text:
DETROIT (AP) — Maybe it was the brand new, bright red Chevrolet Corvette gleaming in one corner, or the elegant BMW coupe in the other. Maybe it was just the free-flowing espresso at nearly every stand. But car companies were positively giddy this week as the North American International Auto Show opened in Detroit.
They have reason to be. U.S. new car and truck sales reached a five-year high of 14.5 million in 2012, and many executives and analysts think they'll climb to 15.5 million this year. Credit is easier to obtain, interest rates are low and many people who held on to old cars during the recession are ready to buy.
To catch those customers' eyes at the Detroit show, car companies are unveiling 59 new cars and concepts. That's up from just 41 in 2012, a sign that auto makers have more profits at their disposal and expect higher sales. Toyota, Nissan and Mercedes have larger, more elaborate displays. Ford is luring visitors with the oldest surviving Ford in the world, a 1903 Model A, and the newest, a chiseled pickup truck concept called Atlas that could become the next F-150. General Motors can just sit back and watch the crowds gather around the Corvette.
The Detroit show, one of the country's biggest, opens to the public Saturday. Here are five trends visitors will see:
Getting more efficient:
One lesson from this year's show: There are plenty of ways to squeeze more efficiency from cars and trucks.
Volkswagen is showing a plug-in hybrid SUV prototype called the CrossBlue that mates a diesel engine with two electric motors. It can travel 14 miles in all-electric mode and gets an estimated 35 miles per gallon while running on both gas and electricity. The Jeep Grand Cherokee is also making a jump to diesel power with a new, optional 3-liter V-6 diesel that gets 30 miles per gallon on the highway, five better than the gas-powered V-6.
Automakers are trying other tricks to save fuel as they face higher fuel economy requirements, even in muscle cars. The eight-cylinder engine on the 2014 Corvette kicks down to four at highway speeds. The grille and wheels of Ford's Atlas concept pickup have shutters that automatically close at high speeds to cut wind drag. Many carmakers are replacing steel with aluminum, carbon fiber and other materials to save weight.
Jeremy Anwyl, vice chairman of the Edmunds.com auto website, said many people have been surprised by the resurgence of internal combustion engines as new technology makes them more efficient.
"It is one reason why we're not all driving hybrids now, or EVs," Anwyl said.
Even so, there are plenty of gas-electric hybrids and some new electric cars for customers to look at. Nissan, a late convert to the hybrid market, is showing the Resonance concept, a dramatically styled hybrid crossover. Acura has the NSX hybrid supercar. And Cadillac debuted the ELR, its version of the Chevrolet Volt plug-in, which will go around 35 miles in all-electric mode before a small gas engine kicks in. And Tesla is showing its all-electric Model X crossover, whose futuristic wing-like doors are among the handful of stop-and-stare features this year.
Pickups take off:
With new home construction back on the rise, pickup truck sales are poised to grow in the coming year. And Detroit is ready.
General Motors is showing its new trucks for the first time at the Detroit show. The Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra, which will go on sale this Spring, have mean-looking grilles, restyled interiors and new engines and transmissions that GM promises will be very efficient. The trucks even have steps inset into the rear bumper so people can jump into the bed to get tools or tie down cargo.
Chrysler's just-refurbished Ram pickup — named the truck of the year by automotive journalists at the show — is also no slouch, boasting a segment-best 25 mpg on the highway.
But Ford, whose F-Series has been the top-selling truck for more than three decades, won't cede that title without a fight. The company pulled off one of the show's few surprises, lowering its Atlas pickup concept from the ceiling amid a shower of sparks during media previews. Ford gave few details about the beefy, chiseled Atlas, other than to say that it hints at the look of the next F-Series, due to come out in 2014 or 2015.
"It sends a message that we hope to continue to strengthen our leadership in commercial vans and trucks," Ford's Chief Operating Officer Mark Fields said. "We know there's a lot of people who want to take that away from us."
The competition could mean good deals for buyers in a segment already known for big discounts. Chrysler sales chief Reid Bigland said Ram will stay competitive, but Chrysler also wants to make money.
"We're not going to do anything crazy in the marketplace," he said.
Luxury boom:
Supple leather seats, finely stitched dashboards and sparkling chrome grilles are everywhere at this year's auto show, a sign that car companies are clawing at each other for a piece of the growing and lucrative U.S. luxury market.
From a well-crafted new E-Class lineup from Mercedes to the plush, decked out luxury Cadenza sedan from once-lowly Kia, automakers are vying for customers who are ready to be pampered a little more.
Luxury sales grew almost 12 percent last year to over 1 million sales, and automakers are expecting further increases as people feel better about the economy and the Great Recession recedes into the rear-view mirror.
For the past few years, much of the U.S. auto sales growth has been in compact and midsize cars at the lower end of the price range, says Jeff Schuster, senior vice president of forecasting for LMC Automotive, a Detroit-area industry forecasting firm. But recent trends show that buyers who want luxury items such as leather seats and touch screens are coming back into the market and are willing to pay a little more.
"The premium market took a couple of years off" during the recession, he said. "I think we're going to see a comeback over the next couple of years."
Lincoln continues the revamp of its lineup with the MKC concept, a small crossover that is the second of four new Lincolns coming by 2015. Bentley is showing a new convertible. Lexus is introducing a new version of the entry-level IS sedan. Maserati debuts its new Quattroporte sedan. Infiniti, Nissan's luxury brand, introduced its new sports sedan using performers from Cirque du Soleil. And even mainstream companies like Hyundai and Honda are showing off luxurious concept vehicles.
Blurring the lines:
The unveiling of the BMW 320i sedan, an entry-level 3-Series that starts at $33,445, renewed questions about whether luxury cars are starting to bump into mainstream models.
In the last couple of years, mass-market brands have started offering features once reserved for luxury brands. Ford offers a hands-free, automatic parallel parking systems and lane-departure warning signals on the midsize Fusion. Even the little Dodge Dart has a heated steering wheel.
Buyers will have to decide: Do they buy a loaded Fusion for nearly $37,000 or the new 320i?
And carmakers need to decide how to market their cars. The Chrysler 300, for example, competes with other mainstream large cars at the low end, but it has two high-end versions — the 300c and 300 Luxury Series — that compete with BMW.
"It's really like having two cars," said Olivier Francois, Chrysler's marketing chief. "What we probably need to do is amplify the gap, separate the two poles."
Jim Lentz, who runs Toyota's operations in the U.S., isn't worried. In his own lineup, he says, the Toyota Avalon and Lexus ES sedans are very similar, but few shoppers consider both. "A Lexus buyer is buying the prestige. They're buying the dealership experience," he said. Avalon, he said, is the "accountant's car," not showy but with nice features.
Chrysler's Bigland says he can't worry too much about the battle between mainstream and premium cars because there's such tough competition on other fronts.
"It's just a great example of how brutally competitive this industry is," said Bigland. "From the BMWs to the Mercedes to any of the other 18 manufacturers that we square off with every day. Every single one of them, if you don't come and play your 'A' game, you're going to get your head kicked in."
Crossovers get smaller:
With explosive growth in crossover vehicles in the past five years, automakers are looking at new ways to attract buyers of more efficient SUVs that are based on car underpinnings.
At the Detroit show, Honda opened a new front in the battle with a sharp-looking small utility. It's based on a subcompact frame and will be smaller than Honda's popular CR-V. It's a new part of the market that's attractive to automakers because there aren't any well-established competitors to unseat.
"I think the industry as a whole believes there's opportunity here," Schuster says. "It's up for grabs."
Nissan already is in the market with its funky Juke. General Motors' Buick is just entering with an all-new Encore.
Honda Executive Vice President John Mendel says the new vehicle, called simply an "Urban SUV Concept," is designed for city commuters who still want the cargo space, adventurous lifestyle and high sitting position of an SUV.
It's aimed at people who no longer need a bigger SUV, yet don't want to give up the utility. Mendel says technology has allowed it to create more space in a smaller vehicle, matching the interior volume of older compact SUVs.
"If you've got a 5- or 7-year-old car, you can move down a class and not give up anything including space," he said.


text:
1Xbet Sure Banker 2 Odd Code For Today Tuesday 14/03/2023
1Xbet Sure Banker 2 Odd Code For Today Tuesday 14/03/2023
Many have criticized betting but we're seeing it as an investment and a game of mind and luck
Today Waploaded will be providing an almost sure game for her fans.
Waploaded decided to provide a running ticket that have only 2 sure games for the Today.
Booking Code: RDE8S (1xbet)
Get 200% Bonus on 1XBET
These predictions are premium predict from a very reliable source.
* Join our FREE Whatsapp group Daily
Please, react and comment below, let's know if you are following.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Friday, January 6, 2012
It is a mistake to try to discover which was the Star of Bethlehem
54 comments:
- A Sinner said...
But then...how long was the Magi's journey from the East?? Surely it took them more than 13 days to get there? Unless they were from closer than typically imagined?
- January 6, 2012 at 6:22 AM
- Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...
Dear Father. THANK YOU. I have grown weary of Catholics seeking materialistic solutions to mysteries and miracles.
The idea that the Wise Men were guided by an actual star is so preposterous - just go outside and look at the stars tonight- that it makes laughable all of the latest references to this or that Astronomical Report.
Father, you are an absolute treasure of Holy Mother Church and you keep routinely revealing the truths of Tradition in a pacific fashion that does not put the honest humble seeker of truth in the docket or on the defensive.
