Was Christmas originally a pagan holiday? Nope.

[TER]

Found this and thought it was interesting to share with regards to the age of Pisces and its Christian significance:

Link

Was the Star of Bethlehem a New Star or Could It Have Been
an Amazing Conjunction of Planets?


Some scholars have suggested that the birth of Jesus of Nazareth occurred in the winter of the year 7 BC, noting that in 7 BC there was a conjunction of the planets Jupiter with Saturn in the constellation Aries. It has been suggested that this conduction was the star seen by the Magi in Persia (Matthew 2:1-12). This conjunction was an event that was even observed by the then current Roman ruler, Octavius, the great-nephew and heir of Julius Caesar, who is also known to history as Caesar Augustus, the first Roman Emperor who ruled, according to the Gospel of Luke, at the time Jesus was born. For Caesar Augustus the conduction of these planets was a significant phenomenon related to his destiny. In the Roman astrological system Caesar Augustus was Jupiter in human form, Venus was the star of the Emperor's Julian family and Saturn was the sign of the "Golden Age" promised during his reign. But in the winter of 3/2 BC, when many early Christian Church Fathers place Jesus' birth, there was another conjunction of Jupiter and Venus in the constellation Pisces. Perhaps this amazing conjunction of the cosmos' two most brilliant planets, which occurred three times with that year, was the star of Bethlehem that the Magi followed. It does coincide with the year given by a number of early Christian writers and is closer in time to the traditional date of Jesus' birth celebrated in the Church today.

However, at the time traditionally given as the birth of Christ, another phenomenon would have also caught the attention of Near Eastern astronomers as well as religious leaders. Ancient astronomers had observed the precession of the equinoxes and understood through their observation that the position of the earth gradually changed in relation to the cosmos. We understand this phenomenon as the gyroscopic wobble of the earth's axis, which changes approximately one degree every 72 years. At the time the Church traditionally identifies as the birth of Jesus, the occurrence of the vernal equinox was starting to take place under the sign of Pisces rather than the sign of Aries. For the ancient world, the shift in the equinox was an event that signaled something momentous was taking place in a new age for mankind.

The last 4 astrological periods related to the shifting constellations of the vernal equinox were:

Time Period................ Constellation

4000 BC - 2000 BC...........Taurus
2000 BC - 1 BC.................Aries
1 BC - 2000 AD.................Pisces
2000 AD - 4000 AD...........Aquarius

The birth of Christ under the sign of Pisces, the astrological sign of the fish, was a symbolically significant event for Israel, the people of God's Holy Covenant. Fish symbolism figured prominently both in Old Covenant Judaism and in early Christianity (which was heavily Jewish). The fish as a "sign" or symbol of Christ is prominent in the Gospels as well in early Christian art:

• The call of the fishermen
• The multiplication of the fish and the loaves, symbolizing the multiplication of God's abundant grace
• Establishing the Apostles as the "fishers of men'
• It is also prominent in early Christian art where it likely served as one of the earliest signs of the Christian identity; the letters of the Greek word for "fish" formed an acrostic for the phrase "Jesus Christ God's Son Savior" and a fish sign on a house indicated that believers in Jesus as the Messiah lived within the dwelling.

But in ancient times, even before the birth of the Messiah, the fish symbolized both life and death. This interpretation of the fish as a "sign" coincides with the Near Eastern concept of Pisces as a symbol of the "death" of one age and the "birth" or "resurrection" of another. This understanding becomes clear when one considers that early Christians came to use the fish as symbolic of the two most sacred Sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist. Both these sacraments of the New Covenant indicate a death and a rebirth. How perfect that the New Age for the New Covenant people of God should be heralded by the astrological sign that signaled the death of man's great enemy, sin and death, the birth of the New Covenant and the gift of eternal life that would come from Christ's death, burial and resurrection!

Scholars agree that this sign of the fish has always had been interpreted as being of Israel, the Old Covenant Church as well as the Universal New Covenant Church. It is interesting that there are two fishes symbolized in the constellation of Pisces and that they are arranged one horizontal and the other perpendicular with a band uniting the two fishes and the perpendicular fish pointing to the polar star. Could it be that the horizontal fish is the Old Covenant Israel while the perpendicular fish is the New Covenant Israel (the Christian Church) rising above the Old Covenant Church and pointing the way to salvation?

