​​To sum this Part up, however, it is, admitted that both positions can be legitimately argued (depending on which of Christ's two natures the moon is claimed to represent). So I can find no fault with this aspect of Larson's position. Increasing the possibilities to two months, instead of one, does result in the improbability being halved to 1 chance in 6. And that needs to be recognized. But that is still just a minor point. The main takeaway here, as I see it, is this. If God did intend that this imagery from Revelation 12 be understood as a means of discerning the true date of the Nativity it is appropriate to call this one a wash, because with both positions being arguably out of optimal compliance by about a week, it is impossible to say, from this argument alone, which date is the more likely.

​

PART FOUR: THE NINE POINTS

​

This brings us to Larson’s 9 points, which he claims he used to find the true Star of Bethlehem, eliminating every other possibility but the one he's presenting here. And, the way it is framed, it comes off as a powerful argument, seemingly impossible to refute. But this is, in reality, a lawyer’s trick, a sleight of hand known as the false choice fallacy. And the variant he is using, is reminiscent to me of the ancient Jewish proverb about the man who shot an arrow into a tree and then painted a white circle around the arrow to give the appearance of a bullseye. I say that because, in spite of all the monumental discoveries Larson seems to be taking credit for in the video, discoveries he claims were only made possible through the recent innovation of computer simulation software, most everything that was going on in the heavens at the time of Christ’s birth was well-known to astronomers long before computers were even invented. Figure C3.1, presented in Part 1, provides a good indication of that. So all Larson appears to have really been doing in his so-called journey to find the truth was acquainting himself, via computer software, with discoveries long ago made. And the only thing he brings to the table, as I can see, are the 9 criteria he later came up with to justify his decision to champion one position over all the others.

​

But that, by itself, is not the issue. The problem lies, once again, in the presentation. He doesn’t just list them as the 9 arguments he thought most persuasive. He presents them as points and in such a way as to suggest there aren’t any other points. These 9 points are the only points that matter. But this is simply not true. There are other "points" just as important as those he’s singled out. And many actually argue against his position. And he knows that. But knowing also how detrimental they are to his case, the lawyer that he is does everything he can to make you think they don’t exist.

​

As for me, since I had the advantage from the start of knowing his conclusions are wrong, it took very little effort to uncover several flaws in his arguments. And many of them, I think, are fatal. So in accepting, for the sake of argument, that his 9 points do support his case, the following is a list of 7 others (numbered as a continuation of his list) that I am sure he would have preferred you didn’t see.

​

10. ​The lack of precision 

This issue is not that terrible, which is why I am listing it first. Some might even see it as nitpicking. But it is a trait that seems to pervade the entire argument, so it needs to be mentioned. It starts with the main foci of Larson’s claims, the Nativity, which he aligns with the spectacular Jupiter / Venus conjunction of June 17, 2 BC; and the Incarnation, which he aligns with the presumed woman clothed in the sun prophecy that he claims is fulfilled on September 10, 3 BC. But as was noted in Part 3, by that accounting, Jesus's birth would have been about a week later than optimal for a normal delivery. So that one is not quite as perfect as is being made out. And it gives pause to wonder why Christ would have been so reluctant to enter our world; to which I can think of no theologically satisfying answer.

​

Moving on to the subject of Jupiter, if the Incarnation did occur on September 10, Jupiter is still 4 days away from its first of 3 flybys of Regulus. And that seems like a major waste of an opportunity for God if He really wanted to nail it down that the 10th was THE day. Seemingly acknowledging the discrepancy, Larson blurs the details by suggesting Jupiter marked the day by starting its approach to Regulus. But he offers no reasonable explanation as to why being 4 days away from Regulus is any more significant for fulfilling this purpose than say being 5 days away, or any other number of days away for that matter. In other words, it all smacks as coincidence.