May God Bless and keep you - January 6, 2012 at 6:25 AM
I think that you are overstating this. If the event is true—and it is—then seeking to explain it is not out of line. While we may find limits to the benefit of this, it certainly cannot do damage to the Faith to demonstrate things using all of the natural tools that we have at our disposal. Certainly, if we have more faith out astronomical analysis than in the Word of God, that is another issue altogether.
The Church has a long history of astronomical interest. We have the had the Vatican Observatory now for over 225 years, Fr. Geo. H. J. Lemaitre first theorized the Big Bang (before Einstein), and Nicolaus Copernicus was a priest. As new astronomical tools have developed, their use has been put at the service of the Church. Why should we limit ourselves to the astronomical understanding of earlier centuries? We might as well not say that Our Lord had no mitochondrial DNA because St. Thomas knew nothing of it.
Even further, what of the extensive scientific work that is done for the causes of saints or the questions of miracles? What of the immense study of the Shroud of Turin or the tilma of Tepeyac? These things are not modernism (which is heinous and must be avoided) but are great helps to the Faith, especially as people are more and more educated.
"Finally, if the star was in outer-space, why was it noticed only by the wise men and not by others? Indeed, the reason why only the wise men (and perhaps a few others) saw the star was because it wasn't far above the earth but only up in the clouds and so was only visible to those in the immediate vicinity of the Magi."
Why wasn't heliocentrism postulated and listened to until the 16th Century? People had been looking at the sky for a long time. Astronomers had been doing so. These things are not obvious, even to the trained eye. It is very possible that these men noticed something that no one else ever had. Perhaps, in possession of prophecy and astronomical knowledge, they were the only ones who had what they needed. Even now, with incredibly sophisticated tools, astronomers discover new things all the time.
In short, I suppose I should simply ask the following: Why not use both the non-magisterial tradition and science?
Kind Regards,
Father S. - January 6, 2012 at 8:45 AM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
@A Sinner,
Many (even some of the Fathers and great theologians) do doubt whether the wise men could have made the journey in 13 days. Personally, I think that they did.
It is tradition that they were from Persia, and Fr. Cornelius a Lapide says that this is about 300 leagues from Bethlehem (which is about 900 miles).
However, dromedaries can travel about 40 leagues (120 miles) in a day, if going quickly. Thus, the distance would not be too hard to cover.
[still, for the record, Lapide does not think that they made it in 13 days]
Others say that the wise men were not from Persia, but from a place closer (perhaps modern day Jordan).
St. Thomas gives the best answer (to my mind) when he says that they traveled the long distance in 13 days "owing partly to the divine assistance and partly to the speed of dromedaries". - January 6, 2012 at 8:57 AM
Please excuse me. In the last sentence of the first paragraph, I meant to say, "...faith in our astronomical..."
Kind Regards,
Father S. - January 6, 2012 at 9:09 AM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
@Fr. S,
I do not dispute whether science can be helpful to understanding the faith ... most certainly it can.
However, I think that I am not Spartacus (above) hits the nail on the head when he points out that trying to see the Star of Bethlehem as an astronomical event in outer-space smacks of the rationalist tendencies of the modernists.
This was not a natural event ... it was a miracle ... and it is presented as a miracle in the Bible.
Its not that the star was hard to see and the wise men were very clever to discover it ... the star shown brightly day and night ... it was quite visible.
Thus, if it was in the heavens, it would have been noticed by all.
Further, the star suddenly disappeared and then reappeared ... showing it is a miraculous reality.
And again, the fact that the star indicates the very house where Jesus lay shows that it could not have been billions of miles away off in space, but came to rest in the air above the house (perhaps lower even than the clouds).
I'm not at all against reason and science ... what I am saying is that IN THIS CASE it is a terrible mistake to try and see the star as a real star (in the way that astronomers think of stars).
To do so would not only be to dismiss the tradition of the Church Fathers (maintained up through the counter-reformation period) but also would lead to dismissing certain specific aspects of the Biblical account.
Your reference to DNA is a red herring ... its not simple that St. Thomas and the Fathers did not know about astronomy, it is that they specifically denied that the "star" was a star, in the way modern astronomy understands stars and other astronomic events.
[your point would hold only if St. Thomas specifically denied that Jesus had DNA, rather than simply that he remained silent]
You may as well look for astronomical signs of the Pillar of Fire or of the plague of darkness.
You may as well try to discern an earthquake which made the Red Sea part in two.
These things didn't happen according to natural principles, but were miraculous (and left no historical trace [outside of Scripture and Tradition]).
Like you, I want to understand and explain the reality of the "star" ... but I do it by following the Church Fathers and Doctors, comparing the star to the pillar of fire (which has a much richer theological importance as well).
Hope that makes sense ... and apologies if this comment seems forceful, I only want to make the point clear!
Peace to you always, good Father! + - January 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM
- Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...
Tangentially to this post; I have a copy of St Robert Bellarmine's, "A Commentary on the Book of Psalms" and just the other day I was reading his teachings on
Psalm 71;9 and I just realised how it spiritually connects with your excellent post by advising us what presents we ought bring to Jesus :
" ....the gold of love, the incense of prayer, and the myrrh of prayer..."
Do you have access to his Commentary? - January 6, 2012 at 9:41 AM
- Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...
Dear Fr. S. Geocentrism is not only logically acceptable by science (as was confessed to be so by Einstein) , it is taught in Holy Writ but, that is a very very deep black rabbit hole :)
- January 6, 2012 at 9:45 AM
@ Father,
I would like to respond to a few of your points.
"However, I think that I am not Spartacus (above) hits the nail on the head when he points out that trying to see the Star of Bethlehem as an astronomical event in outer-space smacks of the rationalist tendencies of the modernists.
This was not a natural event ... it was a miracle ... and it is presented as a miracle in the Bible."
Unless I am mistaken, Johannes Kepler (if I remember my senior college astronomy course) tried explaining the astronomical origins of the Star of Bethlehem in the 17th Century, well before Pope Piux X and "Pascendi." This is not before the Reformation but it is also not from the height of modernism.
"Its [sic] not that the star was hard to see and the wise men were very clever to discover it ... the star shown [sic] brightly day and night ... it was quite visible.
Thus, if it was in the heavens, it would have been noticed by all."
More properly, it would have been noticed by those who were looking. If it were clearly obvious, to all, why did Herod not just follow the wise men? It seems that these men were in possession of some skill or knowledge that allowed them both see and understand.
"Further, the star suddenly disappeared and then reappeared ... showing it is a miraculous reality."
The Scripture does not say this. It says that the star appeared (v. 7), that the wise men noticed the same star that they saw in the East (v. 9) and that the star rested over Bethlehem. It never says that they did not see it the entirety of the time that they came from the east, though we reasonably can presume that they did not see it either in the day or during cloud cover.
"And again, the fact that the star indicates the very house where Jesus lay shows that it could not have been billions of miles away off in space, but came to rest in the air above the house (perhaps lower even than the clouds)."
Again, the Scripture does not say this. The Scripture says that the star "stood where the child was," or, "hestE epanO hou En to paidion." This does not indicate whether this was a town, house or sheepfold. This does not leave out the possibility of what you describe, but what you describe is not what the Scripture says.
Your reference to the Church Fathers ought to be considered, but it is most certainly not definitive and it is speculative. While that point of view may rationally cohere and be logically valid, it does not make the possibility of the astronomical explanation cohere any less.
Kind Regards,
Father S. - January 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
Fr. S,
Two brief points, in charity -- and I do enjoy having a good theological discussion with a brother priest!
1) The reason Herod did not see the star is because it disappeared ... this is near unanimous among the Fathers ... it is the only reasonable explanation as to why the wise men had to ask directions in Jerusalem ... further, it says "behold, the star" in verse 9, indicating that it re-appeared.
2) The star had to do more than simply indicate the town of Bethlehem ... else, how could the wise men have found the Christ Child? ... the context and the tradition (not just the Fathers, but also the scholastic doctors) holds that the star indicated the very place.
Finally, you are correct about Kepler ... though, apparently, his thesis has been pretty well rejected by the modern scientists.
I suppose I should not have said "modernist" since that does remind us more of Pascendi ... What I mean is the "modern" notions that have plagued us since the 17th century ... this is why Fr. Cornelius a Lapide is so valuable, he died the year that Descartes started publishing.
Peace to you! + - January 6, 2012 at 11:16 AM
"Father, you are an absolute treasure of Holy Mother Church and you keep routinely revealing the truths of Tradition in a pacific fashion that does not put the honest humble seeker of truth in the docket or on the defensive."
Thank you for this, Father. I've learned something new today.
God bless you! - January 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM
@ I Am Not Spartacus,
In response to your first post, I simply have a question. It seems to me that you are saying that the a star could not have guided the wise men. Since stellar navigation far predates the Nativity and is used to locate cities all over the world, why could it not have been use by the Magi to find Bethlehem?
Kind Regards,
Father S. - January 6, 2012 at 11:35 AM
- Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...
Dear Fr S. Your education appears to have resulted in you giving less weight to the orthodox exegesis of Catholic Saints (You can also read Catena Aurea online re the subject under dispute) than you give to the speculations of a protestant scientist who never produced proof of his speculation.
When it comes to the Bible, it is, everywhere and always, the case that Catholics - who own all of the Scriptures Lock, Stock, and Barrel -are the experts for if a protestant were to become a Biblical expert, he would cease to be a protestant; he would convert to The One, True, Faith.
