My scientific discovery about the Nativity of Jesus

[Marcel*]

Hello,

I'm from Belgium but I live now in Mexico. Some years ago I wrote a private thesis about an astonishing discovery I did while I was researching about Matthew's gospel.

Really unexpectedly, the chapter II (Nativity of Jesus) turned out to be scientifically provable. I mean by a mathematical demonstration (and not just philosophical arguments).

As I live among my cactuses (cacti) I have no possibility to show my discovery to anybody. Even, I don't know if anybody could be interested in that ?

Here is a link to my work (in french) :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2t_eia...lJSUU/view

My work in some words:

1) Taking the conjunction (Jupiter/Saturn) of 7 BC , the topology of Jerusalem, Bethlehem (distances, timing etc...) and a software of planetology.
I can show that the Wise men's travel - is scientifically plausible. As far as I know, nobody did this work until now.

2) Using my model (distances, timing, orientation etc...), I can force the equations to give me a "most probable date" for this event.
Here the answer is the 25th of December....

3) But is such an event - historically/geopolitically plausible ? Here again the answer is Yes - for many reasons (see my thesis)

4) Is the conjunction of 7BC exceptional ? Yes, in many ways this conjunction is extraordinary.
Just an example : Between 600 BC and 2400 AD (over a period of 3000 Years), these planets (Jupiter/Saturn) was in conjunction many times but, it was in perfect conjunction 3x only in 7 BC...
But indeed there are many other amazing aspects.

 

[McBell]

What do Jupiter and Saturn have to do whether it is possible to get from point A to point B?

 

[Laika]

Hello,

I'm from Belgium but I live now in Mexico. Some years ago I wrote a private thesis about an astonishing discovery I did while I was researching about Matthew's gospel.

Really unexpectedly, the chapter II (Nativity of Jesus) turned out to be scientifically provable. I mean by a mathematical demonstration (and not just philosophical arguments).

As I live among my cactuses (cacti) I have no possibility to show my discovery to anybody. Even, I don't know if anybody could be interested in that ?

Here is a link to my work (in french) :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2t_eia...lJSUU/view

My work in some words:

1) Taking the conjunction (Jupiter/Saturn) of 7 BC , the topology of Jerusalem, Bethlehem (distances, timing etc...) and a software of planetology.
I can show that the Wise men's travel - is scientifically plausible. As far as I know, nobody did this work until now.

2) Using my model (distances, timing, orientation etc...), I can force the equations to give me a "most probable date" for this event.
Here the answer is the 25th of December....

3) But is such an event - historically/geopolitically plausible ? Here again the answer is Yes - for many reasons (see my thesis)

4) Is the conjunction of 7BC exceptional ? Yes, in many ways this conjunction is extraordinary.
Just an example : Between 600 BC and 2400 AD (over a period of 3000 Years), these planets (Jupiter/Saturn) was in conjunction many times but, it was in perfect conjunction 3x only in 7 BC...
But indeed there are many other amazing aspects.

Just so I understand:

what your saying is that on 25th December 7BC there was an astronomical event that meant the planets Jupiter and Saturn were in alignment producing the star that led the three wise men to Bethlehem?

 

[McBell]

Just so I understand:

what your saying is that on 25th December 7BC there was an astronomical event that meant the planets Jupiter and Saturn were in alignment producing the star that led the three wise men to Bethlehem?

How can that be?
There wasn't even a "December" back then....

 

[Laika]

How can that be?
There wasn't even a "December" back then....

I was thinking that December 25th was chosen for Christs birth much later to compete with the pagan/Roman holiday of saturnalia.

Saturnalia - Wikipedia

 

[Skwim]

I was thinking that December 25th was chosen for Christs birth much later to compete with the pagan/Roman holiday of saturnalia.

Saturnalia - Wikipedia

Quite likely, but there's also the thought that . . .

"A very early Christian tradition said that the day when Mary was told that she would have a very special baby, Jesus (called the Annunciation) was on March 25th - and it's still celebrated today on the 25th March. Nine months after the 25th March is the 25th December! March 25th was also the day some early Christians thought the world had been made, and also the day that Jesus died on when he was an adult. The date of March 25th was chosen because people had calculated that was the day on which Jesus died as an adult (the 14th of Nisan in the Jewish calendar) and they thought that Jesus was born and had died on the same day of the year."
source​

.

 

[buddhist]

Mathematical proof for a conjunction proves nothing except for the conjunction itself. It doesn't prove anything else about Matthew 2.

 

[Marcel*]

You have your firm opinions,
I have my mathematical demonstration.

Buddhist, you are right, mathematics doesn't prove anything ..... especially for those who does not understand maths.
Relativity (maths) is also meaningless, is it ?

Condemn my work, without knowing it - you are all right.