​

As to the crowning of Regulus by Jupiter (if that imagery is valid), shouldn’t Regulus have been centrally located to the flattened circle Jupiter made in front of it? The charts I’ve seen that trace the path show Regulus significantly off to one side.

​

And this same lack of precision shows up on December 25, 2 BC, the date being proposed for the arrival of the Magi, which Larson just casually mentions happened during Chanukah. Yes it does, but not on the first day of the holiday, as would be expected if God really did have something to do with it. It coincides rather with the 4th day of the 8-day holiday. And that problematic placement argues more, I think, against Larson's claim here, than for it. So it is no wonder he didn’t want to dwell too long on that coincidence. 

​

Again, these are not fatal flaws. But it is not the kind of precision one might come to expect of the Creator of our Universe. It certainly doesn’t match what I have seen in my studies. And given how easy they are to fix, it seems to me God could have, and would have, done so for all four of these issues if He was truly placing them there to later be seen as a sample of His craftsmanship.

​

11. It runs afoul with astrology 

The new moon / Virgo alignment in 3 BC and the Jupiter / Venus conjunction of 2 BC, being separated by approximately 9 months, make them the obvious candidates as signs for the Incarnation and Nativity, respectively. But Jupiter coming into apparent contact with Venus would not be indicative of a birth. Wouldn’t it be more likely interpreted as a conception? If so, and you are trying to find the exact date of Jesus’s birth from that astrological sign, the Incarnation is the event that logically belongs with that conjunction. That would, however, screw up everything else that is being claimed, so they are stuck with a sign that applies to an event that took place 9 months earlier.​

​

Also, if a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus in the constellation Leo is supposed to be THE sign heralding our Lord birth, what about the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus in that same constellation roughly 10 months earlier on August 12, 3 BC? What would astrology have predicted happened on that date? Larson's logic demands that it must have also marked some important event in Christendom. But he says nothing of it. Whereas I am certain others have seen it and have come up with all sorts of wild speculations of unverifiable events taking place in heaven just prior to the Incarnation. I bring this up solely to demonstrate (and especially to those who may now be imagining in their own minds what it might have represented) how slippery a slope it is, into that rabbit hole we call astrology, when it is brought into contact with the study of God's Word. 

​

12. It runs afoul with Christian typology

Today we see the pagan gods that gave the planets their names in a very innocuous, almost comical, way. But to the ancients, Jupiter (Greek: Zeus, Babylonian: Marduk) was not merely the king of the gods. In many of the pagan cultures he was also known to be extremely promiscuous, having spawned many children, most out of wedlock and often by rape. Whereas Venus (Greek: Aphrodite, Babylonian: Ishtar) a goddess of love and fertility, was worshipped by the Romans as Venus Verticordia (the changer of hearts) on their April 1st Feast of Veneralia (which also happened to coincide with Judas’s April 1, 33 AD change of heart on the day Christians commemorates as Black, or Spy, Wednesday). And as Ishtar she is the notorious Queen of Heaven, mentioned in Jeremiah 44:1-30, whose worshippers are said to have engaged in temple prostitution and other lewd sexual rites. So the image this conjunction of planets might have conjured up in the pagan mind is very disturbing. And it is similarly very difficult to imagine God wanting to sully the beauty of the Incarnation, and/or the Nativity, by connecting either the Holy Spirit or the Blessed Virgin to such an obscene typology.

​

I have seen, however, that some have countered this common and obvious criticism by arguing that in Hebrew tradition the planets do not represent pagan gods. Tzedec (the Hebrew name for Jupiter) represents righteousness and Nogah (their name for Venus) is a reference to one of the sons of King David. So the correct interpretation of the conjunction of the two planets is said to be a portent for the birth of a King of Righteousness of the line of David. And it does seem reasonable that God should put such a sign in the sky during that time. We see such signs throughout the decade. In the Kepler conjunction, for instance, we see Jupiter in conjunction with Shabtai (the Hebrew name for Saturn) whose name means Sabbath and is regarded to be the protector of Israel. So that conjunction could have also been taken as a portent for the birth of a righteous king for Israel. And with Jesus being born (by my calculations) on a Sabbath, it fits nicely with that sign, too. The big difference between the two signs, however, is that Kepler’s is not claiming to tell us the exact date of the Incarnation, or the Nativity. So those events would not have been directly tied to any lewd pagan imagery.

