Re: [asa] Gospel in the Stars WAS Star of Bethlehem presentation?

John Walley wrote:
> Thanks Murray. I am copying back to the list since others may be interested in the links.
>
> I agree that "Gospel in the Stars" is a misnomer and I can already hear David C. objecting to more determinism but a more appropriate title would be weaving the story of redemption into the humanly created constellations of the zodiac as a handy vehicle for passing the story down through the generations. I see it as akin to St. Patrick using the 3 leaf clovers that were plentiful and common to his Irish audience to illustrate the concept of the trinity. No God didn't embed the gospel in clovers and predestine that that they be designed that way but they did lend themselves nicely to being an object lesson in the gospel story just like the stars.
>
> I think it is reasonable to conclude from all these type references to the stars in scripture that this was in fact the case and that Abraham and Moses and the other patriarchs were familiar with and culturally literate with this. It is likely that the Magi from the East were as well. And I don't see why it is so scandalous to some to consider that God used this. I think the evidence is overwelming that He did.
>
> Lastly, I did some more researching on this last night and besides the Falukner/Wieland rift on this, I also found that James Kennedy published a book on this and it swiftly met the derision of our self-appointed Bible Answer Man Hank Hanegraaf. All this is documented on Lambert Dolphin's site but I agree with you that there is a middle ground here that doesn't smack of determinism or the spectres of extrabiblical sources or of astrology etc.
>
> John
>
Hi John,

I think your "more appropriate title" is a good way of putting it (even
if it won't fit on the cover!) and that the analogy to the three-leaf
clover is a good one.

I read the Faulkner piece and have good and bad to say about it.

On the one hand, I think he's right to question whether "the Gospel in
the stars" can be equated to the "signs" spoken of in Gen 1:14. This is
a pretty tendentious claim on Bullinger's part, I think.

On the other hand, I think some of the "rebuttals" of Bullinger are
equally tendentious. I was particularly unimpressed with the section
headed "argued from silence." Yeah, Bullinger doesn't have much direct
Scriptural support for his position - that's why he uses the problematic
Genesis reference - but it's actually Faulkner claiming that "the Bible
says nothing on the subject therefore..."

We can cut past all that if we simply acknowledge the "middle ground"
you speak of - it's possible to use the constellations of the Zodiac in
Godly ways even in the absence of a specific Biblical argument. No
different in principle, I think, than using modern film or literature to
tell the story.

Blessings,
Murray

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 24 12:01:58 2009