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

Larson didn't say much at all about the star, except to identify the brightest object in the sky as the conjunction of Venus with Jupiter in June of 2BC, and to identify Jupiter as the star the Magi would have seen over Bethlehem six months later. That's really all he said.

I was out for most of the day. Larson didn't say the star stayed in the same position, which leaves it open how to interpret what he did say, which is what I just said in the previous post. As for their seeing it in the west I confused it with the Magis' seeing it in the south as they went to Bethlehem from Jerusalem, the idea being that it was "over" where the King was born..

So where did the idea that the star "stopping" meant Jupiter going retrograde come from ? If it was Larson, my point stands. If you got it from somewhere else then you really ought to have made that clear.

Larson arrived at the conclusion that its stopping must have been the point of turning retrograde, and then found that occurring about the time the Magi would have been getting close to Bethlehem.

I think probably the most striking information in the video is the picture in the Astronomy program of Virgo rising with the sun, and with the new moon at her feet, which reflects what John said in Revelation 12:1-2: That was Rosh Hashana of 3BC. In the same month the three conjunctions of Jupiter and Regulus had occurred, King planet with King star, in the constellation of Leo, which Larson identifies as symbolic of the Lion of Judah which is a name for the Messiah. That was followed by Virgo rising as described above. Larson took that as his starting point, at first thinking it might have been the birth of Christ, then deciding maybe the conception or the Annunciation, then going on to find the bright Jupiter-Venus conjunction nine months later.That astrological image of Virgo reflects so exactly what John described there hardly seems any reason to think that's not what he saw. And Virgo appears again on the day of the crucifixion, this time rising with the full blood moon at her feet.ABE: In Acts 2:20 on the day of Pentecost, Peter quotes the Prophet Joel and tells the crowd that they had all witnessed the fulfillment of that prophecy, apparently referring to the crucifixion of Jesus: /ABELarson thinks the woman is Mary, but I think the best interpretation is that she represents Israel as a whole. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then my point stands. Going retrograde does not fit with the text of Matthew 2 and you don't even know how it connects at all.

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.

But is it ? You certainly wouldn't notice the star stopping when it goes retrograde. That refers to movement relative to the "fixed" stars - not the normal motion across the sky which happens every night. And how is it going to give a precise location on the ground ? It's not as if the sky will differ greatly over such a small distance.We have already gone over this. Ignoring it is not going to make Larson right. It only makes you look determined to defend Larson, while ignoring the Bible.

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.

Yet the Shepherds did not notice it. And Larson is wrong, Jupiter did NOT stop in the sky. Anyone who has ever watched the night sky would know that.The actual fact is that the Bible is filled with such contradictions and absurdities; which is fine as long as you understand they are folk tales, stories but just silly if you try to pretend they are factual history. Of course that is not the only other option. The most reasonable option is that the story is a fable, a folk tale made up long after the fact to increase the importance of Jesus birth; a marketing tale. Of course. The star was just made up, a fiction.

quote:

---

I'm not aware of "ignoring" anything.

---

Since I am repeating points already made, it seems that you have forgotten what was said yesterday.

quote:

---

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 to Bethlehem. It implies it wouldn't have been noticed by many besides the Magi themselves.

---

More accurately Larson implies that it wasn't something anyone would actually notice.

quote:

---

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.)

---

It's not an opinion - it's a fact. The additional motion of the planets isn't really visible from just looking at them.

quote:

---

The only other option I see is something miraculous.

---

If you want a good fit for the Gospel description I think it is your only option. A straightforward reading has the star moving South while the Magi went from Jerusalem to Bethlehem (and they had to be told to go there) - and stopping over the exact destination. No natural object would do that.

quote:

---

But of course there's room for disagreement. Do you have an explanation for the star yourself?

---

Sure I do, and it is the most likely one. It isn't something that actually happened at all. Unlike Larson I don't have to try to argue for an alternative (and probably wrong) date for Herod's death, make up any astrology or take a strained (to say the least) reading of Matthew.

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.

It doesnt match the scriptures, and you cant answer the question personally... for Larson after you watched the video, so dont be afraid to be spiritual among unspiritual people and follow the scriptures.Angels are real, angels are called bright lights and have brilliance. Angels move, angels can hoover over a manager. An angel fits the description in time and space and brilliance and movements.My opinion matches scriptures and descriptions, I'll keep it. You can stick to something you think sounds more scientific to appease unscientific scientific types.

Sorry Faith but the shepherds study the skies every single night. Anything unusual they would notice. And a planet still does not stop in the sky before going retrograde. If it comes to what is normal in the night sky the shepherds would be greater references than any Magi.But again, this is simply another example of Biblical contradictions. Yawn. And none of those are unique and occur repeatedly.Larsen is just doing the classic con job of taking stuff out of context and then trying to make it fit the story.Such nonsense does not add to any idea unless you have first decided that you will ignore reality and facts.

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.