The so-called enlightenment fashioned a scientific shroud over much of what is true and, thereby, obscured from the eyes of the simple, humble, believer, the witness of the Catholic Church Saints and that Shroud is being lifted by such wonderful Priests as Fr. Erlenbush and, Thanks be to the Holy Ghost who works through him, much light is being shed from Traditional Sources in these dark days of materialism and modernism - January 6, 2012 at 12:12 PM
@ Father,
Also in charity, I do not oppose the possibility of what you have to say being true. If there was a miraculous light that led the Magi, that seems perfectly reasonable. The issue in my mind, though, is that you are definitively rejecting the possibility of this being both miraculous and natural (i.e., an astronomical event). Even if this is the witness of the Fathers, it is still speculative. In other words, it is both logically and factually possible that this was an astronomical event.
Further, the desire to demonstrate this is a completely natural desire on behalf of the astronomer. He uses his art to describe the work of God, just as Beethoven used his in the Missa Solemnis. What believing astronomer would not try to explain the most conspicuous star in all of the Scripture? He does not have to be a historical-critical theologian to search for an explanation.
As to your first point, the word "idou," or "lo" or "behold," does not say anything about appearance and reappearance. While it may well have been miraculous, the textual evidence that you cite is certainly not definitive and at least, inconclusive.
As to your second point, it is altogether possible that while following the star, they happened upon the location outside of Bethlehem where the Holy Family was. It is on the way from Jerusalem. If we hold that their journey was miraculous to begin with, it is no stretch to think that their path, so long as they followed the star, would lead them to the site of the Nativity.
I appreciate your explaining your position to me. I also appreciate your explanation of the Fathers. I simply mean to say, as I stated to begin with, that you have overstated this. It seems to me that you have inflated the certainty of something that is, per se, speculative.
Kind Regards,
Father S. - January 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
To all,
I do want to be clear ... Fr. S is a very solid priest and is most certainly faithful to the tradition ... in this particular matter, we are in disagreement ... but I would want to be clear that he has many times offered excellent clarifications here on this blog and has helped me many times to understand the mysteries more fully.
@Fr. S,
Regarding the use of stars for navigational purposes ... my understanding is that one star alone is not enough to direct the way, but the "star" of Bethlehem was sufficient by itself to direct the wise men not only to the city, but to the very place (i.e. the very house - stable) where the Child lay. - January 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
@I am not Spartacus and Veronica,
Thank you for your kind words. Please continue to pray for me that I may be a good and holy priest after the Heart of my Lord.
Know also that I pray for you! + - January 6, 2012 at 2:41 PM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
@Father S.,
Regarding whether or not I have overstated the issue ... do you think I have gone further than either St. Thomas or St. John Chrysostom, both of whom are quite emphatic that it was not a star of the heavens? - January 6, 2012 at 2:47 PM
@ I Am Not Spartacus,
I have not asserted anything about the "weight [of] the orthodox exegesis of Catholic Saints." The only protestant scientist that I mentioned was Kepler, but I only mentioned him to demonstrate that the theories about the astronomical origin of Star of Bethlehem predate Modernism, or at least the majority thereof. I gave no indication of any personal assent to what Kepler said. I also do not deny the Faith or that authoritative Scriptural interpretation resides within the Church. For that matter, I did not say that I hold that this was an astronomical event.
Nonetheless, my question still remains unanswered. It seems to me that you implied in your first post that stellar navigation was somehow impossible. Since it works all over the world, I am not sure why it would not work at the Nativity.
I would appreciate it if we could please leave insults out of this conversation. I asked a legitimate series of respectful questions and provided a legitimate series of respectful answers. There is no need to insult my education.
Kind Regards,
Father S. - January 6, 2012 at 2:54 PM
I don't think that you have gone further than the saints in your interpretation. I actually agree with the interpretation.
I think that the overstatement is in terms of the value of seeking to find the astronomical event. I think that we need to be able to respond to those who ask us questions with more than the tradition, even if the tradition is correct and sufficient. Refutation can be on logical grounds and on magisterial grounds. As you know, the argument from authority, even if correct, is the weakest argument.
I would like to cite St. Thomas, as you are fond of doing. In Book I of the "Summa Contra Gentiles," he refers to the "Office of the Wise Man." In I.3, the translation says, "It belongs to one and the same science, however, both to pursue one of two contraries and to oppose the other. Medicine, for example, seeks to effect health and to eliminate illness. Hence, just as it belongs to the wise man to meditate especially on the truth belonging to the first principle and to teach it to others, so it belongs to him to refute the opposing falsehood." The investigation of this as an astronomical event can only serve to be helpful in apologetics and to strengthen the explanatory power of the Patristic position.
Thank you for your kind words above, too. I appreciate your work here very much.
Kind Regards,
Father S. - January 6, 2012 at 3:00 PM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
@Fr. S,
Somehow something seems to be confusing us ... either I am not correctly understanding you, or you me, or both each other.
To be clear, as I read the Scriptures and the Fathers, Doctors, theologians, the "star" cannot possibly be an astronomical event.
The Fathers especially are very clear on this point (St. John Chrysostom in particular) -- it was not a star or any other reality in the heavens (i.e. in space) but was a thing in the air just a little above the earth (perhaps a few hundred feet up).
If we read the Scriptures carefully and if we follow the tradition, then the "star" can't possibly be whatever these people (for example "BethlehemStar.net") say it is ... it can't possibly be something in outer-space, something which can be discerned by astronomers, an astronomical reality.
This is why it is a serious mistake to look to astronomy in this instance.
Thus, if you "agree with the interpretation", I cannot see how you can possibly think it would be the least bit beneficial to try to use astronomy to discover the "star".
It would be like trying to discover the earthquake that parted the Red Sea -- the task is useless, because there was no earthquake in the first place (just as there was no such "star" in the heavens).
Hope that my point is clearer now.
Peace to you always! + - January 6, 2012 at 3:14 PM
@ Father,
I think that we understand each other. I think that we simply do not agree on two things.
1. We do not agree on the plausibility of this having been an astronomical event. I think that this falls in the arena of speculative theology and you do not. That being said, I can still speculate with the Fathers while considering it an open question. So, I suppose that I should say that I agree with part of the interpretation. Further, I am free to believe as such until this is definitive teaching.
2. We do not agree on the fruitfulness of studying the astronomical event, even if the matter is not speculative. What you bring up about the Red Sea is a good example. I agree that there was no earthquake, but so long as there are those who will assert otherwise, it is useful to defend the position on the terms of the one who postulates the error. So, if we had the tools to understand geological history and so demonstrate whether or not there was an earthquake, we ought to look into that. The reason to look into that is to demonstrate that the postulated argument is false.
This applies to the argument in question, too. Defeating the astronomical argument--which is very well presented and represented--requires am ability to respond to all of those things which could logically be true. Obviously, those who assert that position are not convinced by the weight of non-definitive (in the technical sense) Patristic and Medieval evidence. Why not respond to them with their own tools?
Take, for example, the pro-life cause. As I understand it, among the most successful tools for convincing a mother that she has a living child inside of her is to show her a 3D ultrasound of her child. We can tell her all day long that abortion is equivalent to murder, but the doctor is telling her that there is no baby or that the baby can't feel pain, etc. As such, we use scientific tools in favor of the moral argument. Why not do the same here?
One final point. - January 6, 2012 at 4:16 PM
Dear Father,
Thank you for your elegant exposition and defense of your argument! We actually have a modern example of a miraculous event in the skies similar to that of the Star of Bethlehem, and of course, it is the miracle of the sun at Fatima. Non-believers attested to the fact of what they saw, and it was seen for a certain distance around Fatima by people not right at the Cova, but not farther away. It was a miracle, not an astronomical, or solar, event. Was it real? Youbetcha. Happy Feast of St. Frere Andre! Make the pelerinage a L'Oratoire St-Joseph a Montreal! Que le bon Dieu vous benisse, M. l'Abbe. - January 6, 2012 at 4:36 PM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
You are quite right about Fatima ... I wrote on this last year, if any are interested - http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/05/fatimas-miracle-of-sun-star-of.html
Blessings to you! + - January 6, 2012 at 6:41 PM
I must have left off the end of my comment before and my "one final point." Please excuse me. Since I posted this, I've had a wake a some visits here to the rectory, as well as preparations for Low Mass and a funeral tomorrow morning. Now I cannot even remember what my last point was!
Kind Regards,
Father S. - January 6, 2012 at 7:41 PM
A real star behaving as the Evangelist says would have burned up the countryside for miles around, & everyone within thne radius of the damage - rather a high price to pay for coming so close to the earth as to indicate one building in particular !
Everything about the passage in Matthew 2 points to its being a theological story about the Messianic kingship of Jesus: the use of Psalm 72, the emphasis on kingship, the universalism, the non-recognition of Jesus, even the folklore motif of the wicked king who tries to kill his infant rival; not to mention the Moses-typology & the use of Exodus-motifs. These are some of the principal motifs in the gospel - not that Biblical Fundamentalism notices them :( - January 6, 2012 at 9:36 PM
- Confitebor said...
Bravo! I get so weary of astronomers and their attempts to explain away the obviously supernatural Star of Bethlehem as a supernova or conjunction of planets or a comet. There is no doubt that the "Star" of which St. Matthew speaks is not a natural star or light in the heavens.
