The Theories.By Rev. Phil Greetham. © Copyright 1996. This Version, 2012.
| Criteria for the Star of Bethlehem. Some basic assumptions have been made when assessing these theories. |
| Astronomical Theories |
| 1: The Saturn/Jupiter triple conjunction Theory Saturn and Jupiter often find themselves together in the sky but every 973 years they come together and part 3 times over a few months. It happened at around the right time. |
| 2: The Venus/Jupiter Daystar theory #1. Venus and Jupiter came so close together they looked like one bright star. Does this fit the facts we know? |
| 3: The Venus/Jupiter Daystar theory #2. This is another idea involving the very close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter. |
| 4: The Nova/Supernova Theory A Supernova is an exploding star which if near enough to us could be observed as a brilliant new star. A nova is a new star but not so bright. Did a supernova or nova appear at the right time? |
| 5: The Early siting of Uranus Theory Uranus was officially discovered in 1781 by Sir William Hershel. If Magi from the 1st Century BC saw it first, could that have been the star that sent them on a journey to Jerusalem? |
| 6: The Spica Theory (NEW) Stars rise at different points of the compass over the centuries. Spica rose exactly east at the right time. Could this be the star that heralded the birth of the Messiah? |
| 7: The Comet Theory Comets were thought to be the bringers of change. Was the Star of Christ actually a comet - maybe even Halley's Comet? |
| 8: The Meteor Theory (NEW) Meteors of shooting stars can appear at any time and from any direction. Could a couple of bright meteors account for the 'Star' of Bethlehem. |
| Theological and Philosophical Theories |
| The Angel Theory An angel seen from a distance might look like a star. Was this what the Magi saw? |
| The Myth and Fable Theory Lacking any information about the birth of Jesus and lots of loose theological ends to tie up, someone invented a story. Once he had finished, it looked really good and said an awful lot about Jesus that he believed was true. Unfortunately for centuries people took it the wrong way and thought it was historical! Only in recent times have some enlightened people been able to recognise that none of it actually happened. |
| The Literalist View This whole web site is a waste of time. There is isn't a 'natural' explanation - it was 'Supernatural'. Maybe so, but Don't mix up 'explaining' with 'explaining away'. |
- Click here to return to the Homepage.