 

[buddhist]

Buddhist, you are right, mathematics doesn't prove anything ..... especially for those who does not understand maths. Relativity (maths) is also meaningless, is it ?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I'm not condemning your math, I'm simply stating that proof of a conjunction does not prove the alleged journey of an alleged Jesus, or anything else in Matthew 2.

If I write a book about the magical feats of an adolescent wizard which occurred during the full moon of Feb 10, 2017, does that prove that the wizard and his feats actually happened (since the moon was indeed full on Feb 10)?

 

[McBell]

Quite likely, but there's also the thought that . . .

"A very early Christian tradition said that the day when Mary was told that she would have a very special baby, Jesus (called the Annunciation) was on March 25th - and it's still celebrated today on the 25th March. Nine months after the 25th March is the 25th December! March 25th was also the day some early Christians thought the world had been made, and also the day that Jesus died on when he was an adult. The date of March 25th was chosen because people had calculated that was the day on which Jesus died as an adult (the 14th of Nisan in the Jewish calendar) and they thought that Jesus was born and had died on the same day of the year."
source​

.

How many calendars have there been since Mary was told she would have a very special baby?

 

[McBell]

How many calendars have there been since Mary was told she would have a very special baby?

You have your firm opinions,
I have my mathematical demonstration.

Buddhist, you are right, mathematics doesn't prove anything ..... especially for those who does not understand maths.
Relativity (maths) is also meaningless, is it ?

Condemn my work, without knowing it - you are all right.

I was unaware your ego was so fragile that truth would so easily shatter it.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

So you didn't discover anything. A brief Wikipedia search produces this:

Great conjunction - Wikipedia

Any application to biblical mythology is, of course. . . Nonsense.

 

[Skwim]

Hello,

I'm from Belgium but I live now in Mexico. Some years ago I wrote a private thesis about an astonishing discovery I did while I was researching about Matthew's gospel.

Really unexpectedly, the chapter II (Nativity of Jesus) turned out to be scientifically provable. I mean by a mathematical demonstration (and not just philosophical arguments).

As I live among my cactuses (cacti) I have no possibility to show my discovery to anybody. Even, I don't know if anybody could be interested in that ?

Here is a link to my work (in french) :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2t_eia...lJSUU/view

My work in some words:

1) Taking the conjunction (Jupiter/Saturn) of 7 BC , the topology of Jerusalem, Bethlehem (distances, timing etc...) and a software of planetology.
I can show that the Wise men's travel - is scientifically plausible. As far as I know, nobody did this work until now.

2) Using my model (distances, timing, orientation etc...), I can force the equations to give me a "most probable date" for this event.
Here the answer is the 25th of December....

3) But is such an event - historically/geopolitically plausible ? Here again the answer is Yes - for many reasons (see my thesis)

4) Is the conjunction of 7BC exceptional ? Yes, in many ways this conjunction is extraordinary.
Just an example : Between 600 BC and 2400 AD (over a period of 3000 Years), these planets (Jupiter/Saturn) was in conjunction many times but, it was in perfect conjunction 3x only in 7 BC...
But indeed there are many other amazing aspects.

What's always puzzled me is the following

Bethlehem lies almost due north from Jerusalem, where King Herod had his temple and had his meeting with the three wise men.

Matthew 2
7 Then Herod had a private meeting with the wise men from the east. He learned from them the exact time they first saw the star. 8 Then he sent them to Bethlehem. He said, “Go and look carefully for the child. When you find him, come tell me. Then I can go worship him too.”​

Yet it's said the three followed the "star," perhaps the plant Jupiter, until it stopped over Bethlehem.

9 After the wise men heard the king, they left. They saw the same star they had seen in the east, and they followed it. The star went before them until it stopped above the place where the child was. 10 They were very happy and excited to see the star.​

However, the planet came from the east and traveled west, NOT from the south and gone north to Bethlehem, the direction the three would be traveling. Moreover, the planet is sooo far from earth that it's really never over any place on earth. At least not one so tiny as the village of Bethlehem.

.









​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1) Taking the conjunction (Jupiter/Saturn) of 7 BC , the topology of Jerusalem, Bethlehem (distances, timing etc...) and a software of planetology.
I can show that the Wise men's travel - is scientifically plausible. As far as I know, nobody did this work until now.

That is proof of nothing.

2) Using my model (distances, timing, orientation etc...), I can force the equations to give me a "most probable date" for this event.
Here the answer is the 25th of December....

Equations can be "forced" to do just about anything. That proves nothing, especially if you have to "force" the equations.

3) But is such an event - historically/geopolitically plausible ? Here again the answer is Yes - for many reasons (see my thesis)

If we take what the Bible records into account, the birth of Jesus was probably not during December.

4) Is the conjunction of 7BC exceptional ? Yes, in many ways this conjunction is extraordinary.
Just an example : Between 600 BC and 2400 AD (over a period of 3000 Years), these planets (Jupiter/Saturn) was in conjunction many times but, it was in perfect conjunction 3x only in 7 BC...
But indeed there are many other amazing aspects.