 

[dusman]

For Balaam laid before us precisely
The meaning of the words he spoke in prophecy,
When he said that a star would dawn,
A star that quenches all prophecies and auguries;
A star which resolves the parables of the wise,
And their sayings and their riddles,
A star far more brilliant than the star
Which has appeared, for he is the Maker of all the stars,
Of whom it was written of old, From Jacob there dawns
A little Child, God before the ages.​

St John Chrysostom:

For if we learn what the star was, and of what kind, whether it was one of the common stars, or strange and quite unlike the others, and whether it was a natural star or a star in appearance only, we shall easily know all the other things too. From where will these things be clear? From the texts themselves. Thus, that this star was not an ordinary one, or rather not a star at all, in my opinion, but some invisible power transformed into this appearance, is in the first place evident from its course. For not one of the stars moves like this, but whether you take the sun, or the moon, or all the other stars, we see them going from east to west; but this one was carried from north to south – for Palestine lies south of Persia. Next, one can also see this from the time. For it does not appear at night, but at midday, while the sun is shining; and no a star can do this, not even the moon. For when the sun appears the moon immediately disappears. But this star overcame even the beams of the sun by its own splendour, appearing brighter than them. Thirdly, from its appearing, and disappearing. For on their journey to Palestine it appeared leading them, but after they reached Jerusalem, it hid itself. But when they had left Herod and were about to leave, it shows itself; all of which is nothing like the motion of a star, but of some highly rational power. It did not even have a direction of its own, but when they moved, it moved; when they stopped, it stopped, like the pillar of the cloud for the Israelites. Fourthly, one can see this clearly, from its way of indicating. For it did not remain high up to point out the place – for they couldn’t have found it from that – but it came down and did so. For you realise that such a small space, about the size of a hut, or rather of the body of a little child, could not possibly be marked out by a star. For because of its immense height, it could not accurately indicate so confined a spot, and reveal it to those who wished to see it. And this any one may see from the moon, which is far larger than the stars, yet seems equally near every one that lives on the whole wide earth. How then, tell me, did the star point out a spot so confined, just the space of a manger and a hut, unless it left that height and came down, and stood over the very head of the young child? And this is what the evangelist was hinting at when he said, ‘The star went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.’ Do you see then, by what a large number of proofs this star is shown not to be one of the many, nor to have shown itself according to the order of the visible creation?

Homily 6 on Matthew [PG 57:64}

That's interesting. However, I'd like to understand how he comes to conclusions like the following:

we see them going from east to west; but this one was carried from north to south – for Palestine lies south of Persia

Parthia being the entirety of Persia at the time. As far as I can tell, we don't know the identity of the wise men or where they exactly came from. However, his assertion that Bethlehem is south of Persia doesn't carry weight with geography or scripture, since it says in Matthew 2:1 they came from the East.

For it does not appear at night, but at midday, while the sun is shining; and no a star can do this, not even the moon. For when the sun appears the moon immediately disappears. But this star overcame even the beams of the sun by its own splendour, appearing brighter than them. Thirdly, from its appearing, and disappearing. For on their journey to Palestine it appeared leading them, but after they reached Jerusalem, it hid itself.

I'd like to know where he comes to this conclusion. Even so, planets do have the unique quality of being like stars in the dawn/dusk sky when no other stars are visible. A conjunction of Jupiter/Venus would have been very bright either way. Still, I find his explanation here very odd and doesn't show up in scripture at all. Even if it were true, planets are easily seen during large parts of the day during certain times of year, this especially true during conjunctions that align perfectly.

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.

This could be perceived a few ways from the context of Jupiter. The distance from Jerusalem to Bethlehem is less than 5 miles, so at this point I doubt the guidance of the star was needed to reach Bethlehem and scripture simply says it went before them, which would be true in the sense Jupiter transitioned to the southern sky. It could be read simply as a confirmation that indeed, in the commencement of their long travel, the star appeared in the southern sky over Bethlehem and stalled on the 25th of December.

Still, it has to pass the scrutiny of what we can find in Luke on the timeline, so still not convinced on it yet.

 

[TER]

Happy searching! Let us know what you come up with!

 

[dusman]

It didn't just stand still. It stood over where the child was. It didn't just tell them to go south, but to a very specific place. This wasn't something out in space. It was low enough in the sky to indicate the specific house Jesus was in. I agree with TER's suggestion. This star was an angel, not something astronomical that we could identify with star charts.

I deliberated on this idea for a few days and was a bit unsettled. With it, we have to make a few assumptions:
- Either Matthew or the origination of the story from the magi had to have been incorrect in claiming there was a star.
- The magi, being astrologers, would have had to have been essentially tricked into believing they observed a star. Remember, they were astrologers, so constellations and celestial movements would have been most significant to them.
- The prophecy wouldn't be fulfilled in regards to Balaam's star coming from Jacob (Israel).
- At what point do the magi realize they have interacted with an angel all along and why was this not revealed in scripture?
- Further, this interaction with an angel would have had to occur over potentially months during their travel. Were they not convinced of the astrological significance, being the primary dedication in life? I believe they must have been.