As for whether or not the Magi arrived in Bethlehem 13 days after Jesus was born, the Gospel accounts indicate that they arrived much later than that -- perhaps as much as two years later. Whenever it was, by the time the Magi arrived, the Holy Family had found a "house" in Bethlehem in which to live, and Jesus was no longer a "babe" but a "child" (Greek brephos indicates not a newborn but an older baby or even a toddler). Anyway, it is not an article of faith that the Magi arrived on Jan. 6 (or its Hebrew calendrical equivalent), just as it is not an article of faith that Jesus was both baptised in the Jordan and turned the water into wine in Cana on Jan. 6 -- yet Epiphany celebrates all three of those epiphanies of Our Lord, not just the epiphany to the Magi. - January 6, 2012 at 10:53 PM
The controversy has been settled by Dale Allison III, "The Magi's Angel" in his "Studies in Matthew". He builds an overwhelming case, based on ancient texts, that the "star" was, at the time of St Matthew's Gospel, understood to be a way of referring to an angel. A blessed Epiphany, Deacon Yuhanna
- January 7, 2012 at 1:13 AM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
There is no reason why God could not have arranged for the historical event to be prefigured by the Old Testament.
Simply pointing out that the account in Matthew 2 points to Jesus' Messianic kingship does not prove that the story of the wise men is not an accurate account of a real historical event.
Indeed, looking at the text itself, there is no indication that Matthew means it as a parable or as lore ... rather, it is presented as a real historical event which fulfilled the prophecies.
So, no, there was no "star" as an astronomic reality ... but there were wise men and they did see something that looked to them like a star, and they did make their journey and adore the Christ Child.
To deny this is to lose the Faith. - January 7, 2012 at 8:44 AM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
It seems to me that the Gospel text alone is inconclusive as to when the wise men arrived ... but it certainly cannot be said that it "indicates" that they arrived "much later" ... the Gospel doesn't indicate much of anything one way or the other.
On point I would make is that, after the presentation at the Temple, the Holy Family returned to Nazareth (per St. Luke).
Now, if the presentation was 40 days after Jesus' birth (according to Jewish Law), and the Holy Family was still in Bethlehem when the wise men came ... then that would "indicate" that the wise men must have arrived in less than 40 days.
Hence, "much later" would seem an overstatement.
While I admit that the 2 year idea seems to solve the problem of the slaughtering of the innocents (2 years and younger), it causes many more problems.
I wrote about this last year, if you are interested -- http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/12/when-did-star-first-appear-to-magi.html
In any case, you are right to point out that it is not a matter of faith ... so we are certainly free to have different opinions.
Peace and blessings to you! + - January 7, 2012 at 8:51 AM
- Msgr. Pope said...
A fascinating post especially in terms of it's strong appeal to antiquity.
I do think though that Fr. S above well states some concerns that I have with the use of words like "error" "terribly misguided" inauthentic, over correction, misguided etc are and unnecessarily sharp rebuke.
The exact reality of the star is, to my mind, ultimately mysterious and is best left in that realm. Fr. Cornelius has things a little too well figured out to my mind, in actually trying to speak of it as "a condensed mass of dust and air which was illuminated and moved about by angels." Why be that specific?
Even if some roots of this thinking can be found in the Fathers and doctors, I would still have the personal preference to allow the mystery to remain largely unspecified as Scripture does. It is after all the source document, and specifications beyond its data are speculative.
I see no real harm in some speculating about it being this star or that, or a comet, or the coming together of planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, or of compressed dust and air, as long as we are all clear that these are speculations of what is ultimately mysterious and unspecified.
Thank you again for supplying this context and hosting this conversation. - January 7, 2012 at 9:59 AM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
I suppose you are right that I come on a bit strong ... I do tend to do that from time to time! :-)
However, I just cannot see any way that the theories about Jupiter or Saturn can possibly line up with the clear biblical words that the star "went before them [the wise men]" and that it "came and stood over where the child was".
In any case, it is good to recognize that these recent theories (going back, as far as I can tell, not much further than Kepler in the 17th century) are very very different from the interpretation of the saints of the Church.
At least this much is clear -- it is not "traditional" or "conservative" to think the Bethlehem Star was a real star ... that doesn't mean it is wrong, of course.
Peace always! + - January 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM
- Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...
Dear Fr. S. I intended no personal insult and if the imprecision of my writing left that impression I apologise.
To me it appears you are saying that a star could have led the Magi whereas it is quite clear from Traditional Catholic Biblical Exegesis that it could not have been a star such as the putative one the protestant Kepler speculated about.
Over the years, I have lost track (tangential pun) of the number of stars identified as the one that led The Magi. It is almost as though the Bible is not to be trusted unless it can be found to be in agreement with an enlightenment science that long ago successfully sued for divorce from Sacred Theology and has since that time produced endless bastard-theories before whom we are expected to bow.
Science is supposed to be subservient to Scripture is what I was learnt long ago in the hills of Vermont and, yet, this Southern Vermont Crank would not end this response by writing, once again, that I intended no insult to an Alter Christus; my Uncle Fr. Francis, an LaSalette Priest, would be in his grave spinning like an anemometer atop Mt Washington if he knew I was doing such a thing. - January 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM
It has always been a personally troubling question of mine why St. Gabriel was tasked with the Annunciation and not St. Michael. St. Michael's apparent absence at this point in salvation history has always bugged me.
It also had never occurred to me until now that the Star of Bethlehem could be anything other than some kind of miraculous astronomical occurrence.
St. Michael, is that you? This thought and it's implications, God willing, will keep me busy until next Christmas. Holy possible Epiphany! Thanks for this. - January 7, 2012 at 6:48 PM
@I Am Not Spartacus,
I think that I have already made this point above in a post to Fr. Erlenbush, but I am happy to make it again here. Perhaps I have not yet been sufficiently clear.
Insofar as the nature of the star described in St. Matthew's Gospel has not been magisterially defined, this matter is, per se, speculative and open to a variety of interpretation. Even if the weight of Patristic and Medieval exegesis holds that the star is purely miraculous and not astronomical, the lack of magisterial definition leaves the matter open to interpretation.
Speaking for myself, considering only the text of the pericope in question and no secondary sources, it seems to me that the argument can be logically made that this was as astronomical event. I have already cited above the relevant passages in the transliterated Greek text.
I suppose that I can put this another way. Weight of interpretation does not, in itself, provide definition. This is a fundamental tenet of theology. For example, rather famously, in the case of the Immaculate Conception, there is substantial weight on both sides of the question of whether or not Our Lady died before being assumed into Heaven. The Church has only solemnly defined that "having completed the course of her earthly life..." Our Lady was assumed. A Catholic is free to believe that she died or that she did not die; it is a speculative matter.
In the case of the Star of Bethlehem, even less has been said definitively about it than about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. As such, there is even more freedom of belief. Short of denying that the star existed--which would dismiss the witness of Scripture--or saying that the star was something totally different, like a spaceship--which would add too much to the text in question--there is a great deal of latitude in what a Catholic may believe.
I do hope that this makes my position clearer.
Kind Regards,
Father S. - January 7, 2012 at 8:07 PM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
I would add, as a minor point, that it is a teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church that Mary did die and was then resurrected and raised ... hence, a Catholic at least ought not to publicly say that she did not die.
-- http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-blessed-virgin-mary-latin.html --
Thus, to get to the heart of Fr. S's point ... there is probably more room for diversity of opinion about the "star" than about the death of Mary.
Still, I am convinced that searching for an astronomical reality is a terrible mistake (on the weight of both Scripture and tradition). - January 7, 2012 at 8:51 PM
"Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
There is no reason why God could not have arranged for the historical event to be prefigured by the Old Testament."
## It depends what you mean - are you talking about texts, such as Numbers 24.17, or about events; or about both, or about something else ? And it's not easy to talk about the "historical event" being "prefigured", if the historicity of the Matthean account as narrated is the point at issue.
"Simply pointing out that the account in Matthew 2 points to Jesus' Messianic kingship does not prove that the story of the wise men is not an accurate account of a real historical event."
## Agreed - but since the text presumably has an intelligible meaning, and since there are serious objections to understanding the text to be referring to a star, & since there are many reasons, not least in this gospel itself, to think that the point of the narrative is to witness to the significance of Jesus including His Identity, ISTM that the narrative is a theological construction using a number of OT passages, fused together by Matthew's theological POV, that witness to the significance of Jesus by telling a story about Him. AFAICS, the truth of the passages lies not in answering questions about astronomy or where the Magoi came from, but in the theological message of the Evangelist; rather as the truth of the Ascension lies not in answering questions about the escape velocity of the glorified body of the Risen & Ascended Christ, but in understanding the significance of the "machinery" used to tell of the Ascension. (That does not imply that the Ascension "did not happen" BTW - the similarity between the Matthean narrative, & the narratives of the Ascension, is in how the narratives are related; not in their relation to historical reality.
"Indeed, looking at the text itself, there is no indication that Matthew means it as a parable or as lore ... rather, it is presented as a real historical event which fulfilled the prophecies."
.... - January 7, 2012 at 10:44 PM
"Indeed, looking at the text itself, there is no indication that Matthew means it as a parable or as lore ... rather, it is presented as a real historical event which fulfilled the prophecies."