​

13. It runs afoul with the laws of nature

Larson makes a big deal about the Star needing to be able to stand still in the sky in order to satisfy Scripture. But he ignores the fact that, while it is easy to see how a sun or moon beam, focused by the clouds, could direct someone to a specific house, there is no other regularly occurring celestial entity bright enough to be able to do it. The stars and the planets are simply too small in the night sky. For everything the Star is supposed to have done, the only reasonable conclusion I can come up with is that it was something like a star in appearance, but inside our atmosphere. This would allow it to serve as a beacon for the Magi, while at the same time being hidden from all but those intended to see it. In other words, if its description in Matthew is accurate, I believe the actual Star would have had to have been of supernatural origin. The conjunction may have still played a part in motivating the Magi to Jerusalem. But whatever it is that led them on the last leg of their journey, would logically not have been the same thing that set them off. An angel of light, perhaps, maybe the same one who guided the shepherds, that would be my guess. And that seems to have been the popular opinion among Christians, too, in the centuries before the modern age.

​

14. The First of Three Litmus Tests from Scripture, Luke’s Abijah Statement

At the heart of the Jerusalem Temple were two sacred chambers. The most sacred, known as the Holy of Holies, was the dwelling place of God, and admittance into it was restricted to one day each year by the High Priest on Yom Kippur. The other chamber, adjacent to it and separated only by a veil, was known as the Holy, and admittance was less restrictive. In order to tend to the elements of worship within the chamber a Levitical priest, selected by lot, was allowed entrance daily. And at the start of Luke's Gospel we read of one such priest, Zechariah, who was descended from the House of Abijah, the 8th of 24 ancestral Houses chosen 1,000 years earlier (per 1 Chronicles 24:1-9) specifically for that purpose. It was set up as a 24-week rotation, with a member of each House, in ascending numerical order, being responsible for one week service (beginning and ending at noon on the Sabbath). And Luke goes on to tell us that, during one particular service week while Zechariah was serving for his House in the Temple, an angel appeared to inform him he and his wife were chosen to be the parents of the messianic forerunner, a child later to be known as John the Baptist.

​

And with John being 6 months older than Jesus (also per Luke), this intriguing bit of information has convinced many that the Holy Spirit gave it to us that we would have the means of finding the true date of Christ’s birth, or, in the least, give us a means of confirming the date we have arrived at by another method. All that would still be needed to unravel the mystery is the exact dates of a service week for any one of the 24 Houses. Unfortunately, Scripture does not provide it. But there is an ancient tradition outside the Sacred Canon telling us that the last priest to serve in the Temple, prior to its destruction by the Romans in 70 AD, hailed from the 1st House, the House of Jehoiarib. It comes to us from the Talmud (Ta'anit 4,5). And since we know, from Josephus’s account of the Jewish-Roman war, that the Temple was destroyed on the 9th day of the 5th month, Av (August 3, 70 AD), we have what appears to be all we need (but not quite). Josephus’s firsthand testimony also informs us that, for its last 3 weeks of existence, the Temple had no priests serving within it to offer sacrifice. They had all apparently jumped ship the day the Romans breeched the city walls (Wars 6,2,1). And that occurred on the 17th day of the 4th month, Tammuz (July 13, 70 AD).

