Christmas Star Explained

...make a thread about it. discuss it there. that is neither what that verse means, nor what shiloh evidently means. you are horrendously misreading things, again.

---

quote:

---

err, no. assuming that shiloh = jesus (we'll hold off on that part for the moment), zedekiah, the last king of judah, died more than five hundred years before jesus was born.

---

Is there a point here??? So? What, you think that that guy dying means that the Sceptre of God could not come as indicated??

quote:

---

i'm not sure how you're drawing these connections. is it at random? it seems like it.

---

If you mean from the verses I gave, I could explain a bit more, I suppose.Gen 49:10
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.Here is my take. The presence of the Father, (the Lawgiver) in the form of the starship, that would appear over the birth of Shiloh.The departing of the Sceptre, or presence of the Father after the birth of Jesus, insinuates that now men would only have Shiloh as a way to be the people or kingdom of God. Only to Jesus would the gathering of the people now be!!!In fact, I believe, so total was this departure, that, as Jesus died, that moment, the ark of the covenant was taken to heaven.The records were messed with, and this fact covered up, in my opinion. As if the ark were lost in ages past, and never there.But, that too is another story.You can't deny that Shiloh did come, and it seems a strong interpretation that fits with the rest of the bible, that the Sceptre was the Lawgiver, or Father that looked down on Jesus, and was that Christmas Star!

quote:

---

... and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.

​

was THAT ever a quotemine! in otherwords, it's about a jesus. you just picked the wrong one. who smote moab? who possessed edom and seir? i'll give you a hint -- it happens only a few books later.

---

Ah, no. This is why I say it is somewhat of a mystery, or has been. Like a riddle." It is exceedingly difficult to fix the true sense of this prophecy in all its particulars. Probably the star, Numbers 24:17, is only an emblem of kingly power. Among the Egyptians a star is said to have been the symbol of the Divine Being. The sceptre refers to the kingly power in exercise. The corners or outskirts may mean the petty Moabitish governments, as the Chaldee has understood the term. If karkar, which we translate utterly destroy, be not the name of a place here, as it is in Judges 8:10, (which is not very likely,) it may be taken in one of those senses assigned to it, (See Clarke on Numbers 24:17.) and signify the blending together the children of Sheth, that is, all the inhabitants of the earth; for so the children of Sheth must necessarily be understood, unless we consider it here as meaning some king of the Moabites, according to Grotius, or a city on the borders of Moab, according to Rabbi Nathan. As neither Israel nor the Messiah ever destroyed all the children of men, we must (in order to leave the children of Sheth what they are generally understood to be, all the inhabitants of the world) understand the whole as a prophecy of the final universal sway of the sceptre of Christ, when the middle wall of partition shall be broken down, and the Jews and Gentiles become one united, blended fold, under one shepherd and bishop of their souls."
Numbers 24 - Clarke's Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.orgSo, we can have the people being blended, or, as the other verse put it, 'gathered' by Jesus, eventually!!! The star was visible in that area, which means all the way out to the borders of Moab. If we look that up, we see that isn't all that far. Again, this all goes to showing that the star could not be anything but a starship, or it would have been seen a lot further.Piece of cake.

quote:

---

"nigh" means "now."

---

Near, means close. so? Of course the Sceptre was not to be seen until Shiloh came. I never said that they had to see it who were nigh to the time of the prophesy.

quote:

---

i don't know what you think "scepter" means. but it's a staff

---

Especially the one of a king. In the sense here. But that is picking daisies." Verse 10. From Judah the sceptre shall not depart
The Jews have a quibble on the word shebet, which we translate sceptre; they say it signifies a staff or rod, and that the meaning of it is, that "afflictions shall not depart from the Jews till the Messiah comes;" that they are still under affliction and therefore the Messiah is not come. This is a miserable shift to save a lost cause. Their chief Targumist, Onkelos, understood and translated the word nearly as we do; and the same meaning is adopted by the Jerusalem Targum, and by all the ancient versions, the Arabic excepted, which has [Arabic] kazeeb, a rod; but in a very ancient MS. of the Pentateuch in my own possession the word [Arabic] sebet is used, which signifies a tribe. Judah shall continue a distinct tribe till the Messiah shall come; and it did so; and after his coming it was confounded with the others, so that all distinction has been ever since lost."
Genesis 49 - Clarke's Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.orgAnother point you may want to take note of here. The lawgiver, or principal of the verse had a sceptre. God is known to have one, as other verses show!!! PsalmBut"There is no example on record of a sceptre having ever been actually handled by a Jewish king."
Bible Dictionary: Sceptre

quote:

---

yes. it's a symbol of royalty. so is a throne. both signify a king. an earthly king sat on a throne, and held a scepter. one of the classic images of god is as a king, so they use kingly terminology.

---

Not an earthly king of Israel. Work on that.

You make a thread if you can't read the bible. God has wheels. They fly. You can't deny it. Face it. Ask around.
If you have something relative to why they did not fly over the birth of His son, do let us in on it. If you have some evidence, do tell. Otherwise, it seems like you are not really in the spirit of things here.

quote:

---

that is neither what that verse means, nor what shiloh evidently means. you are horrendously misreading things, again.

---

Your opinion is noted. But the verse speaks for itself.Focus on the fact that there was a star over the birth of Jesus, according to the bible. Deal with it, regardless of whether you agree that it is what some other verse may or may not be talking about.Have you the slightest reason to think that something other than a ship would better fit the bill here??

i think you are utterly incapable of reading the bible in a straight-forward, literal way. you're always looking to bend something out of context. sball not depart... until. do i have to diagram this? it's there when israel gives it to judah. it's there as all the kinds of judah rule. it will leave when "peace" comes. get that? you're reading it backwards, on top of your obvious misinterpretation. do you just make this stuff up? i could but a few hundred "random fundie obsessions" into a hat, and draw them at random, and make more sense than this. "let's see, the loch ness monster... is the holy grail... and the antichrist will... find noah's ark... in america."come on. yes, it is, because the ark disappears around 600 BC. you know, when judah was ran sacked by babylon and carried off into exile. i really wish you could take this stuff seriously. i think you should stay off that site. it's evidently polluting your mind. the verse says destroy, and this sort of gibberish is teaching you that it's ok to just randomly change a word's meaning to make the verse say what you want.it's not. and it's very disrespectful to the bible. yes. everything's a UFO now. the sun in genesis 1? UFO. the moon? UFO. stars? UFOs. windows of the heavens? UFOs. fountains of the deep? underwater UFOs. pharaoh's chariots? UFOs. the pillar of fire/smoke? UFO. god's backside that moses sees? UFO. could you just stop for a second, and try to think clearly about this? this is the verse that sets up the kings of judah. it's about the kings of judah. period. the "scepter" is the symbol of judah's royalty. not a flying saucer. and it says that judah's sons will be kings until the end. i'm sorry. even your sources show that you are wrong. the verse is not about a flying saucer. archaeologically? there's barely record of jewish kings, period. even so, it's not a literal object. it's a symbol of power -- a symbol. the verse is about judah's royalty not an object he possesses.

---

no, evidently, it's you who can't read the bible. you have misinterpretted and misrepresented every verse you have ever discussed here in the mose simply ludicrous ways imaginable.this is your baby. you're the one talking about ezekiel 1 in every thread your participating in. you make a thread for your position. if by "not in the spirit of things" you mean "not buying your bullshit hook line and sinker" then, no. i am not.it says a star. so it means a star. at worst, the magi were more astrologically aware than the israelites, so it could have been a more abstract astrological alignment -- and people have made somewhat convincing cases for that. but it doesn't mean a UFO. you can't just read everything as being about UFOs. it does, and it makes the people who can read it wonder what the hell you're going on about. er, actually, no. it says a star led the magi to bayitlechem. it doesn't say it was "over" jesus. and even so, it says a star not a flying saucer! YES!"a star" fits fine! "an astrological sign" might fit better. "a UFO" DOES NOT!