## It's not a parable, so that possibility doesn't arise. What do you mean by "lore" BTW ? The text of Matt. 2 has the form of a narrative of a real historical event - but so does the Temptation-narrative. So do many others that are not historical: some texts have verisimilitude, but are not historical. There is the difficulty that the concept of the "historical" has at least six different shades of meaning (as an essay by C. S. Lewis shows in detail); & then ther are are complications arising from the history of history-writing. In one sense Genesis 5 is history - but it's not what a reader today would think of as history. It may be the case that some of the events in Matt. 2 happened, like the Massacre of the Innocents - but the business ogf the styar, no;not as related. You yourself seem to put the star on one side , even though you want me to accept the rest of the details :) Why though ? The star is as much part of the narrative as the Magoi - the narrative becomes pointless without the combination of star with Magoi, & of both with their journey and with the Christ-Child & the gifts. AFAICS, the explanation I incline to does a better job of accounting for the detail of the text than yours does, because the former allows all the details to be significant, without having to leave any on one side for reasons extraneous to the text. The explanation is weak where yours is strong - for you hold to the historicity of the narrative, which does not clash with the "obvious" meaning of the narrative. The price you pay, is that the star is left out, as though it had no function for the Evangelist. A second weakness is that the reasons for leaving out the star do not come from within the passage - whereas the idea that St. Matthew was writing theology in the form of a story can be argued for by comparing his treatment of passages in the gospel with one another, & with passages in other gospels.
"So, no, there was no "star" as an astronomic reality ... but there were wise men and they did see something that looked to them like a star, and they did make their journey and adore the Christ Child.
To deny this is to lose the Faith."
## The text says there was a star - on what principle does one accept as really historical some of the ingredients in the text, & not others ? The suggestion I believe to be valid has a principle: it accepts as historical the Mother & Child, while seeing the rest of the ingredients in the narrative (& their inter-relation) as the product of theological reflection on the significance of Jesus. A second argument for this position is that this gospel is arranged in a chiastic pattern. If that is so, & as it is so, one might expect a narrative near the end of the gospel to mirror this near the beginning. I think there is one, in Matt.27.51-53. ISTM that both narratives are Jewish-Christian theology in the form of legends - legends that are true in their witness to the Identity of Jesus, albeit not true as relations of historical fact. They have rather similar messages - both witness to the Kingship of the unrecognised Jesus, & both rely on OT passages - for Matt.27.51-53 is based on the famous passage in Ezekiel 37 about the dry bones. That passage is fulfilled - not as an event in history, but in its Christian theological meaning - in the Death of Jesus; & may be behind Revelation 7. IOW,the second argument is one from the structure of this gospel. - January 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM
- Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...
Dear Fr. S. I will post this and then disengage.
Here is what Trent taught re Biblical Exegesis:
"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.
Of course in this instance of the putative conundrum of whether or not it was a star or not , this teaching from Trent suggests, to me at least, that one who avers that a normal star accounts for what Tradition everywhere teaches is a miraculous event not involving what the protestant Kepler considers a star, then one ought happily accept the burden of producing Catholic Church Fathers/Saints whose exegesis is consistent with the protestant speculation of Kepler so as not to leave the impression that enlightenment science is somehow a key component of Biblical exegesis.
As it currently stands, if all of the weight of traditional Catholic exegesis about this being a miraculous event were to be suddenly dropped onto a set of scales the individual occupying the scale of the rational/materialistic/enlightenment scientific/protestant side would be suddenly launched over an actual star.
Pax tecum, Father S. - January 8, 2012 at 8:05 AM
I don't know why nobody ever proposed a third alternative view. The Star of Bethlehem may be a literal conjunction or star in the heavens and still miraculously appear to lead the Wise Men and stand still over the house Jesus was living. I know that might sound rather strange, or even foolish - but we have at least one precedent of a Star appearing removed from its position in the heavens and moving through the sky - the Dancing Sun at Fatima!
Would anyone say that the Sun was actually removed from its 8-light-minutes-from-Earth location entering the atmosphere? Not at all. There was a miracle down there so that the Sun stood in its place but appeared to actually move in the sky. God can bind light in miraculous ways, and our eyes position all luminous objects at the apparent source of light. So, there might well be a real conjunction or star phenomenon (I don't buy the 7-6 BC conjunctions, I subscribe the December 25, 2 BC one), but the Magi may have been led by the miraculously altered apparent position of the Star.
I know many people won't like it, but that's a third chance to adjust the account - after all, the Bible reads "A star" and not "an angel" or anything else. - January 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
two points,
1) I do not dismiss the historicity of the star ... rather, I affirm that there was a "star" according to what the word itself was meant to indicate -- that is, a bright light in the sky.
2) I am amazed that so many people today are comforatable reading the Bible as though nobody else before them has ever read it -- how can we possibly read the Scriptures without taking consultation with the great saints and theologians who have come before us?
They say that it was not a star out in the universe, and (upon reading the text carefully) I see their reasoning ... therefore, I follow them.
Many moderns, however, ignore the 2000 years of tradition, dismiss the saints and theologians, and try to make up their own theories -- and this, without even making any reference to the tradition (they don't even take the time to dismiss it ... it simply isn't mentioned ... as though there were no Christian interpretations until today). - January 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM
@I Am Not Spartacus,
Even though you have decided not continue the discussion, I will still offer two points.
First, it is inescapable that there is room for opinion on this point. In particular, that room allows for diverse opinion on the nature of the star.
Second, "enlightenment science" is a key component of Biblical exegesis. It is one component among many, but it is still very important. Historical understanding is aided by tools developed by science. Understanding historical context is important for Exegesis. This does not mean that modern science is essential for exegesis, as if the Scripture cannot be understood without microscopes, but it is to say that modern tools are helpful tools.
Kind Regards,
Father S. - January 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM
Last things first: about the Fathers
Having said so much, I don't whether to reply or not LOL. The points you (& the poster before you) raise, deserve responses - all the more as people's reasons & premises for believing as they do are so often misunderstood - the notion that one cannot value St. Augustine in some ways, while seeing that he is not a well-informed guide in others, is an example. I think I prefer St. Thomas - that doesn't mean one can't learn from Calvin & the Puritans. But to read about the the present state of scholarship on a Biblical book, one has to read modern authors. This is as insulting to the Fathers as reading Garrigou-Lagrange, or John of St. Thomas, is: there were no Thomist Fathers, & no Thomism in their times. Neither were they anti-Thomist; they were pre-Thomist, and did not have to cope with the same issues as St. Albert & St. Thomas faced.
In the same way, the Fathers were not anti-critical, but pre-critical - they did not have the material available to them that is now available even to students being introduced to scientific Biblical exegesis. But moderns do. Biblical scholarship today has been shaped by certain methods, issues, presuppositions, emphases, questions, difficulties - so it has had to respond to them them in a specific historically & culturally contingent manner. So, in a rather different setting, had the Fathers to, in their times & places.The Fathers were not well up on the history on the Ancient Near East - modern scholars are much better off in that way; therefore, they deserve to be consulted. The Fathers are as silent on Sumer as on Australia - must modern scholars, if Catholic, also be silent on Sumer ? But if they are not - & they are not, and never have been - why must the fellow-Catholic exegetes follow the Fathers, even when they have so much more to take account of and learn from than the Fathers could or had ? Biblical exegesis deserves the best methods available - & those of the Patristic era are not now adequate. The Fathers are still worth reading - but they were dealing with the issues of their times, not of ours, in the form they took in their times, which is not always the form these take in ours. And that exactly what one might expect. And what they did in those times & ways, we - including exegetes need to do & try to do in the present time in the ways available to us.
If even something as abstract as logic has a history, it should shock no-one to find that Biblical interpretation has one. Yet people are upset to find that scholars in 1990 or 1950 or 1910 or 1890 or 1850 don't agree with the Fathers. The Fathers say nothing of Australia - does that make Australia a nasty Protestant invention raised up to tease & scandalise Catholics, to be shunned like a plague by the faithful ? Is there a heresy of Australianism, condemned as a blasphemy for implying that St.Paul did not preach to all the world ? No, to all points. But if the novelty of Australia is not disrespectful to the Fathers & Sacred Tradition & the Magisterium - why is the use of Biblical subsidia available to later generations (including ours but not including theirs) thought to be ? - January 8, 2012 at 6:59 PM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
This is a comment box, not a dissertation box ... please keep the comments concise and to the point.
I do not have time to read your last comment thoroughly, but (from skimming it), I do notice at least one very good point (which I think you are affirming) -- we have to recognize the difference between what the Fathers explicitly reject, and what they neither affirm nor deny but simply are unaware of.
That which they are unaware of is a fount for the legitimate development of doctrine.
Now, in terms of the star, the Church Fathers (and every saint I have read up to the modern age) who dealt with the issue have explicitly said that it was not a star in outer-space, but was closer to the earth.
And this touches upon the Scriptural text itself -- since the star rests over the place where Jesus lay.
Hence, there is a big difference between speculation about Jupiter as the "star" and speculation about Australia.
I am by no means opposed to new thoughts and insights ... but I am troubled by the way that so many completely ignore the Scriptural commentaries of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church -- it isn't right.
Peace to you! + - January 8, 2012 at 8:36 PM
I don't think this has to be a traditionalist versus modernist issue. I hold the Church Fathers in the utmost esteem, but they were not astronomers. A website was cited earlier...it is bethlehemstar.net. The support for the star being an actual astronomical event and also miraculous is astounding. It did not cause me to doubt my faith. In fact, it strengthened my belief. The "star" that is proposed to be the star of Bethlehem is Jupiter, according to the website. Jupiter, in 2 BC (if I remember correctly) behaved exactly as described by scripture. It also appeared to be inside the constellation Virgo (virgin). During the day, the constellation Virgo appeared near the sun (clothed in the sun). The moon appeared below the constellation Virgo (the moon at her feet). Jupiter (which is the name of the king of the roman gods) was so bright because it was near a star called Regulus (which is also translated "king"). Jupiter exhibited odd movements that are normal for planets observed from Earth, which parallel the movements described in Scripture. This is just a small amount of data that is observed scientifically and does not contradict scripture. Check out the site. It will grow your faith, not harm your faith.