Here is his screenshot of Jupiter directly over Bethlehem:

I bring the video, not because it was a simple curiosity, but rather that it fulfills exactly what scripture has said on all points and that deserves attention in this discussion. If the argument opposed to it rests on our understanding of "till it came and stood over", I don't think the above screenshot is that far of a stretch from that wording. Are we saying the magi saw an angel/light literally over the head of Jesus? Certainly that would have come into the scripture because that would have been even more compelling to them than a star... which turned out to never be a star, surely.

If you followed a star only to come to a point where it's no longer a star, but an angel or point of light floating over a spot so specific as a child... would you share the story of the star you followed or the incredible phenomenon of an angel or light that guided you?

 

[dusman]

Found this and thought it was interesting to share with regards to the age of Pisces and its Christian significance:

Link

Was the Star of Bethlehem a New Star or Could It Have Been
an Amazing Conjunction of Planets?


Some scholars have suggested that the birth of Jesus of Nazareth occurred in the winter of the year 7 BC, noting that in 7 BC there was a conjunction of the planets Jupiter with Saturn in the constellation Aries. It has been suggested that this conduction was the star seen by the Magi in Persia (Matthew 2:1-12). This conjunction was an event that was even observed by the then current Roman ruler, Octavius, the great-nephew and heir of Julius Caesar, who is also known to history as Caesar Augustus, the first Roman Emperor who ruled, according to the Gospel of Luke, at the time Jesus was born. For Caesar Augustus the conduction of these planets was a significant phenomenon related to his destiny. In the Roman astrological system Caesar Augustus was Jupiter in human form, Venus was the star of the Emperor's Julian family and Saturn was the sign of the "Golden Age" promised during his reign. But in the winter of 3/2 BC, when many early Christian Church Fathers place Jesus' birth, there was another conjunction of Jupiter and Venus in the constellation Pisces. Perhaps this amazing conjunction of the cosmos' two most brilliant planets, which occurred three times with that year, was the star of Bethlehem that the Magi followed. It does coincide with the year given by a number of early Christian writers and is closer in time to the traditional date of Jesus' birth celebrated in the Church today.

I actually came across the 7BC conjunction earlier and thought it wasn't plausible due to the dating. This would have been impossible as Luke tells us that it was in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, John the Baptist began his ministry and soon after Jesus was baptized (before 30). That would have put it somewhere around the 10th year of Tiberius.

However, at the time traditionally given as the birth of Christ, another phenomenon would have also caught the attention of Near Eastern astronomers as well as religious leaders. Ancient astronomers had observed the precession of the equinoxes and understood through their observation that the position of the earth gradually changed in relation to the cosmos. We understand this phenomenon as the gyroscopic wobble of the earth's axis, which changes approximately one degree every 72 years. At the time the Church traditionally identifies as the birth of Jesus, the occurrence of the vernal equinox was starting to take place under the sign of Pisces rather than the sign of Aries. For the ancient world, the shift in the equinox was an event that signaled something momentous was taking place in a new age for mankind.

The last 4 astrological periods related to the shifting constellations of the vernal equinox were:

Time Period................ Constellation

4000 BC - 2000 BC...........Taurus
2000 BC - 1 BC.................Aries
1 BC - 2000 AD.................Pisces
2000 AD - 4000 AD...........Aquarius

The birth of Christ under the sign of Pisces, the astrological sign of the fish, was a symbolically significant event for Israel, the people of God's Holy Covenant. Fish symbolism figured prominently both in Old Covenant Judaism and in early Christianity (which was heavily Jewish). The fish as a "sign" or symbol of Christ is prominent in the Gospels as well in early Christian art:

• The call of the fishermen
• The multiplication of the fish and the loaves, symbolizing the multiplication of God's abundant grace
• Establishing the Apostles as the "fishers of men'
• It is also prominent in early Christian art where it likely served as one of the earliest signs of the Christian identity; the letters of the Greek word for "fish" formed an acrostic for the phrase "Jesus Christ God's Son Savior" and a fish sign on a house indicated that believers in Jesus as the Messiah lived within the dwelling.

But in ancient times, even before the birth of the Messiah, the fish symbolized both life and death. This interpretation of the fish as a "sign" coincides with the Near Eastern concept of Pisces as a symbol of the "death" of one age and the "birth" or "resurrection" of another. This understanding becomes clear when one considers that early Christians came to use the fish as symbolic of the two most sacred Sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist. Both these sacraments of the New Covenant indicate a death and a rebirth. How perfect that the New Age for the New Covenant people of God should be heralded by the astrological sign that signaled the death of man's great enemy, sin and death, the birth of the New Covenant and the gift of eternal life that would come from Christ's death, burial and resurrection!