​

Now there is no debate as to the date the city walls fell, or the date the Temple was razed. But there is some uncertainty regarding when in that 3-week window the last Temple priest deserted his post. And the Talmud's claim that he served for the House of Jehoiarib is similarly questionable. But since this final clue is absolutely crucial for making use of Luke's Abijah statement (and it is the only such clue we've ever been given), it is reasonable, I think, to assume the Holy Spirit did inspire its inclusion in the Talmud. And with Larson's argument fixing John’s conception to 1 Nisan (March 21), 3 BC, and his father’s Temple service week, therefore, to March 20-27, 3 BC (±1 week) we have another plausible means of testing his position. So let’s see what happens with this one.

 

And anyone so inclined can do the math. It isn't difficult. But I’ll give those uninclined a break by skipping ahead to the result. It fails. From Larson's starting point two potential Temple service weeks for the House of Jehoiarib are calculated in 70 AD. The first, April 7 to 14 (±1 week), is roughly 3 months prior to the city walls being breeched. And 24 weeks later takes us to the 2nd possibility, September 29 to October 5 (±1 week), which is roughly 2 months after the Temple was destroyed. So neither is remotely close to the 3 week target window (July 13 to August 3) and Larson's theory is, therefore, completely at odds with this ancient tradition.

​

This is not to say, however, that the calculation method couldn’t be twisted to force it to work (as many have done that before to corroborate their own pet theories). But of all the convoluted methods I’ve seen, I know of none that work with Larson's position. So he and his team would have to either invent a new one (which would be tough, I think, to sell) or do as they have and say nothing, hoping people will be so dazzled by all they have been shown, they’ll be bamboozled into thinking there is nothing left to see.

 

15: The Second Test from Scripture, The Hebrew Calendar 

Outside of the possibility that the Magi made use of astrology to find the Christ child, we see no specific instance in the Holy Scriptures of God promoting astrology to discern anything else. We do, however, see a system that God did put in place to mark the days He wanted us to remember and to serve as signs for future events. I’m speaking, of course, of the Sabbaths, the holidays and the fasts of the Hebrew calendar, which were understood to find their full and truest meaning in the messianic age. This is implied in several places in the Old Testament. And we see it explicitly spelled out in the New with Christ’s death at Calvary on the 1st day of Passover; and with the Holy Spirit descending on the Apostles on Pentecost. But those are just the two most celebrated examples. What is not as well-known is that, with the Gospels giving us the means for finding the exact Hebrew calendar dates for every major event that took place from Palm Sunday until Pentecost, almost every one is found to have a direct connection to a holiday or Old Testament parallel (the sole exception, the Resurrection, being intentionally redirected, by God, to another sign - more on that shortly).

​

But that covers only the spring holidays and leaves us with a whole slew of other Hebrew calendar observances that need to find fulfillment in Christ. They can’t all be waiting for the Second Coming (as some theologians have suggested). But if Larson is right, in knowing the dates of the Incarnation and the Nativity, we now have 5 other events that can be dated through Scripture (6 when you count his proposal for the arrival of the Magi on December 25, 2 BC). And it would be very odd if these newly discovered dates did not share a similar relationship with the Hebrew calendar as those from the Holy Week and Eastertide Narratives. So odd, in fact, it is more than reasonable to see this, too, as a litmus test. So let’s see how Larson's dates fare here.

​

The first to review is the Incarnation, claimed to have occurred on September 10, 3 BC. And right from the start we've struck paydirt. It is Rosh Hashanah (aka Jewish New Year) and being the 1st day of the Jewish civil year and the day ancient tradition claims God created Adam, it would have a great deal of theological significance as a parallel to Christ (the final Adam) at His Incarnation. Unfortunately, as was mentioned in Part 3, in intentionally setting this occasion to the annual new moon / Virgo alignment, there was also a nearly 100% certainty that it would coincide with Rosh Hashanah. So that aspect of this holiday connection is statistically worthless. In consideration, however, of the many observances it might have connected to that would not be as well suited to the occasion, there is some value to be found in its selectivity. So a multiplier of maybe 1 in 4 could be thrown in to account for it. But that is where things get complicated, so we’ll wait until the end of this survey to see if it is warranted. For now, let’s just say we are off to a promising start.