---

quote:

---

sball not depart... until. do i have to diagram this? it's there when israel gives it to judah. it's there as all the kinds of judah rule. it will leave when "peace" comes. get that? you're reading it backwards, on top of your obvious misinterpretation.

---

The Prince of Peace came. The wheels of God flew for more than just a few years at Bethlehem. As was evidenced in Ezekiel.

quote:

---

do you just make this stuff up? i could but a few hundred "random fundie obsessions" into a hat, and draw them at random, and make more sense than this. "let's see, the loch ness monster... is the holy grail... and the antichrist will... find noah's ark... in america."

​

come on.

---

Nope. The veil was rent. The records of the time do not reflect that. What were they going to say, 'Go home now people, no more tithing needed, God, and the ark are not here no more, go home'?? Get serious.
I have heard one legend that says they sewed it back up, and made like it never happened. It should not be a surprise that no ark was found by the Romans, or that the records of it are not there. I am serious.

quote:

---

yes, it is, because the ark disappears around 600 BC. you know, when judah was ran sacked by babylon and carried off into exile.

---

I don't believe that, I think that the records were missing on purpose.

quote:

---

i think you should stay off that site. it's evidently polluting your mind. the verse says destroy, and this sort of gibberish is teaching you that it's ok to just randomly change a word's meaning to make the verse say what you want.

---

I think scholars, and bible commentaries are a good thing, and that it takes the spirit to chose between what eligible meanings are available. In fact I know it.

quote:

---

yes. everything's a UFO now. the sun in genesis 1? UFO. the moon? UFO. stars? UFOs. windows of the heavens? UFOs. fountains of the deep? underwater UFOs. pharaoh's chariots? UFOs. the pillar of fire/smoke? UFO. god's backside that moses sees? UFO.

---

Your incredulity problem with God's word and how He has wheels is getting comical.

quote:

---

could you just stop for a second, and try to think clearly about this? this is the verse that sets up the kings of judah. it's about the kings of judah. period. the "scepter" is the symbol of judah's royalty. not a flying saucer. and it says that judah's sons will be kings until the end.

---

Stop right there, that is your opinion only. And I already pointed out that no king of Israel ever touched a sceptre. God has one, however as the bible says, and the verse I gave already. There are ultimate fulfillments and there are fulfillments, and various degrees of truths about prophesy. You latch onto a fragment, and act like that is the be all end all, 'it all revolves around Israel, and it's leaders.' No. Sorry, you need to lose that bias. It is coloring your take on things.

quote:

---

archaeologically? there's barely record of jewish kings, period. even so, it's not a literal object. it's a symbol of power -- a symbol. the verse is about judah's royalty not an object he possesses.

---

Any way you want to shake it. It was a symbol, right, of whose power??? God's. Who had the Sceptre? God did. Who was the Lawgiver? God was. Who had wheels, and a throne? God did. Are you getting some of this????Edited by simple, : No reason given.

quote:

---

you're the one talking about ezekiel 1 in every thread your participating in. you make a thread for your position.

---

Only where it pertains to the topic.

quote:

---

it says a star. so it means a star. at worst, the magi were more astrologically aware than the israelites, so it could have been a more abstract astrological alignment -- and people have made somewhat convincing cases for that. but it doesn't mean a UFO. you can't just read everything as being about UFOs.

---

No it does not, if you look up what was called a star by the ancients, you would know that. No, it could not be an alignment, any more than SN1987a could lead the tooth fairy to your suite. You keep repeating UFO, as if that is a bad word. Yet, you can't give a reasoned answer as to why a ship could not be what the Christmas star was. Grow an integrity meter, as Razd might say.

quote:

---

er, actually, no. it says a star led the magi to bayitlechem. it doesn't say it was "over" jesus. and even so, it says a star not a flying saucer!

---

Almost any light in the sly, or planet was called a star. Focus. Try and know your walk, before you talk the talk.Edited by simple, : No reason given.