Scholars agree that this sign of the fish has always had been interpreted as being of Israel, the Old Covenant Church as well as the Universal New Covenant Church. It is interesting that there are two fishes symbolized in the constellation of Pisces and that they are arranged one horizontal and the other perpendicular with a band uniting the two fishes and the perpendicular fish pointing to the polar star. Could it be that the horizontal fish is the Old Covenant Israel while the perpendicular fish is the New Covenant Israel (the Christian Church) rising above the Old Covenant Church and pointing the way to salvation?

I have seen some ideas around this. That Jesus is Pisces, Moses is Aries, and I can't recall who was associated to Taurus. I have avoided most of that type research, as I don't find it all that interesting to me personally, though, the synchronicity is.

 

[Bman]

Look if this was important Jesus would have written it down when he was here just like all the other things he wrote. Omnipotent...DUH!!!

 

[Chester Copperpot]

theres also an old theory about a conjunction of jupiter and saturn around dec. 25th around the time of Jesus's birth... just throwing it out there.


nevrmind i see someone already mentioned it.. i remembered from an old "In Search Of.." from the 1970s

 

[TER]

I deliberated on this idea for a few days and was a bit unsettled. With it, we have to make a few assumptions:
- Either Matthew or the origination of the story from the magi had to have been incorrect in claiming there was a star.

What they saw looked like a star, and that is what Matthew is recording. It's doesn't mean Matthew was incorrect, as he was simply relaying the story as it had developed and how it was understood by the participants at that time. This doesn't rule out that the magi would later learn that this star was actually an angle appearing as such.

- The magi, being astrologers, would have had to have been essentially tricked into believing they observed a star. Remember, they were astrologers, so constellations and celestial movements would have been most significant to them.

An angel can look like a star, no?

- The prophecy wouldn't be fulfilled in regards to Balaam's star coming from Jacob (Israel).

Why not?

- At what point do the magi realize they have interacted with an angel all along and why was this not revealed in scripture?

Scripture and tradition does not tell us. Maybe they realized it when it disappeared and then reappeared? Maybe when it took a turn and started acting like an unusual light in the sky? Maybe when it came to rest over the Child? Maybe they never realized it was an angel? We simply don't know. My guess is that they discovered early on this was not a "normal" light in the sky and was likely confirmed to them to be a supernatural light when they came upon the house where the Child was. In fact, some of the Patristic sources mention that this "star" was similar to the pillar of fire which led the Israelites through the deserts during the exodus. Not that it looked like a pillar, but had characteristics of the pillar, namely stopping when the caravan stopped, etc.

The important thing is that just because Scriptures do not necessarily and explicitly say that the magi ultimately realized the star to be an angel or supernatural phenomenon does not mean this was not indeed the case.

- Further, this interaction with an angel would have had to occur over potentially months during their travel. Were they not convinced of the astrological significance, being the primary dedication in life? I believe they must have been.

I also believe this must have been the case. There were plenty of amazing events and alignments occurring in the skies at that time, for example Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, the constellations, etc. There were plenty of signs to point to them that a King of Judah was to be born, the awaited Messiah. The angel/star which led them was an additional phenomenon which they witnessed and whose goal was specifically to bring these three wise mages to the Christ Child. Thus you have the celestial signs from the movements of the stars/planets, and then you have the additional supernatural manifestation of the angel/star guiding the seekers to the exact location of the Child. It was a revelation through movements of the heavenly bodies, both material and immaterial, which pronounced the birth of the incarnate God-man Jesus Christ.

Here is his screenshot of Jupiter directly over Bethlehem:

I bring the video, not because it was a simple curiosity, but rather that it fulfills exactly what scripture has said on all points and that deserves attention in this discussion. If the argument opposed to it rests on our understanding of "till it came and stood over", I don't think the above screenshot is that far of a stretch from that wording. Are we saying the magi saw an angel/light literally over the head of Jesus? Certainly that would have come into the scripture because that would have been even more compelling to them than a star... which turned out to never be a star, surely.

That pictorial representation of Jupiter over Bethlehem does not point to the exact location of the child or even specific house. The Scriptures states that it came and stood over the Child, not over the city. Jupiter's position over Bethlehem is significant, but I don't believe it is the 'star' which is described in Scriptures which the Magi followed.