​

And, lo and behold, it gets even better with the next date. With Scripture telling us John the Baptist was 6 months older than Jesus, assuming this to be by the Hebrew calendar, it places his conception on another Jewish New Year celebration. It is Rosh Chodesh Nisan, the 1st day of the 1st month (Nisan), making it the onset of the Jewish liturgical season. And there is, once again, a ton of theological significance that could be gleaned from it. More than that, though, there was nothing artificial involved, no human manipulation, to get us to this precise date, so it has a lot of value for statistical evaluation. And the odds of finding this holiday by chance, given there are only about 40 observances per year (approximately) to pick from, equates to a roughly 1 chance in 8 probability. But there is also that same element of selectivity involved as with the Incarnation. So a similar multiplier could be thrown in here as well. And it will if the results for the other dates justify it.

​

Unfortunately, they don’t. What started out so promising has hit a statistical brick wall, as none of the other 6 dates come close to what we have just seen. Jesus’s birth, His circumcision (on the 8th day) and His Presentation (33 days after that) occurring on June 17, June 24 and July 27 land, respectively, on 16 Sivan, 23 Sivan and 26 Tammuz in 2 BC. And John’s birth would land on either 5 or 15 Tevet depending on whether it was an optimal gestation period, or the same elongated period being suggested for Christ. And none of these dates coincide with a Hebrew calendar observance or dated event from the Old Testament. Massaging John’s gestation time so that his birth fell between the two extremes would get it to 10 Tevet (aka, the Fast of the 10th Month). And there is some theological significance derivable from that connection. But the lack of precision falls again into question by doing it. And whichever day is selected for his birthday, his circumcision is still going to be unconnected. Much more than that, though, you are also stuck trying to explain why John the Baptist’s birthday should have an observance associated with it, while Jesus’s birthday, of all birthdays, would be slighted.

​

And this brings us to the last date being promoted, December 25, 2 BC, the day the Magi supposedly made it to the home of the Christ child, which landed on 29 Kislev and 4 days into the Chanukah celebration that year. It is also a Thursday making it 2 days prior to Shabbat Chanukah (the only other possibility for a viable holiday connection). So by the rules set up by Scripture, having landed in the middle of a multiday holiday (rather than the first day, or a Sabbath day within it) it has to be considered a miss, the rationale being set by Christ who told us (in Matthew 12:38-40) His Resurrection would be marked by only one sign. And occurring on the 3rd day of the 7-day holiday of Passover is not the sign He mentioned; case closed. To those who may still want to argue, however, it needs to be pointed out that I hold my own position to that same standard. And, in so doing, I’ve found that on the more than 10 occasions the date of an event my formula has calculated lands on a multi-day holiday, there has not been one violation, All have been in compliance. That same level of compliance is, therefore, reasonably expected of any competing theory wanting to seriously contend.

​

Anyway getting back to the score, when all is said and done, it boils down to 1½ (maybe 2) hits for 8 at bats, which is approximately what would be expected by sheer chance. So the appearance of selectivity seen in the observances associated with the Incarnation and John the Baptist’s conception has to be regarded as coincidental, being more than offset by the seeming injustice of the missing Hebrew calendar connection to Christ’s birth. That, to me, would fit the definition of a fatal flaw. The missing connection to the Presentation would qualify, I think, as another. In summary, then, the evidence from the Hebrew calendar in favor of coincidence seems more than sufficient to rule out any suggestion of intelligent design. So my grade, on this particular litmus test, has to be an F. It failed. And I do not see how anyone could objectively say otherwise.