You will note that I have restricted your ability to post new topics and am going to be watching you very closely. EvC is not your personal blog to argue endlessly with people without providing any support for your argument.I am going to give you a month to turn the other cheek and consider that you are not uniquely blessed with intelligence that some of our respected members lack.I believe that if you seriously want to learn something here, or even if you feel you have a calling to teach us something here, you will embrace the discipline and attempt to grow an integrity meter of your own.If not, there are many other places on the internet where you can argue to your hearts content.If you really want to learn how to be better at debate, you will hang in there with us.

---

If you want to learn, that is a good thing. If someone has something in the way of science or bible I can learn from I also will do that.Any place where they have no evidence for a myth, and expect others to have for a bible case, I am not interested in the least in having a new thread relax.Those who restrict themselves to the physical only box, may believe as they wish. I already won that debate, no need to waste time exposing the absolute fact that the state of the future and past are not known or knowable to science, therefore not science.I have my own myths, thank you very much, you are welcome to yours.Edited by simple, : No reason given.

You won no debate, fool. You delude yourself more and more with every post you make. No one has anything at all to learn from your fractured pathetic logic and unsupported detail, along with your cocky self-centered attitude and supremacy that you swing around with you wherever you go.The "Myths" we parade are the culmination of some of the brightest work of the brightest minds of the past centuary and beyond in more scientific fields than can easily be counted, do not even begin to insult them by putting your convoluted and irrational conclusions on the same level as theirs. Your work is not equal to theirs, and by the way you talk and act, it will never be.You have won nothing. I find it hard to believe that you won out on RAZD in a structured and logical manner; it is more likely that you defeated him with a torrent of Simple foolishness, or more likely, that other matters pressed him more than setting a misguided imbecile straight. If this is not the case, contact RAZD and have him come to this thread and acknowledge his so called defeat at your hands.The state of the future and the past are concrete, and thus in the realm of science. Your BS is in the realm of Lewis Caroll and nothing more.Show some respect for the moderators, if its at all possible to tone down your impudance. They have acheived their station by means that you will NEVER acheive; it is not in your capacity.You have your own deluded myths, and few have a problem with that. But you have no respect, no logic, and absolutly no sense of what a scientific debate is. As Phat said, there are places on the internet for crackpots; this is not one of them.ABE: Ahh i almost forgot to respond to the ad hominum. Id rather take my measly ~150 posts and maintain some sort of respect and dignity whenever i post, and some logic and methodology whenever i think rather than have your ~2000 posts and post like i had mercury for breakfast, lunch, and dinner as a child.Edited by Damouse, : Forgot to respond to a section.

---

This statement is false.Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.

quote:

---

You won no debate, fool. You delude yourself more and more with every post you make. No one has anything at all to learn from your fractured pathetic logic and unsupported detail, along with your cocky self-centered attitude and supremacy that you swing around with you wherever you go.

---

You call names, then talk about attitude??? Strange. You may not be aware of what debate I meant. I referred to some opportunities posters on this forum have had to support the so called science that needs a present state, in the past, to be valid.Not only can they not do it at all, but, they won't allow others to look at their abject failures in a new thread here. Instead, they prefer to limit all so called debate to the natural only, that is only assumed in the past. Which is frankly, as phat called something recently, 'utterly ridiculous'. Really.

quote:

---

The "Myths" we parade are the culmination of some of the brightest work of the brightest minds of the past centuary and beyond in more scientific fields than can easily be counted, do not even begin to insult them by putting your convoluted and irrational conclusions on the same level as theirs. Your work is not equal to theirs, and by the way you talk and act, it will never be.

---

Too bad they don't allow me to address that claptrap. Maybe you better stick to the topic. like a church where they preach something that is utterly ridiculous inside, and others are not allowed in to talk.

quote:

---

The state of the future and the past are concrete, and thus in the realm of science. Your BS is in the realm of Lewis Caroll and nothing more.

