more broadly.
Daniel 2:48 for further context:
Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.
The above is convenient for us, because it helps us see that king is distinguished from wise men in scripture.
Mathew 2:1-12
1 Now 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,
2 Saying, 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.
3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
6 And 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.
7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
8 And 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.
9 When 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.
10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
11 And 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.
12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
The OT Prophecy. Numbers 24:17
17"I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near; A star shall come forth from Jacob, A scepter shall rise from Israel...
If Sirius is the Star of Bethlehem, what can be significant from that to compel the wise men to leave Persia? The fact that they sought the birth of a King of the Jews from the emergence of a star from Jacob (Israel), implies they were aware of OT prophecy. If scripture intends to express them as magi, astrologers, Sirius would have held no sudden significance with its annual arrival. The star in question, must have been
strange to them to take such notice and travel to Israel, especially them not being Jewish themselves and request the presence of the new born King.
I have no explanation of this in the Bible, because either they are speaking of a supernova (which is the death of a star
in the past), a rare conjunction of planets that would have emerged and appeared to them as a star in the sky, or the star is literally a supernatural occurrence involving the light of God.. not unlike that of the radiance of the "burning bush" as in the story of Moses perhaps. It's hard to come to any conclusion, but I think we can quite easily reject Sirius as the star.
It makes far more sense to me that Paganism influenced the move of Christ's birth to December 25th, to coincide with the well known astrology of the sun's alignment with the Crux constellation for 3 days and it's movement on the 25th in alignment with Orion's belt. This is the deception aimed at getting people to deny Christ, since "it's just a retelling of astrological events and myths of ancient cultures". Below is an example of how this is being used to distort the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ:
-----
There is another suggestion that if the Pope were to look out upon the circle on December 25th, the obelisks and star fortress would align with Sirius and Orion's Belt. If this is at all accurate (the direction is correct, but I haven't spent time checking the alignment), I think that would put to rest the origin or intent of December 25th as Christ's birthday and that it has nothing to do with Jesus. These obelisks weren't built by Rome or the Vatican. These were literally transplanted from Egypt to Rome by Emperor Caligula and finally moved to location by Pope Sixtus V. These were AUTHENTIC Obelisks of Osiris from Heliopolis in Egypt. The church performed EXORCISM on the obelisks... lol. Combine that with the more modern Osiris influence and it all becomes quite clear.
------
The whole attempt of this thread is to somehow prove or disprove whether or not other cultures did celebrations likened to Christmas before or after Christianity and by doing so somehow provides evidence of Christ's birth on December 25th. The question surrounds the date chosen and what it's historical meaning bears out. The ancient beliefs around the winter solstice surely aren't denied here, are they? The ancient architecture is all we need as proof. To whom did they build those structures and then we can start discussing origin and influence in the proper context.
I'm debating whether I want to waste any more time on it, though. I find it pointless because it is so plainly obvious that December 25th not only isn't the birth of Christ, but that it's roots are derived from sun worship of the Winter Solstice. Further, we shouldn't just look at the vagueness of Christmas origin and make a conclusion. Let's look at the traditions carried into the holiday and also let's look at the rest of the proof that harmonizes the idea of paganism in the church.
