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

There you go making stuff up again. I at least know what would have been seen in reality as opposed to what is written in the folk tale.I know it bothers you when I point out that you are making stuff up but you have no idea of what I might know about planet reading as though there were even such a thing.There was no "Star over Bethlehem" that could have been identified or followed by anyone in Babylon.It's a fable Faith; a tale created to add significance to Jesus birth.

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 may not know it but what the program does is to display the night sky just as someone lying on the ground would see it.Some of use have done just that.And the idea that scripture is reflected in the planets or Zodiac is pure mythology.It really is that simple.The fact is that nothing in the skies stood over Bethlehem for even one night and nothing in the skies would point to Bethlehem if viewed from Babylon.

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.

Of course that is irrelevant even if it was true, which it isn't. The facts as I have posted them remain the facts. There is nothing in the night sky that would guide anyone to Bethlehem if seen from Babylon. Everything in the night sky would rise in the east and set in the west; nothing would stand still in the sky. Just a few of the online night sky simulators available onlineAbE: It is the Bible story that is mythology. The video is just preaching to the choir.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

quote:

---

I don't recall mentioning an "astrological interpretation" of the star.

---

That is quite bizarre as it is a major part of the argument - and even implicitly present in Matthew!See Message 440E.g. The astrology is what makes the supposed star significant. However you are missing the point that the motion you are NOT talking about is the visible motion and the natural interpretation of Matthew is that it refers to visible motion. Not a motion that can only be worked out by astrological calculations that are never mentioned, has no obvious way of identifying a particular location - and when the people supposedly relying on this calculation do not even seem to know the location that they have apparently worked out in advance.

quote:

---

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.

---

In fact you mention conjunctions of Jupiter with Regulus. But pointing to the star as Jupiter alone does not help you. If the appearance of the star is a conjunction then the conjunction must be the star - because that is what appeared. If the star is Jupiter it certainly did not first appear in the June of 2BC !

quote:

---

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

---

It wouldn't be if that was what Matthew said, but it is not. None of Larson's interpretation fits with the natural reading of Matthew with regard to the behaviour of the star.

But it moves across the night sky each night

Speaking of fulfilled prophecy, how about you answer my question? According to your MATH, 2012 was the beginning of the Great Tribulation and the reign of the Antichrist. How come no-one noticed?

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.

You are missing the point that without an astrological interpretation the magi had no reason to even go to Jerusalem. The fact that Larson's interpretations lack support from ancient documents is another of the problems with his claims (that the magi would actually care about a "King of the Jews" is a problem with the idea that the story is literally true).

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.

That's what I've always thought.But don't the prophecies about the King of the Jews supposedly specify Bethlehem? Why would Jewish scholars need a star for navigation?

Maybe because they lived in Babylon?

quote:

---

But the story IS literally true and that's where a Christian starts.

---

That may be your assumption, but I see no reason why a Christian has to assume the literal truth of the story. And there are good reasons for doubting it which a Christian ought to acknowledge.

quote:

---

Debunkers have to assume such an egregious degree of lying and misinformation in the scripture it's ludicrous.

---

I certainly don't assume lying in this case and I have not even alleged misinformation. Although by endorsing Larson's interpretation you have assumed that Matthew is oversimplified and misleading to,the point where it might be considered such.

quote:

---

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

---

A bunch of wild speculations is hardly sufficient to deal with the problem.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you care about honesty and truth there certainly are problems. Not least for you the fact that many books of the Bible identify themselves explicitly or implicitly as human creations.