---

You have no idea what you are talking about. Your BS is in the realm of Lewis Caroll and nothing more. Otherwise you could tell us here and now why the new heavens or universe of the bible can never come!!! The future is unknown, not plaster, or concrete.Even the Christmas star is unknown, and I propose here that it is for the same reason, that it involves the spiritual, so science can't know it.I don't eveb see any semi serious attempts here at using science, or physics. Like, 'The light was too high up, not to be seen, if it was so and so high, and we have such and such records to verify that' Etc.

quote:

---

Show some respect for the moderators, if its at all possible to tone down your impudance. They have acheived their station by means that you will NEVER acheive; it is not in your capacity.

---

I will try ans show as much respect as I am shown, is that OK with you??

quote:

---

You have your own deluded myths, and few have a problem with that. But you have no respect, no logic, and absolutly no sense of what a scientific debate is. As Phat said, there are places on the internet for crackpots; this is not one of them.

---

His or your opinion of what a crackpot is and a dollar might get you a dougnut. The glaring fact that all you have is belief, and don't want the kind of debate that exposes that speaks volumes. I am not on the defensive here. Never will be any more, time for you guys to learn all about turning the other cheek. And I don't mean just with me posting under the name Simple, here either. Your position is becoming more and more known, not just on this little forum.Now, have some respect for a thread, and address the topic. That is how debate actually works.

The tone is starting to get a bit nasty.Damouse, you shouldn't let simple get to you. Just ignore him. He is aptly named on here.

you have not established that one has anything to do with the other. i'm sorry, but that comment border on antisemitism. that's absolutely disgusting -- not to mention completely bogus. no, read the bible more carefully. the ark is not in the jewish records of what was carried off into exile in babylon. it disappears from history more than five hundred years before that. almost certainly. the general consensus is that it was hidden somewhere. you don't listen to scholars. you listen to one site (it's all i've EVER seen you reference). and then you use that as a starting point, and come up with these crazy theories of yours. i think you would do quite well to listen to scholars and bible commentaries. lots of them. er, no. i'm incredulous regarding the drivel you post. i've read ezekiel. i know what it says -- it's just completely irresponsible textually to first assume that means "UFO" and then go about reading "UFO" into everything. that's NOT my opinion only. that is the most obvious reading of the text, and the one you will find in almost ANY bible commentary you choose to look at. and if you don't find that one, you'll find the other (affliction) one. that's completely irrelevent. it's not talking about a physical object passed down from one generation to the next. it's talking about royalty. do you not understand what a symbol is? a STAFF is not a UFO. there are also excuses for totally abusing the text to mean something it obviously does not. and this is one of them. ok, so the obvious reading is wrong. the one about UFOs is right. come on. you're completely misreading things. you have to bend the text so far out of context and totally ignore the grammatical structure of the sentance to even get it to remotely apply. that's irresponsible -- at that point, you might as well just make up the verses too! in that verse? JUDAH! seriously, can you read? no, simple, the question is, are you? you're expecting people to "get" something that frankly is completely insane. you don't "get" insanity.

---

because it makes your point look silly. and your point is silly. ...because it's a star? look, you don't accept reason. don't pretend now that you do -- your very response demonstrates that you don't. if you accepted reason, you wouldn't have claimed that i have not given a reason answer.all you've given is one-liners. how about this? the burden of proof is on you because you are making the claim. prove to me, with a reasoned argument (not just more assumptions and baseless claims) that "star" here means "spacecraft." yes, i know what ezekiel says -- prove that it's talking about the same thing. that is, afterall, what this thread is about. it's time to present your argument. almost any light. like the sun. like the moon.that's still not an argument. that's a "it might possibly allow this if i totally fail to understand the context"

---

no simple, you will not.you laughed earlier at the notion of reading or studying the bible, even in english. and you completely hand-waved away the fact that understanding the translation might help too. no, you want to make stuff up, and not listen to reason, or study. you haven't participated in a debate. you've made claims. you've repeated claims. you haven't once given an argument. could you at least make an argument before you plant your flag? and boy do you ever!

---