​

16. The Third (and most important) Test from Scripture, The Tree and its Fruit

And to finish this section we come to the test that Christ, Himself, gave us to discern the merit of a teaching. He told us, in Matthew 12:33, that “a tree is known by its fruit.” So what is the fruit of this presentation? Does it bring people closer to God? or farther away? This is a question we all have to ask ourselves in evaluating any new idea. And there is probably no definitive answer that will satisfy everyone, given our personal prejudices. As for me I have an opinion, but there are still a few relevant open issues to address before presenting it. So I will reserve comment until this test comes up again in the Conclusion (Part 7).  

​

PART FIVE: THE DATE OF HEROD’S DEATH

​

Everything in the presentation is dependent on Herod still being alive in 2 BC. So since it is commonly thought that the writings of Josephus fix Herod’s death to 4 BC, a lot of time is spent explaining how those writings may have become corrupted. And after a plausible explanation is given, the date they propose for Herod’s death (1 BC) is treated (in typical Larson fashion) as though it is a done deal, as though there is no longer any debate on the matter. From what I have seen in my research, however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Given that Josephus is not the only ancient source we have for the date of Herod’s death, this video’s position is better understood, I think, as the minority opinion. And one of many convincing arguments against that opinion, I've seen, is that, right after Herod died (and certifiably no later than 2 BC), two of his sons and heirs, Antipas and Archelaus, are reported to have been seen in Rome petitioning the Emperor for their inherited thrones [5]. Nevertheless, since my position has Jesus being born in 8 BC, it makes no difference to me whether Herod was alive or dead in 2 BC. So on this particular subject, I'm claiming neutrality, but I lean on the side of the majority.

​

And to explain my slight bias I offer an observation. Since I became involved in this theological hornet’s nest back in the early ‘90s, I have seen a great many theories attempting to date the life and times of Christ. And I can lump them into 2 categories, with both seeming to be obsessed with Jesus being almost exactly 30 when He began His ministry. That seems to me to be the only general consensus, because that is how Luke 3:23 is almost universally interpreted. So with those who also accept the majority opinion, that Herod died in 4 BC, it is common to see them rejecting the most probable date for the Crucifixion (April 3, 33 AD) in favor of a much earlier date, like say in 29, or 30, AD. And they will twist the evidence to support that outcome. Whereas, in the other camp, the one that accepts the evidence claiming Christ was crucified in 33 AD, they are prone to twisting the data in the other direction to fix the Nativity to somewhere around the turn of the century. And that is what I suspect is going on here (and not only with this video but with the sources being cited who are reevaluating Josephus).

​

But if people can just let go of Luke 3:23 for a moment and objectively evaluate what the unbridled archeological evidence is telling us of Christ’s birth and resurrection, I think they will arrive at the same conclusion I have, that His earthly life from cradle to grave spanned from 8 BC to 33 AD. I say that because the evidence for 33 AD is overwhelming, and …

​

1. Luke's Gospel tells us Jesus was born in a year when the Roman emperor, Augustus, decreed a worldwide census (Luke 2:1). And in his own words, inscribed on monuments he had erected throughout his empire, Augustus boasts of only three such censuses; one in 28 BC (which is way too early), one in 14 AD (which is way too late) and one in 8 BC [6]. So any arguments claiming Jesus was born after 8 BC are reliant on either Luke’s Gospel or Augustus’s deathbed testimony being in error.   

2. And even though Luke's Gospel says that Cyrenius, the Roman governor of Syria from 6 to 12 AD, was serving in that capacity at the time of Jesus’s birth, there is one ancient version of Luke (known from a secondhand source) that gives the name, Saturninus [7], which makes a great deal more sense since he is known to have been the Syrian governor from 9 to 7 BC. Given also that Cyrenius’s service dates are way too late, it has, therefore, kindled speculation that some unknown copyist, trying to correct, early on, what he thought was an error, changed the name. And although this solution might seem like a stretch, I can see no other way to reconcile both statements in Luke 2.1 (this one and the one about the worldwide Roman census) while maintaining Luke’s inerrancy. 

