Why did the Christian messiah fail to fulfill the messianic prophecies?

The way it connects is obvious: It's the explanation of what it means for the star to stop. You disagree that it is a good explanation, that's fine, but there's no doubt about its meaning.

I'm not aware of "ignoring" anything. I reported that Larson came to the conclusion that the stopping of the "star" was explained by the point where it stops in its orbit before moving retrograde, which happened at the time the Magi were coming into Bethlehem. It implies it wouldn't have been noticed by many besides the Magi themselves.(However, people in those days would have been quite familiar with the night sky so maybe more did notice it, the fact that Jupiter had stopped in its orbit against the backdrop of the stars. I don't know Paul. As I said you are free to have a different opinion about it. Jupiter may not have been the star, but it seems to me it's the best candidate so far, among natural possibilities that is, and that's what I'd expect it to be.) The only other option I see is something miraculous. While the Magi would no doubt have also followed a miraculous "star," I think that since they were really the only ones who knew what it meant, and even Herod hadn't been following it, it's more likely to have been a natural event that only the Magi understood. A "star" that went before them being in the southern sky as they approached Bethlehem, a "star" that stopped moving against the background of the zodiac when they arrived.And since all the other astronomical phenomena Larson shows in the video are natural, that adds to the idea the star should also have been natural.But of course there's room for disagreement. Do you have an explanation for the star yourself?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes I meant to mention the shepherds, since they also hadn't noticed the star, which makes it more likely it was an astronomical phenomenon the Magi were in an educated position to recognize while most otherw weren't. Which adds to the idea that it could have been a planet stopping before going retrograde, since they'd have been experienced in recognizing that phenomenon.And again I'd point out that the other astronomical phenomena Larson considers, and shows via his Astronomy program, were natural: the woman clothed with the sun with the moon at her feet and twelve stars on her head in particular, and the blood moon, both described in scripture in relation to the coming of the Messiah.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, I deduced it from what Larson said, but I don't know if he had that in mind. It is implicit though. Since the scripture says Herod didn't know when the star had appeared, and since the shepherds don't seem to have noticed it, as jar pointed out, and because apparently only the Magi visited Bethlehem during the appearance of the phenomenon, that does make it likely it would have been something the Magi were educated to recognize while others weren't. Not a miracle, not some spectacular occurrence, but something natural if striking enough to catch the attention of the Magi....Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think it was an angel because:

• Angels appeared to the shepherds, nobody has a problem recognizing an angel. Why would scripture call it a star if it was an angel?
  ​
• The Magi would have known it was an angel. Again, why call it a star if it's an angel?
  ​
• The Magi called it a star to Herod, who asked when it had appeared. They didn't say "We saw an angel in the east," they said they saw a star. And that star went before them to Bethlehem after they saw Herod.

But again, you are welcome to your opinion David. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Jupiter takes twelve years to circuit the sun, so it can persist a very long time in one position against the background of the stars, taking a a whole year to move through any one of the twelve constellations in the Zodiac.How long would you give the Magi for their travel from Babylon to Judea? Larson gave them about six months.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The angels had appeared to them while they were watching their flock "in the field" [Luke 2:8 on] and they went to see the newborn King soon after his birth. Yes, it would have been some time after his birth, but if they left soon after they saw the star announcing his birth they would have arrived sooner than two years later. What scripture is your source?: It's not the entire period of the retrograde we're talking about, it's the point at which Jupiter stopped going forward in its orbit before reversing direction, when it would appear to have stopped. Yes it was. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am not arguing for the daily movement of the objects in the sky, I'm arguing for the movement of the planets against the constellations and the stars, which the Magi would have recognized.

No, the problem is that you are failing to grasp what it means for a planet to appear to stop against the background of the stars, and confusing it with the movement of the sky over a day, a distinction which the Magi could appreciate because of their education.And by the way you are making personal accusations again. I am not making stuff up, you missed my point. Personal accusations are against the rules, jar, cut it out.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Magi knew how to read the planets. You don't.

I don't recall mentioning an "astrological interpretation" of the star. Please quote me if you think I did. And Larson is no astrologer, any comments he makes about meaning are clearly taken from xcripture. He quotes a ton of scripture in the video, to show how the astronomical movements fit the quotes. In any case I don't recall ANYTHING about an astrological interpretation of the star itself. I'm talking only about its movements as the Magi could appreciate them, which there is no reason to think anyone else would have. Well I'm trying NOT to talk about apparent motion but about motion against the backdrop of the stars, which the Magi are likely to have trecognized even if nobody else did. I've made the case many times so far from different angles. That's possible, but he didn't grasp its import until the Magi made it clear, or he would have already been murdering babies. There is only one conjunction mentioned, Jupiter with Venus seen in the east which is what the Magis understood to be the herald of the King of the Jews. There is no other conjunction mentioned, there is only Jupiter alone appearing to lead them from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Same star without the conjunction. No conjunction lasts for more than a very brief time. No, I see it as a bright natural object that the Magi would have appreciated more than anyone else would have been able to. Nothing misleading about that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ya know what, I think anyone who follows Larson's scripture quotes, and follows the astronomical information given by the Astronomy program Larson uses (Starry Night*), understands it, is honest about it, would have to conclude that scripture really is reflected in the heavens, in the Zodiac and the planets, and despite the possibility of some error in the timing made by Larson, this connection is NO FABLE. But if you refuse to watch it, refuse to think about it, prefer to distort and accuse and interpret it without the slightest knowledge of it, of course you'll miss the opportunity to recognize this.*(I looked up the program, it is advertised as about $250, and quite professional.)ABE: So it doesn't get lost, a reminder that the video is posted in Message 438 and I gave a sketch of its contents, at least the astronomical part, in Message 440Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You haven't watched the night sky from Babylon in 3BC, jar.And as I just said, calling it mythology without even watching it means you are utterly ignorant of the facts. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The conjunctions with Jupiter and Regulus occurred a year before the Magi traveled to Bethlehem; that conjunction occurred in relation to what Larson came to see as the time of the Annunciation or conception. Nine months later the conjunction between Jupiter and Venus occurred, an entirely different event.I see what you mean about the astrological meanings now, the king planet Jupiter with the king star Regulus, yes (which Larson says probably occurs maybe three times in a long lifetime), and the King planet Jupiter with the mother planet Venus, yes, both of which are only significant in relation to the dates as they fit into scripture. But while those are very suggestive, the astrological meanings connected directly with scripture in the Revelation 12 woman as Virgo, and the blood moon of the Joel prophecy, are the most important. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But the story IS literally true and that's where a Christian starts. There is nothing you can say to change that. Debunkers have to assume such an egregious degree of lying and misinformation in the scripture it's ludicrous. Even that the Magi had no reason to be interested in a King of the Jews? Well it says they were. That's where a Christian starts. What was the star? That is what we are puzzled about and offering interpretations to explain. We know it existed, whatever it was, because scripture reports it.Why might they be interested in a king of the Jews? Because they were Jews themselves perhaps, as Larson suggests? I think that's a good guess. But if they recognized that it wasn't just an earthly king being heralded in the astronomical phenomena they saw, but the birth of the King of Kings or God Himself, THAT might have been enough to attract even a Babylonian wise man to worship him.There really are no problems if you know that the Bible is God's word. It's just a matter of finding out what some obscure things mean, and if we don't find them there's no need to worry about it. But it's fun to find the good fits. And there are some spectacularly good fits in this video (Message 438).Edited by Faith, : No reason given.