Layman Paul - January 9, 2012 at 1:10 AM
- Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...
In the same way, the Fathers were not anti-critical, but pre-critical - they did not have the material available to them that is now available even to students being introduced to scientific Biblical exegesis. But moderns do. Biblical scholarship today has been shaped by certain methods, issues, presuppositions, emphases, questions, difficulties - so it has had to respond to them them in a specific historically & culturally contingent manner. So, in a rather different setting, had the Fathers to, in their times & places.The Fathers were not well up on the history on the Ancient Near East - modern scholars are much better off in that way; therefore, they deserve to be consulted
Dear Rat-Biter. What you have done in a few sentences is summarise that which was condemned in the Encyclical on Modernism.
The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived.
You might give it a read;
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm - January 9, 2012 at 6:53 AM
Having led a bible discussion group for several years in our parish, I am quite familiar with the fundamental differences between historical critical and traditional exegeses. Even though I generally subscribe to reliance upon the Church Fathers for guidance, and have long held that the "star" cannot be explained by science, and scoffed at those who hold that flocks of sheep would not be out in the winter, I do find some benefit to the modern so-called "proofs" that are out there.
For those lucky enough to have found and viewed Rick Larson's "The Star of Bethlehem" [BethlehemStar.com], and taken the time to consider its merits, there is a positive conclusion that can be drawn from it. Since it convincingly shows how the stars and planets could have guided astrologers to Jerusalem, and from there to Bethlehem, and that Jupiter "came to rest" over Bethlehem on Dec 25, 2 B.C. as seen from Jerusalem, we can conclude that these signs may have been ordered by God in order to present scientific evidence to an increasingly apostasizing society that perhaps there is some validity to the Biblical narrative. We can (and I do) take exception with some of Rick Larson's conclusions, such as Dec 25, not being the date of birth, but rather, the date of epiphany, etc. But, the data should not be ignored.
When I show these things to our Bible study group, I include my own "revisions" to the conclusions, state that these "evidences" are not Authoritative, and need not be believed, but also include some other usually "overlooked" data. Shortly after the star came to rest, shortly before the required Presentation to the Temple (40 days after the birth of a male child), Herod the Great, who was declared King of "the Jews" (Judea) by Rome, died. Rome declared no new King in Judea during the lifetime of Jesus, except as written by Pontius Pilate upon the Cross of Christ. The next King proclaimed in the Judean region followed Christ's death by several years. The close proximity of the birth of Jesus, followed by Herod's death, resembles (symbolically) Jacob's birth, wherein Jacob, the second twin to be born, was clutching the heel of Esau as he was born, and eventually usurped Esau's "throne" (birthright). Which should be no surprise, as Jesus was descended from Jacob, as Herod was descended from Esau. - January 9, 2012 at 7:00 AM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
@layman Paul and Jim Jordan,
What I think you are missing is that the Fathers (and the whole tradition) has believed that the star indicated not simply the city of Bethlehem, but the very stable/inn/house where the Child was.
[and this is founded on the Scriptures -- since the wise men already knew that they had to go to Bethlehem, but what they didn't know is where in Bethlehem]
Now, there is no way in which Jupiter could indicate the very place, the very stable/house where the Child lay.
And this is why the Fathers and Doctors and counter-reformation theologians are united in rejecting any notion of the star of Bethlehem being one of the heavenly bodies.
Further, if it is Jupiter, then it is not a miracle (i.e. it is not something beyond the ordinary laws of nature) -- but the Church has always considered the star to be a miracle.
It's not that the Fathers didn't know astronomy ... they understood plenty well enough.
Rick Larson and the Bethlehem Star people read the Bible as though they were the first Christians, the first people ever to have read it. They ignore the Fathers and the tradition ... it is not right, and it is most certainly not "conservative" or "traditional" (though, unfortunately, many Catholics think it is).
So, I'm glad that they don't say the star is a simple myth or folk-lore ... but saying it is "Jupiter" is still terribly misguided. - January 9, 2012 at 8:32 AM
- Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...
Dear FR. Amen!!
As Pascendi... taught
To hear them descant of their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even turned over the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, far superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding in them anything blameworthy have thanked God more and more heartily the more deeply they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately. these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for they did not have for their rule and guide a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves . - January 10, 2012 at 8:27 AM
- Juventutem London said...
Awesome picture, where's it from?
- January 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM
- Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
The image is by Edward Burne-Jones (I believe), from 1890.
Apharently it was the largest watercolor of the 19th century (at 101 1/8 x 152 inches).
"The Star of Bethlehem"
Peace! + - January 12, 2012 at 12:00 PM
- James Joseph said...
I sort of have tended to figure that Mary is the Star that was still where the Child was.
- January 14, 2012 at 1:36 PM
Fr. Ryan,
I find this to be an absolutely fascinating topic, I love reading scientific explanations for phenomena described in the Bible – or for other phenomena such as the Shroud all the amazing and inspiring things science has found there - Or the incredible scientific investigations into Lanciano – I could go on! - it increases one's appreciation for God's power, rather than diminishing it!
As I read the article and comments I was immediately wondering whether anyone would bring up one of my favorite websites - http://bethlehemstar.net/ and eagerly looking to see whether anyone would mention it.
To my delight, Jim Jordan did!
I wonder if you've taken the time to read the full and complete text there?
It's pretty detailed as to Scriptural, historical and astronomical points, very logically argued.
Furthermore, it calls attention to several other beautiful astronomical events that took place in Jesus' life.
That the astronomical events took place can be observed by consulting any historical sky map such as this one http://www.fourmilab.ch/yoursky/(just look up the coordinates for a city near persia, then Bethlehem and enter them along with the dates mentioned at Bethlehemstar.net). That the events were intended by God to fulfill Scriptural prophecies is another matter, but dealt with pretty thoroughly in the articles.
I am wondering if you have read it and have specific answers to arguments presented at bethlehemstar.net? If it happens that it's way off the mark historically or – somehow – Scripturally or something, I'd love to know, because to all appearances (to someone with my level of knowledge - less than yours :)), it's a pretty solid case and very inspiring!
- T - January 22, 2012 at 1:41 AM
Please excuse my comment, Fr.! In my excitement at seeing Jim Jordan's reference to that fascinating website, I overlooked your reply to his comment!
I may follow up with some more questions, later though! :)
- T - January 22, 2012 at 1:44 AM
In response to I am not Spartacus commenting along the lines that Catholics should not seek materialistic explanations for miracles and mysteries, I would urge that on the contrary it's a very Catholic thing to do!
Take the canonization process for instance, every effort must be made to scientifically explain the claimed miracle before it can be accepted as such. Plus, many miracles yield even deeper marvels upon close scientific investigation. For example, the blood type of Lanciano matching the blood type on the Shroud of Turin, or the paint of the Guadalupe image inexplicably hovering above the fibers it's "on", or the figures in Our Lady's eyes in the same image, or the various blood clots of Lanciano weighing the same whether in groups or individually – how would any of these deeper marvels be known unless close scientific investigation had been applied to the initial wonder? It's a very Catholic thing to do, and gives a deep sense of awe at what God has wrought!
-T - January 22, 2012 at 1:58 AM
Post a Comment
When commenting, please leave a name or pseudonym at the end of your comment so as to facilitate communication and responses.
Comments must be approved by the moderator before being published.


text:
The announcement on Friday that Katie Holmes had filed for divorce from Tom Cruise didn't come as a surprise to many who've questioned the relationship from its early Oprah-couch-bouncing days. The revelation that she's seeking sole legal custody and primary residential custody of their 6-year-old daughter Suri? Now that's news.
Unless a parent feels that a child is in danger, sole custody in divorce proceedings can be a pretty steep uphill battle. Holmes' filing means she wants to take control of her daughter's health, education and religion, and that she believes she and Cruise won't see eye to eye on these crucial decisions. If the chatter is to believed, Cruise's devotion to Scientology is driving her concerns.
Celebrity websites, including TMZ, are reporting that Holmes was worried that Cruise would spirit their daughter away to join the Sea Organization, a.k.a. Sea Org — a fraternal order of Scientology's crème de la crème, its most ardent acolytes. Other websites, like PerezHilton.com, said Cruise wanted to board Suri on Freewinds, the Scientology cruise ship that once hosted his birthday bash. The speculation reached fever pitch here:
It's not our place to judge how someone wants to raise their child … but if you ask us — sending a kindergartner to a military-style boarding school on the high seas, to be raised by people who sign a contract to work for the ship for a BILLION years is borderline abusive.
Alas, the real story is likely not quite as juicy. Freewinds is not a floating boarding school; it's a pricey destination for Scientologists who want to learn more about their religion. Children are said to be rarely allowed on board.
As for Sea Org, although it's true that its devotees make a 1 billion-year pledge as a sign of "their eternal commitment to the religion," children under 14 are not accepted. The pledge is symbolic, but joining Sea Org is still a huge step, perhaps akin to entering a monastery. In the ultimate proof of devotion to the church, active Sea Org members are not allowed to have children.