3. And finally, to those inclined to reject Luke’s entire Infancy Narrative because Judea, under Herod, was a Client Kingdom of Rome (making it doubtful Rome would have violated its treaty with Herod to conduct a census there), Josephus’s, Antiquities, offers a solution to that one, too. Therein we read that, in 8 BC, Herod got into hot water with Rome due to a military incursion he undertook into Arabia (another Client Kingdom). Taking Arabia's side, Augustus wrote Herod saying, ominously, he was no longer a friend to Rome (Antiq 16,9,3). So Herod may have briefly lost Judea its Client Kingdom status. Or perhaps Herod, wanting to get back into good graces with Rome, might have been amenable to allowing them in. Either way it provides us a rationale for the census to have been conducted in Judea in 8 BC. And it is also maybe the only time in Herod's reign it could have happened.

​

This would mean, of course, that Luke’s “about 30” statement is better translated from the Greek as Jesus simply being “in His 30s” when He began His ministry, which is how at least one Apostolic Father (Irenaeus), may have interpretted it (and by his account many others, including Polycarp and the Apostle John, himself) [8]. But to me it also explains why the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to use this misleading wording. And the same goes for thst hypothetical copyist who was inspired to replace the name Saturninus with Cyrenius. The timing just wasn’t right to give us the true date of Christmas. And it would remain that way until today.   

​

PART SIX: ANOTHER POSSIBILITY

​

Having now reviewed Larson’s candidate for the Star against 6 of 7 additional points appended to his original list of 9, it is fitting to see how my position fares against all of them. Before proceeding, however, it needs to be repeated that, in spite of what this video is claiming, there were many heavenly signs at the time of the Nativity that could have been interpreted as harbingers for the birth of the Christ. And since we know the Holy Spirit must have also played a pivotal role (a fact noticeably missing from Larson's presentation), who can say which of those signs, if any, He might have inspired the Magi to take notice of? And maybe the biggest clue the Bible does give us is that whatever it was that ultimately led them to Jesus's exact location, to do all that it was required to do, it must have been a phenomenon quite unique (something never before seen and very likely never seen again). It seems to me a fool’s errand, therefore, to try to discern anything further solely from the scant evidence we’ve been given. We simply do not have enough information to pinpoint even the year Christ was born by this method, let alone the exact date. That said, once we do have the correct date of the Nativity, our knowledge of the night sky back then can give us an idea which celestial phenomenon the Holy Spirit might have made use of. And the proposal that comes closest in time to my position is Kepler’s [9]. Those whose prior knowledge of the Star came primarily from the video might also be surprised to learn that that 7 BC conjunction of Jupiter with Saturn (referred to here as Kepler's conjunction) actually works better with Larson’s 9 points than Larson’s, because …

​

• Both candidates involve an astronomical event (a planetary conjunction) which might have logically been interpreted by the Magi as a sign of a noteworthy birth – Larson’s Point 1.

• Both candidate conjunctions involve the regal planet, Jupiter, so both would logically signify a royal birth - Larson’s Point 2.

• Both candidate conjunctions appear in a constellation claimed to have been internationally recognized to represent Judea - Larson’s Point 3. But Kepler's is the only one of the two that offers tangible proof of it.

• Both candidate conjunctions rose in the east (with the first appearance of Kepler’s conjunction doing this on April 12, 7 BC) - Larson’s Point 4.

• Both candidates feature alignments that should not have been impressive to the casual observer (explaining why Herod would have had to have been informed of it) - Larson’s Point 5. But Larson’s proposal for the actual Star that pinpointed the date of the Nativity, the spectacular Jupiter / Venus conjunction of 2 BC, seems to me to be in violation of this Point, as Herod should have been well aware of that sign. 

• Each of Kepler’s three conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BC occur at an exact time, just as Larson’s Jupiter/Venus conjunction does - Larson’s Point 6. But I fail to see the importance of this point, unless it is being used (in a way not supported by Scripture) to divine the exact date of Jesus’s birth.