If you followed a star only to come to a point where it's no longer a star, but an angel or point of light floating over a spot so specific as a child... would you share the story of the star you followed or the incredible phenomenon of an angel or light that guided you?

The Scriptures describes historical events in a synoptic, almost journalistic model. In developing the Nativity story, St. Luke's describes the events as they were happening and understood. To the magi, it did look like a star, albeit a strange and wonderous star. The end of of this journey of following the star leads to Christ, Who is the central figure of this story. That St. Luke does not explain if the magi ended up realizing that the star was indeed a messenger angel does not exclude this to actually be the case. After all, the crux of the narrative is not about the star or about the magi, but of the Christ Child.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Did you forget your meds when you posted this? ^^

Not at all, actually. Why do you ask?

<the crickets await>

 

[erowe1]

I deliberated on this idea for a few days and was a bit unsettled. With it, we have to make a few assumptions:
- Either Matthew or the origination of the story from the magi had to have been incorrect in claiming there was a star.

I disagree. It's just that you can't expect them to use the word with the same modern assumptions you have. They used the word "star" according to its meaning for them, which was purely phenomenological. Anything that looked like a star was a star. Also, all throughout scripture angels and stars are associated and even spoken of interchangeably.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Take this as friendly advice: sometimes it is better to ignore certain people who are not interested in friendly relations and healthy debate.

Did you just happen to "accidentally" again forget to mention the chronic, and habitual disruptive "OFF TOPIC" posters, of other folks threads?

BTW, that darned Golden Rule cuts both ways, for both good OR evil.

 

[RJB]

It could have been a angel trapped in a star's body, yearning to break free of the domineering societal norms--- or that's what the forums have told me occurs quite regularly.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I disagree. It's just that you can't expect them to use the word with the same modern assumptions you have. They used the word "star" according to its meaning for them, which was purely phenomenological. Anything that looked like a star was a star. Also, all throughout scripture angels and stars are associated and even spoken of interchangeably.

How do 3 magi on camel back follow a "star" that leads them to Bethlehem?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Did you just happen to "accidentally" again forget to mention the chronic, and habitual disruptive "OFF TOPIC" posters, of other folks threads?

BTW, that darned Golden Rule cuts both ways, for both good OR evil.

Take your medication bro.

 

[RJB]

How do 3 magi on camel back follow a "star" that leads them to Bethlehem?

How do you follow the aliens who lead you to your computer to post your religious threads?

 

[Ronin Truth]

How do you follow the aliens who lead you to your computer to post your religious threads?

Don't need to follow any aliens, I already know the way. Do I post religious threads? Hmmm?

 

[RJB]

Don't need to follow any aliens, I already know the way. Do I post religious threads? Hmmm?

I'm sorry, your extraterrestrial threads that appear in the Religion forum.

 

[erowe1]

How do 3 magi on camel back follow a "star" that leads them to Bethlehem?

The Bible doesn't say anything about camels or how many magi there were. But I don't get your question. Why couldn't they do that?

 

[erowe1]

- At what point do the magi realize they have interacted with an angel all along and why was this not revealed in scripture?

All along. They must have received some kind of verbal communication telling them what they were doing. When they visited Herod they knew what they were looking for. It wasn't just some astrological superstition that gave them a hunch that this one planetary conjunction out of all the planetary conjunctions that have ever happened somehow would tell people where the savior of the world would be born. I don't accept the premise that it wasn't revealed in scripture. The magi called it a star, which is one way of referring to an angel.

"They fought from the heavens;
The stars from their courses fought against Sisera." -Judges 5:20

"When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?" -Job 38:7

"Praise the Lord!
Praise the Lord from the heavens;
Praise Him in the heights!
2 Praise Him, all His angels;
Praise Him, all His hosts!
3 Praise Him, sun and moon;
Praise Him, all you stars of light!
4 Praise Him, you heavens of heavens,
And you waters above the heavens!" -Psalm 48:1-4

"For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;" -Isaiah 14:13

"And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them." -Daniel 8:10

"The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches." -Revelation 1:20

"10 Then the third angel sounded: And a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. 11 The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the water, because it was made bitter. 12 Then the fourth angel sounded: And a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them were darkened. A third of the day did not shine, and likewise the night." -Revelation 8:10-12

" Then the fifth angel sounded: And I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth. To him was given the key to the bottomless pit." -Revelation 9:1

"3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born." -Revelation 12:3-4

 

[euphemia]

The Bible doesn't say anything about camels or how many magi there were. But I don't get your question. Why couldn't they do that?

It's likely they would have had camels as part of their caravan. They traveled some distance, and we know camels were domesticated for carrying people and cargo since Genesis.