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

From: John Walley <>
Date: Tue Nov 24 2009 - 12:43:54 EST

Agreed. I think the only question remaining is whether the original naming and imputed meanings of the various constellations and therefore the whole "gospel in the stars" narrative was originated directly from God through revelation to His patriarchs or whether it was a more adaptive approach that may have pagan origins but was still appropriated to convey the Adamic creation account. In short whether it was ultimately from God or man. I think it was the latter but the question of the origin and relevance of the virgin, the scorpion, the archer etc is still a mystery.

I sense this is the real core issue between Faulkner/Weil and Hanegraaf/Kennedy. It comes to down to whether we atrribute the tainted and superstitious view of astrology which is associated with paganism to God or not and I think the nay sayers are are assuming this and missing the point.



----- Original Message ----
From: Murray Hogg <>
To: ASA <>
Sent: Tue, November 24, 2009 12:01:29 PM
Subject: 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.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 24 12:44:29 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 24 2009 - 12:44:29 EST