Rare astrological events are indication of nothing more than their occurrence.

 

[McBell]

That is proof of nothing.

Equations can be "forced" to do just about anything. That proves nothing, especially if you have to "force" the equations.

If we take what the Bible records into account, the birth of Jesus was probably not during December.

Rare astrological events are indication of nothing more than their occurrence.

The only thing I found impressive about astrology is the number of people who adhere to it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The only thing I found impressive about astrology is the number of people who adhere to it.

What I find impressive is that people do not realize these "alignments" are not a cosmic, galactic, or even local system alignment, but bodies that are only "brought into alignment" because of one's relative position to those "aligned bodies" in the universe. On Mercury, this alignment probably didn't happen, even if it was about the difference between an "almost" full moon and a "full" full moon.

 

[roger1440]

Old news is no news at all.

 

[Marcel*]

Until very recently, I didn't knew Larson's work. But if you take the time to read my work you will see that those works are very different.
After watching his movie, I respect his work but for me it does not prove Mat.Chap-2, for many reasons.

Thank you for comments, but a simple question to you all... You criticize my proposition, without knowing it ... why ?

I understand that your "gusts" tells you so, but I had the same feeling when I studied Einstein's relativity ... "It cannot be true !", all right.
Now there are two choices : Ignore my thesis - or read it and discover its beauty and strong arguments, and discuss it.

Yes my ego is fragile. I worked hard , one and half year on my thesis, and when I read "Nonsense !" from somebody who does not know anything about it... yes, it is shocking, I hope you understand me.


PS: Skwim, your question is very interesting and right at the center of my demonstration. You will find all your answers in my thesis. (Thank you for you question)

 

[Kuzcotopia]

You criticize my proposition, without knowing it ... why ?

Demonstrating a conjunction between two planets is mathematically sound. Applying that conjunction to a star followed by "wise men" simply has nothing to do with it. . . Hence the nonsense.

If you think it does, then give a summary of your argument. I don't speak French.

More biblically eurdite members of this forum might be able to find the passages, but Matthew is attempting to shoehorn Jesus to some old Testament prophecy, by ensuring that he is born in a specific place.

Somewhere in Micah, I believe, Bethlehem is mentioned. So the writer of Matthew, who almost certainly studied Micah, writes that Jesus was born there. Matthew is essentially fitting the alleged events to the prophecy.

You are a whole other level removed from reality, because you are fitting a minor, inconsequential celestial occurrence (that looks nothing like a single star, BTW) to an account that is in itself bent to an earlier, somewhat inconsequential detail of an older prophecy.

Add in that the writer of Matthew is writing about the birth of some minor carpenter over a hundred years after the fact, makes it mere heresay at best, and an outright lie at worst. . . It also means that your study has a foundation based on several layers of nonsense, not just yours.

I'm sorry you wasted so much time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Until very recently, I didn't knew Larson's work. But if you take the time to read my work you will see that those works are very different.
After watching his movie, I respect his work but for me it does not prove Mat.Chap-2, for many reasons.

Thank you for comments, but a simple question to you all... You criticize my proposition, without knowing it ... why ?

I understand that your "gusts" tells you so, but I had the same feeling when I studied Einstein's relativity ... "It cannot be true !", all right.

Courtier's Reply - Wikipedia

Now there are two choices : Ignore my thesis - or read it and discover its beauty and strong arguments, and discuss it.

"You must have a degree of humility. The writer who thinks that his work is marvellous is heading for trouble." - Roald Dahl, (Lucky Break)

Yes my ego is fragile. I worked hard , one and half year on my thesis, and when I read "Nonsense !" from somebody who does not know anything about it... yes, it is shocking, I hope you understand me.

Here's the thing: unless you can give something compelling in this thread, it's perfectly justified to not give weight to your claims. You say that your 50-odd page "private thesis" is wonderful (BTW: what is a "private thesis"? I take it to mean a thesis that wasn't prepared under the guidance of any professor and has never been formally defended - am I right?), but it's amazingly presumptuous for an anonymous person on the internet to show up and demand that people read his thesis and post detailed rebuttals. People will give your post and arguments the time they feel is warranted; you aren't entitled to other people's attention. It gets even more ridiculous when the source you provide is in a language that most of the people here can't even read.

When you come across as a crank and ask people to tell you what they think of you, don't be surprised when they react to you as if you're a crank.

As fot your thesis, I got as far as the irrelevant stuff about the Higgs boson before I decided that reading your entire thesis wouldn't be a good use of my time.

PS: Skwim, your question is very interesting and right at the center of my demonstration. You will find all your answers in my thesis. (Thank you for you question)

What page? Please be specific. I can read French.