Christmas Story Mistakes... What Have You Noticed?

[black008]

I was wondering what are some other things that others have thought were strange about the Christmas story?

 

Take the star that the wise men followed. The smallest known star in our universe is OGLE-TR-122b (what a name for a star). Anyway, it is 20% larger than Jupiter. First off, it would not be possible for a star to get close enough to earth to lead anyone anywhere. It would be daylight around the clock, the earth would be deep fried, and it would be driven into the star due to gravity.

 

Another observation, if King Herod was concerned about the newborn king. Why didn't he just have his men tail the wise men or the obvious, follow the star. You would think that others would be curious about a star hovering very low in the sky.

 

So I guess we are all left to assume the star was addition by a writer who did not understand astronomy or it was "swamp gas."

[GeorgeW]

I don't know enough about astronomy (or astrology) to make an intelligent comment about this. But, I do understand that pre-GPS, sailors and desert travelers did navigate by 'stars' (some of which may actually have been planets and the like). In any event that would not validate a literal reading of the story.

 

Welcome to the forum and I look forward to your participation. We usually ask new members to introduce themselves in the "Introduce Yourself" thread. We would be interested in your general background as it relates to the forum.

 

George

[Raven]

I like to look at Biblical stories for the spirit of them, rather than the letter. Sure, it most likely didn't literally happen the way it says in the Bible, but what's the spirit behind it? What's the purpose of the story? What can I take from it that will be positive and encouraging?

[PaulS]

One little one that jumps out at me concerning Christmas, is the conception of a child without any male ######. That to me seems a little strange .

 

Seems to me that if one is convinced a woman can conceive without male ######, issues about stars aren't going to get much of an airing.

 

Cheers

Paul

[halinsalem]

It is several years ago now when I read a book written by an astronomer with a PhD. As a scientist, he had little use or respect for astrology. However, he realized that the scientists (the Magi or Wise men) of 2000 years ago were astrologers, not astronomers. To satisfy his curiosity he studied astrology so that he could analyze ancient astrological claims.

 

With the help of computers, he could go back 2000 years and examine the heavens as they looked at that time. He discovered that there was an astrological combination of heavenly bodies in April of the year 6 BC that indicated a powerful leader was to be born at that time. The exact date was April 17^th, 6 BC.

 

Unfortunately, I did not keep track of the author’s or the book’s name. This may have all been fiction, but it was interesting to me and if I knew the book’s name now, I would purchase it for my personal library. April 17^th makes a lot more sense than Dec. 25^th. Also, astrology makes a lot more sense than a Wandering Star, but what do we know?

[dusktilldawn]

The usual cited problems are the impossibility of reconciling Matthew's version with that of Luke and the difficulties in Luke's account of the census.

 

Matthew tells us that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BC. Luke tells us that Jesus was born when the governor of Syria was Quirinius, who was appointed in AD 8.There was no Empire wide census anywhere near these dates and during the reign of Herod Rome didn't govern Judea directly and would have received tribute from Herod, who was left to organise his own taxation. It's also hard to believe that a Roman census would have expected people to return to the home town of their ancestors in order to be counted - they counted people where they lived and would have had no interest in Jewish tribal structures as long as the taxes were paid.

 

I think Raven's right to say that we have to think about the purpose the story, but it seems to me that the purpose is to get round the problem that Jesus was known to come from Nazareth while the Messiah was expected to come from Bethlehem. Hence Matthew has Jesus' parents coming from Bethlehem and fleeing to Nazareth while Luke has them coming from Nazareth but going to Bethlehem for the census. Neither of these appear particularly positive or inspiring.