(MORE: Study: Narcissism and Religion an Unethical Mix)
For other Scientologists who do have kids, however, their religion has some pretty specific beliefs about how to raise them. On the website Scientology Parent, there are plenty of articles on child rearing; some don't appear to differ much from those on any number of mommy blogs — posts on au pairs and raising physically fit kids, for example. But scroll down — you'll find a recipe for homemade infant barley formula — and it's clear this isn't for your ordinary frazzled mom or pop wondering how to get their kid to stop grumbling and do his chores.
In one post, "Why Parent-Child Relationships Go Sour," blogger Tad Reeves talks about the principle of "exchange" — in which children give back to their family — and quotes Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard: "Parental-child relationships are sour, really, only for one good reason. And that is because the child cannot contribute equally to the parent contributions. This demonstrates the child to be much less powerful than the parents; it makes him — puts him in a bad way."
In another post, Reeves rails against the prescription of psychiatric drugs to children, warning that "if someone ever, ever attempts to label the normal behavior of my children and push them onto mind-destroying drugs — Lord help them." His comments echo the against-the-grain statements that Cruise made in 2005 about actress Brooke Shields' postpartum depression, which she treated with Paxil. In a contentious interview, Cruise told Today show host Matt Lauer that "there's no such thing as a chemical imbalance" and that antidepressants only "mask the problem." Shields, Cruise went on, should have used vitamins and exercise to heal herself:
"Here's the problem. You don't know the history of psychiatry," he told Lauer. "I do … The thing that I'm saying about Brooke is that there's misinformation, O.K. And she doesn't understand the history of psychiatry. She doesn't understand in the same way that you don't understand it, Matt."
It's possible that Holmes, who was raised Catholic, first started getting cold feet as Suri's due date approached. Cruise reportedly wanted Holmes to have a "silent birth" — a Scientologist's ideal way to deliver a child. According to Scientology Newsroom, the church's official media resource center, founder Hubbard stated that "particularly during birth, absolute silence must be maintained" by everyone around the mother (the no-words rule doesn't apply to the mother herself; the site notes that "it is doubtful that any woman could give birth without making any noise at all." For sure, there's little to argue with in that statement). Scientology Newsroom explains:
"L. Ron Hubbard discovered the hidden source of nightmares, unreasonable fears, upsets, insecurity and psychosomatic illness — the reactive mind. This part of the mind records all perceptions during times of pain and unconsciousness — which childbirth is for both mother and child. And words, in particular, spoken during these moments, can have an adverse effect on one later in life."
(MORE: Losing Your Religion? Analytic Thinking Weakens Religious Belief)
Practices like silent birth, along with adherence to other strict moral and practical guidelines, have prompted critics to label Scientology a cult. "Scientology is a potentially unsafe, if not dangerous, organization," Rick Ross, a New Jersey–based expert on cults and controversial movements who has served as an expert witness in court cases, told Reuters. "I've received complaint after complaint over the years from former members."
Children raised according to the tenets of Scientology are given a tremendous amount of responsibility and are allowed to make significant decisions; some are even able to decide when to start formal schooling. If finances permit, they attend one of about 50 Scientology schools in the U.S. or receive religious tutoring that supplements public-school education. In theory, parents help construct a self-contained world for children, so all their teachers — including dance instructors and soccer coaches — ideally practice Scientology.
Author Janet Reitman has more insight than most into the beliefs of Scientologists. She wrote Inside Scientology, which was published last July and based in part on her 2006 article in Rolling Stone that focused on the experience of young Scientologists. In this excerpt from the article, she talks about Natalie Walet, whom Reitman met when Walet was a 17-year-old practitioner:
Natalie's everyday reality is one of total immersion in all things Hubbard. Scientology kids are raised in a very different manner than mainstream kids. Most of them, like Natalie, have been educated by special tutors, and enrolled, as Natalie was when she was younger, in private schools run by Scientologists that use a Hubbard-approved study technique. Most kids are also put "on course" — enrolled in classes at the church that teach both children and adults self-control, focus and communication skills. Natalie was put on course, upon her own insistence, when she was 7 or 8 years old. Between school and church, life was "kind of a bubble," she says.
Tensions in the Cruise-Holmes household had reportedly been simmering for a while over how central a role Scientology should play in Suri's life. Apparently, Holmes is not a big fan of bubbles.


text:
Health - Ceramic Word Stone
Model: : ds6500rrr
Health stones are handmade in the USA, these ceramic stones measure approx 1 1/4" and are round in shape. But, as with all handmade items - size and shape may vary slightly. Kiln fired and hand painted, these adorable word stones can be held in your hand, put in your pocket or set on a desk as a reminder of positive messages. Stones will come in assorted colors.
QUANTITY DISCOUNTS: Buy 100+ of the Ceramic Word Stones (found in Shop > Ceramic Word Stones, not including custom designs) and the price drops to $1.50/each.
You will NOT see this change in your shopping cart until checkout where it will appear as a lump sum discount on the Payment Information page. You will see the discount BEFORE putting your credit card number in. These make great bridesmaid gifts, party favors, encouragement tokens, pick-me-ups, and motivational tools. Unique and fun!
Please note there is a handling time of up to 14 days before shipment for these items. For large quantity orders please call for specific ship times.


text:
Massive Solar Project to Open at IMS
Indianapolis Motor Speedway officials will cut the ribbon Tuesday on what's being billed as the world's largest solar-power system at a sports facility. The 9.6 megawatt, 25-acre farm will supply power to Indianapolis Power & Light Co. and is a partnership among the Speedway, California-based SunWize Technologies Inc. and Blue Renewable Energy of Arizona. It has the potential to produce enough electricity for 2,700 homes. June 27, 2014
News Release
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. – A ribbon cutting ceremony signifying the grand opening of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Solar Farm will take place at on Tuesday, July 1.
The largest facility of its kind in the world located at a sports venue, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Solar Farm will be the site of the ribbon cutting event hosted by IMS, SunWize Technologies, Blue Renewable Energy and the Indianapolis Power and Light Company.
On hand for the event will be Mark Miles, CEO, Hulman & Company; J. Douglas Boles, president, Indianapolis Motor Speedway; David Kaltsas, president and chief operating officer, SunWize Technologies; Ken Zagzebski, president, AES U.S. Strategic Business Unit and Scott Tonn, Tonn Investments principal and managing director.
WHAT: Indianapolis Motor Speedway Solar Farm Ribbon Cutting Ceremony
WHO: Mark Miles, CEO, Hulman & Company
J. Douglas Boles, president, Indianapolis Motor Speedway
David Kaltsas, president and chief operating officer, SunWize Technologies
Ken Zagzebski, president, AES U.S. Strategic Business Unit
Scott Tonn, principal and managing director, Tonn Investments
WHEN: Tuesday, July 1
WHERE: Indianapolis Motor Speedway Solar Facility
Source: Indianapolis Motor Speedway
News Release
Previously Issued February 20, 2013
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. – The Indianapolis Motor Speedway will expand its commitment to renewable energy and green initiatives by participating in a partnership with SunWize Technologies, Blue Renewable Energy, and the Indianapolis Power & Light Company to build a 25-acre solar farm on IMS property northeast of the track.
The IMS installation will be the largest solar-power system hosted at any sporting facility in the world, with 39,312 solar modules generating a total of 9.6 megawatts of power.
Construction of the ground-mounted system by San Jose, Calif.-based SunWize Technologies is scheduled to begin in May 2013, with an anticipated completion later this year. Construction will not interfere with any IMS racing events.
This commitment to solar generation at the Racing Capital of the World is equal to offsetting 10,288 tons of carbon annually.
Previous on-track green initiatives included the use of fuel-grade ethanol to power cars in the Indianapolis 500, E85 fuel powering NASCAR cars in the Crown Royal Presents the "Your Hero's Name Here" 400 at the Brickyard and the Emerging Tech Day during the Indianapolis 500, including the Purdue eV Grand Prix.
"The Indianapolis Motor Speedway was constructed over 100 years ago as a proving ground for new technologies in transportation and over the years it has seen various types of energy used to power race cars around the 2.5 mile oval," said Jeff Belskus, Indianapolis Motor Speedway Corporation president and CEO. "As we have explored renewable energy options for the automobile, we also began to look at renewable energy options for the facility itself and we are pleased that a portion of IMS property will be used to generate solar power through this partnership."
The solar farm is a significant private-public partnership among national and Central Indiana companies, all of which are committed to finding creative solutions to increasing sustainability by helping to increase sources of renewable energy generation.
SunWize Technologies, Inc., and Phoenix-based Blue Renewable Energy have co-developed the project, while Blue Renewable Energy has entered into a land-lease agreement with IMS to build the system on the property. The system will be designed, engineered and installed by SunWize Technologies. The system inverters, racking and wiring all will be made in the United States. Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) will be the system off-taker under the terms of a Power Purchase Agreement, subject to the approval of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, and will own the Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) produced by the solar power system.
"We have been co-developing this project with SunWize for over a year, and we are tremendously pleased with our accomplishments," said Mike Lafferty, president of Blue Renewable Energy. "This project will really shine a spotlight on the significant environmental and social benefits of renewable energy. We are thrilled to partner with SunWize and the Speedway on a project that will continue to have a positive impact for years to come."
"IPL is proud to be part of this project with IMS, the largest spectator sporting facility in the world and a global icon for Indianapolis and the state of Indiana," said Ken Zagzebski, IPL president and CEO. "Solar generation plays a significant part of maintaining our leadership in renewable energy technologies, which also includes wind generation and plug-in electric vehicles."
SunWize is working with Indianapolis-based Alpha Engineering Inc. on local interconnection standards and the IPL application process.