• Both candidate conjunctions endured over time – Larson’s Point 7.

• Both candidate conjunctions would have appeared in the night sky due south of Jerusalem as further incentive for the Magi to proceed to Bethlehem – Larson’s Point 8.

• And both candidate conjunctions involved Jupiter going into retrograde motion, so both would have been characterized by Jupiter appearing to remain in the same location relative to the stars for a few nights before continuing in its journey across the heavens – Larson’s Point 9. But as has been stated, this point is moot. It would have had no value for finding the exact location of the Christ child and has, therefore, no value in this discussion.

​

Continuing on with the 7 Points that were added …

​

• Every observance on the Hebrew calendar whose dates are provided by Scripture, that connects by my formula to a New Testament event, is a spot-on match, as would be expected of a system created by God. So precision is not an issue - Point 10.

• The astrological interpretations that would have led the Magi to Jerusalem, by Kepler’s theory, would not have been aligned with any specific date or event. So there would be no situation of a sign that represents one thing providing the exact date for another. In other words, it makes sense, astrologically speaking - Point 11.

• None of the dates of Kepler’s three Jupiter/Saturn conjunctions would have been associated with the date of any specific event, so none of the common pagan astrological interpretations would have painted Jesus, Mary or the Holy Spirit in an obscene light. There is nothing, therefore, objectionable in its typology. - Point 12.

• With the most likely candidate for the light that led the Magi on the final leg of their journey being of an otherworldly origin, Jupiter would not have been required, by my position, to do things it is physically incapable of doing. So the laws of science (which apply only to the natural world) would not have been violated - Point 13.

• My position also sets John's conception to 10 Tevet, 9 BC, which lines up perfectly with the added clues Josephus and the Talmud have contributed to Luke’s Abijah statement - Point 14. See Commentary #2 on John 1:14 (Part 3, specifically) for a demonstration.

• And if that is not enough, my position also mathematically connects a Hebrew calendar observance or Old Testament event to every one of the 7 red letter days called out by Luke’s Infancy Narrative.

  • It fixes the Incarnation to 15 Tammuz, a tragically sad and forgotten holiday in Old Testament history whose events became the root cause for many later calamities and ultimately called for a 4th Month Fast. But in accord with prophecy (Isaiah 43:18-19 and Zechariah 8:19), Christ’s arrival made all things new again, turning all the sadness of that entire month into joy (and leaving behind only love, faithfulness and peace).

  • It aligns Christ's birth (on 24 Nisan) with the timing of the Israelites joyfully entering the wilderness after the parting of the Red Sea. Occurring on April 5, 8 BC, it is also exactly 40 years prior to His Resurrection.

  • It places His circumcision on Rosh Chodesh Iyar.

  • It places His Presentation on Pentecost (and exactly 40 years prior to His Ascension).

  • it places John the Baptist’s conception on 10 Tevet wiping out the sadness of the Fast of the 10th Month (also per Zechariah 8:19).

  • It places John’s birth on 1 Sukkot (the 1st day of the 7-day Feast of Booths).

  • And it places John’s circumcision on the concluding convocation for the Feast, Shmini Atzeret.

​

And every one of these 7 connections is found to provide a great deal of theological insight. But it doesn’t stop there. When the 2/3rds Rule (the formula I found embedded into the 1st chapter of the Book of Genesis) is applied, with Scripture, to Jesus and John in their ministerial years (and to all the other pivotal players in the Gospel narratives) every major event in the Gospels is dated and accounted for by an observance on the Hebrew calendar (leaving no observance unaccounted for, as well), Altogether, it is like looking at a 2,000 year old jigsaw puzzle with all the pieces finally put into their places. (And that would be 47 puzzle pieces, to be exact, when you add in the holiday connections we've known about from the beginning). So the requirements of Point 15 are more than satisfied by my position and Figure C2.3 from Commentary #2 provides an excellent taste of that compliance.​

​