![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/12\/StarofBethlehem5.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAtheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em>\u00a0blog<\/a>. I have\u00a0critiqued 84 of his articles<\/a> (no counter-reply as of yet). He was gracious enough to send me a free e-book copy of his new volume, 2-Minute Christianity:\u00a050 Big Ideas Every Christian Should Understand<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(May 2022),\u00a0which I critiqued point-by-point<\/a>. His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n See my previous replies in this series (Part 1<\/a> \/ Part 2<\/a>)<\/p>\n This is a reply to Bob\u2019s articles, \u201cCritique of \u2018The Star of Bethlehem\u2019 video\u201d<\/a> (12-9-22) and \u201cJupiter, Venus, Regulus, and Revelation: the fireworks of a real Star of Bethlehem?\u201d<\/a> (12-12-22).<\/p>\n [subtitle] It\u2019s time to address the illogic in this biased video<\/span><\/p>\n Yeah; I\u2019ll return the favor and address the illogic in Bob\u2019s critique<\/em>! Goose and gander! Isn\u2019t dialogue wonderful?<\/p>\n it\u2019s time for some tough love. Are you anxious for a takedown of Rick Larson\u2019s\u00a0The Star of Bethlehem<\/em> video? I certainly am. Now that we\u2019ve let the Christian side state their case (part 1\u00a0here<\/a>), it\u2019s time to respond. If you\u2019ve been biting your tongue with rebuttals, let\u2019s turn the tables. This\u2019ll be fun.<\/span><\/p>\n And are atheists excited to interact with Christian defenses<\/em> of the star of Bethlehem, where we<\/em> turn the tables? I\u2019ve yet to see it (and I\u2019ve tried<\/em>, believe me), apart from a few limited interactions with a few civil atheists. I think it\u2019s a fun and educational discussion that we can have. It\u2019s an extremely interesting topic (especially the more one learns<\/em> about it).<\/p>\n That video argued that the conjunctions of Jupiter with Regulus and Venus during the years 3 and 2 BCE explain the story of the magi following the star in Matthew chapter 2. Volumes have been written with many other attempts to explain the star, but this video is a popular explanation, and I will use it as a representation of the field.<\/span><\/p>\n I mostly agree with the reasoning in this video, but not necessarily with everything<\/em>. I\u2019m not defending it per se, but offering my own (similar) opinions, arrived at after much research.<\/p>\n The video makes a clever and intriguing argument, but an intriguing argument doesn\u2019t carry the day.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s right.<\/p>\n it may not be that remarkable to weave an interesting argument when you\u2019re not following evidence but selecting it to pave a path to a conclusion you\u2019re determined to reach.<\/span><\/p>\n I agree again. I just think that atheists are no more immune to this shortcoming than anyone else. We all have biases, and they often determine the conclusions we reach, almost before we reach them. That being the case, we can only make our arguments and let observers decide which one is more plausible or believable. I interact<\/em> with opposing positions, as a socratic in methodology. And those who make those arguments can decide whether they want to interact with my<\/em> reasoning.<\/p>\n Larson knows that he wants to find celestial fireworks at the time of the birth of Jesus to map onto Matthew\u2019s Bethlehem star story, so he sifts and hammers the data to reach that conclusion.<\/span><\/p>\n That would be fundamentally dishonest. I don\u2019t believe Larson was intending to be dishonest, anymore than I am. We simply have an opinion different from Bob\u2019s, and provide scientific and historical arguments in favor of our own positions. It\u2019s not a given that someone is a dishonest special pleader or a sophist, simply because they disagree with us<\/em>.<\/p>\n The New Testament contains two nativity stories, but Larson, without apology, doesn\u2019t bother to reconcile them.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He doesn\u2019t have<\/em> to. They\u2019re not contradictory, and the goal of the video is to provide a theory about the star, not a comprehensive commentary on the two Nativity stories. This is an unreasonable and absurd demand.<\/p>\n He ignores Luke and focuses on Matthew.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He does so precisely because that\u2019s where the star is mentioned<\/em>! DUH! It\u2019s like saying, \u201cBob ignored Newton and focused on Einstein, when discussing space-time and relativity.\u201d What in the world is wrong<\/em> with that? Nothing! Yet Bob makes out that somehow this is an unsavory method, for anyone to focus on the Gospel that refers to the star. When one is seriously hostile to a position, it adversely affects their reasoning ability, lessens their objectivity, and works against logically coherent and compelling arguments.<\/p>\n And like the zombies stumbling through the streets of Jerusalem in Matthew 27:52\u20133,\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Attempt to ridicule and mock Matthew\u2019s Gospel; in other words, to \u201cpoison the well\u201d . . .<\/p>\n we\u2019re left to wonder why the star and magi are also only in Matthew. If it was important enough for Matthew and it actually happened, why wasn\u2019t it reported in the other gospels?<\/span><\/p>\n I would say, \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d but also (with equal vigor), \u201cwho cares<\/em>?\u201d There could be one reason or a dozen reasons. All we can do is analyze what we have. But clearly, none of the Gospel writers were under some supposed \u201cobligation\u201d to make sure they wrote about every jot and tittle that the other<\/em> three Gospel writers dealt with. It\u2019s ludicrous and unrealistic to posit such a \u201cdemand.