"We are honored to partner with both Blue Renewable Energy and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to design and build a system of this magnitude," said David Kaltsas, SunWize president and chief operating officer. "Through the process of constructing the system, SunWize looks forward to providing the local community opportunities for renewable energy jobs."
About Indianapolis Motor Speedway
The Indianapolis Motor Speedway has been the worldwide leader in motorsports entertainment since it opened in 1909. The facility has hosted the Indianapolis 500, the world's largest single-day annual sporting event, since 1911 and also is the site of the Crown Royal Presents the "Your Hero's Name Here" 400 at the Brickyard and the Red Bull Indianapolis GP. The NASCAR Nationwide Series and GRAND-AM Road Racing also race at the Speedway. IMS is the world's largest spectator sporting facility and is the only venue to stage annual races in the IZOD IndyCar Series, NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, NASCAR Nationwide Series, GRAND-AM Road Racing and MotoGP.
About Blue Renewable Energy
Blue Renewable Energy is a late stage developer and financing partner specializing in renewable energy projects. The company provides complete turnkey solutions to assist its best-in-class partners and their clients in the pursuit of the benefits renewable energy offers. Blue Renewable Energy offers private ownership, adept funding, energy experts, buying power, industry knowledge of leadership, due diligence, confidentiality, flexibility and a full understanding of "Green Politics."
About SunWize Technologies
SunWize is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mitsui & Co. (USA). Mitsui, a global Fortune 150 and $66B organization, is listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index. Delivering sustainable energy solutions to leading public and private organizations for over twenty years, SunWize is a global Engineering, Procurement, and Construction company, a premier Distributor of sustainable energy products, and a Developer of engineered solutions for mission-critical projects. By leveraging Mitsui's global network both upstream and downstream, SunWize provides Businesses, Government Agencies and Dealers with the resources they need to execute sustainable energy projects on time and within budget. For more information, visit www.sunwize.com.
About Indianapolis Power & Light Company
Indianapolis Power & Light Company provides retail electric servi


text:
Princeton University's 2012-13 Annual Giving campaign raised $57,019,138 — the second-highest total in Annual Giving history — with 61.1 percent of undergraduate alumni participating. The results are notable for their strength and breadth across all of Princeton's constituencies: undergraduate alumni, graduate alumni, parents and friends.
"This year's Annual Giving results are truly remarkable," said President Christopher L. Eisgruber, a member of the Class of 1983. "These unrestricted funds are vital to sustaining Princeton's distinctive mission as a great research university with an unmatched commitment to liberal arts education, while also helping us to meet the full financial needs of our students. My sincere thanks go out to all the volunteers for their hard work and dedication, and to alumni, parents and friends for their loyal and ever-generous support of Princeton."
Undergraduate alumni participation in Annual Giving surpassed 61 percent for the second time in three years, drawing the largest number of alumni donors ever: 36,825. In addition, the 2012-13 campaign brought in a record number of gifts from all constituencies: 44,871.
The Class of 1988, with a participation rate of 77.6 percent, raised the greatest amount — $9,001,988, the second-highest total ever for a Princeton class. The 50th Reunion Class of 1963 raised a record-setting $8,500,063 from 84.1 percent of its members. Two other major Reunion classes set new records: the Class of 1983, which broke the 30th Reunion record with $4,313,083; and the Class of 1993, which raised $2,302,693 in celebration of its 20th Reunion.
The Class of 1958 finished with $2,069,483, the second-highest total for a 55th Reunion class. Four other major Reunion classes raised more than $1 million: 1978 with $2,192,492; 1973 with $1,375,970; 1968 with $1,110,119; and 1998 with $1,007,515.
A record-setting $1,859,038 was received from 3,097 graduate alumni — the largest number of graduate alumni donors ever. Princeton parents gave more than $3 million for the second year in a row, contributing $3,024,809 to the total.
The Class of 1981 raised the highest total among non-major Reunion classes, with $688,321; 11 other non-major Reunion classes also set records.
The Class of 1936 had the highest participation rate: 100 percent of the class's six members made gifts to Annual Giving. Their result was closely followed by the Class of 2012, with 84.8 percent in its first Annual Giving campaign; the Class of 1963, with 84.1 percent on the occasion of its 50th Reunion; and the Class of 2010, which reached 81.4 percent. Ten other classes recorded participation rates of 70 percent or higher.
The youngest five classes averaged 76.8 percent participation, and the youngest 10 classes averaged 71.9 percent participation. The Class of 2013, the University's newest alumni, achieved a pledge rate of 90.1 percent, with 1,165 of its members pledging to support Annual Giving for the next four years.
"I am grateful to our extraordinary volunteer corps who year in, year out give their time and energy in order to bring about each campaign's results," said Annual Giving Chair John O. "Dubby" Wynne, a member of the Class of 1967. "The fact that 61.1 percent of undergraduate alumni participated in this year's effort speaks volumes not only to the substance of our great University, but also to the dedication of the entire Princeton family."
Unrestricted gifts to Annual Giving go directly into the operating budget and have an immediate impact on Princeton and its students. These flexible funds allow the University to seize new intellectual opportunities, respond to unexpected challenges and support a groundbreaking financial aid program that makes a Princeton education possible for all admitted students.


text:
Steve Cummins
Freelance PPC Consultant
Steve Cummins
Freelance PPC Consultant
Steve Cummins
Freelance PPC Consultant
Freelance PPC Consultant UK
Certified Google Ads specialist with 10+ years of experience managing paid marketing accounts for businesses.
I help companies grow and prosper online with results-driven PPC marketing which delivers a return on investment and brings new leads and sales.
I provide lead generation to businesses from a variety of different industry sectors and I work closely with my clients to achieve their paid marketing goals. My experience and knowledge has helped me establish a standout reputation and I have a proven track record in getting results, fast!
For results-driven PPC management services please call on 07722 161092
What is Pay-Per-Click?
PPC marketing allows advertisers to show ads to their target audience almost immediately. This can be through keyword targeting for Paid Search adverts, where advertisers select relevant keywords that their potential customers will be searching for.
I'm fully qualified to manage paid advertising campaigns across many platforms including Google Ads, Microsoft Ads, Facebook Ads, Instagram Ads and LinkedIn Ads.
Google Ads (AdWords)
There are many forms of Pay-Per-Click and the most popular is Google Ads (formerly Google AdWords). Google Ads is segmented into many platforms, including Paid Search, Shopping Ads, Display Ads, Remarketing and YouTube Ads.
- Paid Search refers to sponsored results that appear at the top of Google search listings when you run a search query
- Display Ads refers to textual or graphical advertisements placed on third party webpages
- Shopping also appears in the sponsored search results, but your advert will show a product image and price, unlike Paid Search which is just text ads
- Remarketing allows you to target your advertising to people that have visited your site already, allowing you to convert window shoppers into customers
- YouTube offers In-Stream and In-Display advertising on the website, showing ads before users watch a video on YouTube
Get in touch with a qualified Google Ads expert by calling 07722 161092
Pay-Per-Click Management
Many business owners attempt to manage paid advertising campaigns themselves and soon realise it takes a trained professional, like myself, to get your PPC campaigns driving more leads and sales and delivering a healthy profit on your investment.
I will identify the best bidding strategies for your ad campaigns, implement a state-of-the-art tracking system for monitoring conversions (leads and sales), and provide monthly reports which detail performance and insights.
I mostly provide clients with full-scale PPC management but, I can also offer one-time campaign restructuring for businesses that require a helping hand. This is ideal for businesses that have an in-house marketing team.
What I offer:
- One-off campaign restructuring
- Full-scale PPC management
- Keyword and competition analysis
- Lead tracking software integration
- Increased conversion rates
- Lowered CPC across all keywords
- Cost-effective bidding strategies
Free PPC Audit
As part of my PPC management services I offer a free PPC Audit for all new clients. I will analyse your current campaigns and report on what I find to be working well, and what isn't. This will give you a better idea of current performance with expert analysis that is completely transparent.
To speak with a PPC specialist please call on 07722 161092
Send me a message!
Fill out the below contact form and I will be in touch.
Freelance PPC consultant – 07722 161092
Bedfordshire | Berkshire | Bristol | Buckinghamshire | Cambridgeshire | Cheshire | Cornwall | Cumbria | Derbyshire | Devon | Dorset | County Durham | East Sussex | East Yorkshire | Essex | Gloucestershire | Greater Manchester | Hampshire | Herefordshire | Hertfordshire | Isle of Wight | Kent | Lancashire | Leicestershire | Lincolnshire | London | Merseyside | Norfolk | North Yorkshire | Northamptonshire | Northumberland | Nottinghamshire | Oxfordshire | Rutland | Shropshire | Somerset | South Yorkshire | Staffordshire | Suffolk | Surrey | Tyne and Wear | Warwickshire | West Midlands | West Sussex | West Yorkshire | Wiltshire | Worcestershire


text:
NEW YORK (AP) — The Baltimore Ravens' victory over the San Francisco 49ers has set a record for highest overnight ratings in Super Bowl history.
The Nielsen company reported the game scored a 48.1 rating and 71 share in its select measurement of big cities. That's 1 percent over a similar measurement in last year's game.
For three years in a row, the Super Bowl has set a new record for most-watched event in U.S. television history. Nielsen is expected to have an estimate of how many people watched the game later on Monday.
One ratings point represents 1,147,000 households, or 1 percent of the nation's estimated 114.7 million TV homes. The share means that 71 percent of TVs that were on at the time were tuned to the Super Bowl.