\u201d Moreover, what would be the point<\/em> of having four virtually identical Gospels? That\u2019s boring as sin. Most objective observers would note that the (non-contradictory, logically complementary) differences in the Gospels are a strong indication that they are genuine<\/em>, and not some grand joint conspiracy of mythmaking: just as multiple witnesses in court trials invariably differ on emphases and details.<\/p>\n Matthew\u2019s nativity account says that Jesus was born before King Herod died. 4 BCE is the traditional date of Herod\u2019s death, but this prevents Larson from using the celestial events of 3 and 2 BCE to make his story. Larson tries to salvage his theory by arguing that Herod died in 1 BCE.<\/span><\/p>\n 4 BCE is the scholarly consensus, . . . Herod dying in 4 BCE defeats Larson\u2019s argument, but let\u2019s ignore that and continue.<\/span><\/p>\n I outlined several of the serious arguments against a 4 BC death-date of Herod in Part 2<\/a>. If this were a full back-and-forth dialogue (not just me critiquing his stuff), then Bob would interact<\/em> with those, and it would be a great discussion, but after 83 times of not<\/em> doing so, I won\u2019t hold my breath that he does this<\/em> time. I still think that if he would change his mind, we could have some enjoyable and stimulating dialogues. Hope springs eternal! I\u2019m pretty sure there is no one else out there who has critiqued Bob\u2019s arguments in -depth, 84 times. I would love<\/em> for someone (who is friendly and sharp and challenging) do that with my<\/em> writings.<\/p>\n Larson said that the Bible\u2019s warnings against astrology gave him pause, and we can see why. For example,<\/span><\/p>\n If a man or woman \u2026 has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or\u00a0to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky<\/strong>, \u2026 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2\u20135; see also Isaiah 47:13\u201315, Job 31:26\u20138, Deut. 4:19 and 18:9\u201314, Jeremiah 10:1\u20133)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n He need not have worried, because the astrology of the wise men didn\u2019t involve them making the sun or stars \u201cgods\u201d to idolatrously worship<\/em>. They did no such thing. It was merely seen as portent or signs of what was to come (but not in a causal sense). Therefore, such practices had nothing to do with what the Bible condemned. The likely religion of the wise men, Zoroastrianism, condemned the same things (divination, sorcery, wizardry, etc.).<\/p>\n But of course, we can go to the ancient Greeks (most atheists\u2019 big intellectual heroes) and Romans to find such worship that the Bible condemned. They were far more primitive (and intellectually gullible), and subject to mythological inclinations than the Zoroastrian wise men:<\/p>\n Helios<\/strong>, (Greek: \u201cSun\u201d) in\u00a0Greek religion<\/a>, the\u00a0sun god<\/a>, sometimes called a\u00a0Titan<\/a>. He drove a chariot daily from east to west across the sky and sailed around the northerly stream of Ocean each night in a huge cup.<\/p>\n In classical Greece, Helios was especially\u00a0worshipped\u00a0in\u00a0Rhodes<\/a>, where from at least the early 5th century\u00a0BCE<\/span>\u00a0he was regarded as the chief god, to whom the island belonged. His worship spread as he became increasingly identified with other deities, often under Eastern influence. From the 5th century\u00a0BCE<\/span>,\u00a0Apollo<\/a>, originally a deity of radiant purity, was more and more interpreted as a sun god. Under the\u00a0Roman Empire the sun itself came to be worshipped as the Unconquered Sun. (Encyclopaedia Britannica<\/em>, \u201cHelios\u201d)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Zoroastrianism<\/a>, on the other hand, had significant monotheistic features. The web page, Zoroastrian (Persian) Astrology & Cosmology<\/a> explains this particular type of astrology (very unlike the prominent version today):<\/p>\n Surviving Zoroastrian texts indicate that astrology was used by ancient Zoroastrians and their priests, the magi (see below), primarily as a method of measuring historical and calendrical time. They developed an\u00a0astrology of the world<\/a>\u00a0and used astrology as a means to date events in\u00a0Aryan history<\/a>.\u00a0The magi also used astrology to predict cyclical events such as seasons and significant climatic changes that would cause community-wide changes.<\/p>\n Today, some Zoroastrians also accept astrology as a means of predicting events or, say, to determine if two people are compatible. Other Zoroastrians reject such use relegating it to superstition. . . .<\/p>\n Since Zoroastrianism philosophy recognizes\u00a0free will<\/a> and a person\u2019s individual and complete responsibility for her or his every thought, word and deed, it automatically rejects any suggestion that a person\u2019s choice of thoughts, words and deeds were a result of movements of astral bodies in the skies. . . . Astrology may be used to indicate potential rather than absolute fated destiny, or perhaps favourable and unfavourable timing to undertake a venture. . . .<\/p>\n [A] few Zoroastrians texts do speak of Zoroaster as an astronomer and someone who built an astronomical observatory. One of the primary purposes of the observatory was to measure time, maintain a very precise calendar and predict the seasons and accompanying weather changes \u2013 in other words, applied astronomy. The calendar was used to make preparations for planting and harvesting crops; the time for taking animals to pasture or on pastoral circuits, and even the starting and ending of the caravan season for trading and travel journeys along the Silk Roads<\/a>.<\/p>\n While the Zoroastrian calendar employed a zodiac, the zodiac was used to predict the equinoxes and solstices. The Zoroastrian year started with the spring equinox (commonly March 21). The resulting calendar was very accurate.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The constellations come from the Babylonians, the civilization that conquered Judah in the sixth century BCE. God\u2019s rejection of astrology built on Babylonian constellations is understandable, and yet Larson imagines God using that invention to communicate Jesus\u2019s birth.<\/span><\/p>\n\n