quote:
Why on Earth did this drivel get promoted?
The OP is something a ten year old would write, not a single thing in that post is supported in any shape or form.
We shall see. It actually is well supported.
quote:
Has it? An unsupported claim, no name of anyone that has found it a mystery is given, and how do we know that this has long been a mystery, do we take Simple's word for it?
Of course it has, and, for your information, many attempts at trying to explain it have been made over time.
For example..
"PARIS (AFP-Jiji) Two thousand years ago, according to a widely accredited source, a celestial body appeared in the east and guided three eminent thinkers to the scene of an event that was to change the world.
Since that time, astronomers and theologians have been baffled as to the precise nature of the star that, as told in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, led the Magi to the stable in Bethlehem where Jesus was born.
Was it a miracle, a divine intervention to herald the birth of Christ? Was there a star at all, or was it simply added to the Bible to fulfill an Old Testament prophecy? Or was there some actual astronomical event that gave rise to the story of the star of Bethlehem?
The question has intrigued scores of writers and artists as diverse as the astronomer Johannes Kepler, the painter Giotto and the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke.
Now a British astronomer based in Spain has come up with a theory that he believes could lay the mystery to rest. ..."
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news174.htm
Or even this UFO site bit..
"Noted astronomer, Johann Kepler, studied this mystery two centuries ago. According to Vyacheslav Zaitsev, “scientists held an international symposium to discuss this matter.” "
http://www.uforc.com/religion/AF-wa_UFORC_p40.html
Etc. See, it has been and to most, remains a mystery.
quote:
A saucer?
That is the common modern term, of course. If yo mean a real saucer, then that is not really all that funny.
quote:
But we are not talking about an observation made in the modern world, we are talking about an alleged event in the first century CE. Also, how do we know it wasn't seen far away?
If it was, please show us the records!??
"What was it?
At least four theories have been advanced to explain the Star from a purely astronomical viewpoint.
Possibly the first idea put forward was that it was an unusually bright fireball meteor seen streaking toward the horizon. But as most skywatchers know, such an object can be seen to flash across the sky in a mere matter of seconds hardly long enough to lead the Magi halfway across the Orient to the little town of Bethlehem. So we can confidently lay this concept to rest.
Not so easily dismissed, however, is the possibility that the Star was a bright comet.
Comets can remain visible to the unaided eye for weeks either in the predawn sky or at dusk. It is not impossible to conceive that a comet with a bright star-like head and long gossamer tail pointing like some cosmic finger toward the horizon could have drawn the Magi to Bethlehem.
The famous Halleys Comet, last seen in early 1986, also flared in the sky during August and September in the year 11 BC. However, most authorities dismiss it due to the poor time fit. Although it seems unlikely that another great comet could have appeared nearer to the accepted time frame of the Stars appearance and went unrecorded, we can never really be sure.
Besides, comets were viewed as omens of evil, such as floods and famine as well as the death not the birth of kings and monarchs. The Romans, in marking the death of the Roman General Agrippa, for example, used the 11 BC apparition of Halleys Comet as a benchmark. With this in mind, comets would seem to be wrong as the heavenly sign that would signal the coming of a newborn king.
Exploding star
Perhaps the simplest answer is a nova or supernova outburst: a new star blazes forth where none had ever been seen and leaves no trace for us to find in the future.
Although their names imply a new creation, these spectacular objects are in reality dying stars, although they are new (albeit temporary) additions to the nighttime sky. The appearance of a nova is unpredictable a really bright one becomes visible perhaps once every 25 or 30 years.
Going on this assumption, we actually should be due for a bright naked-eye nova at almost anytime now, since the most recent one appeared back in 1975 (not far from the bright star Deneb in the constellation Cygnus).
Most bright novae suddenly and unexpectedly flare into prominence literally overnight, attracting the instant attention of sky-conscious people. But after several days or weeks of such prominence, it gradually fades back to obscurity.
Even more spectacular but much rarer are supernovae; stars that suddenly blow themselves completely apart, briefly producing an incredible energy output equivalent to the combined light of an entire galaxy of stars.
At the height of its outburst, a supernova can shine with a brilliance capable of casting shadows and can even be seen in broad daylight truly a celestial announcement worthy of the birth of a king.
In our Milky Way galaxy, over the past thousand years, there have been four brilliant supernovae, in 1006, 1054, 1572 and 1604. Clearly, we are long overdue for another, though the stars don't necessarily play by any odds we might calculate.
Although a nova or supernova is the most satisfying explanation for the Star, there is a serious problem with it, in that there doesnt seem to be any definitive record of a bright nova appearing in the sky during the time that biblical historians believe the Magi made their journey.
One nova apparently did appear, bordering the constellations Capricornus and Aquarius during the spring of 5 BC. But the Chinese records, which describe this object, imply that it was apparently not very conspicuous at all.
Perhaps a planet
The final possibility is one or more of the bright naked eye planets."
Astronomers Await a Nova | Space
quote:
"I think", the author doesnt even know the basics of his own argument.
Trying not too sound too know it all and preachy, does not mean I do not know what I am talking about.
The origin of the word was not apparently a stick, more having to do with authority, and connected to the devine.
"Sceptre
(Heb. shebet = Gr. skeptron), properly a staff or rod. As a symbol of authority, the use of the sceptre originated in the idea that the ruler was as a shepherd of his people (Genesis 49:10; Numbers 24:17; Psalms 45:6; Isaiah 14:5). There is no example on record of a sceptre having ever been actually handled by a Jewish king."
Sceptre - Easton's Bible Dictionary -
Also called figurative by bible scholars in some cases, I would think,
because they didn't suspect what it could actually mean.
"FIGURATIVE
Genesis 49:10; Numbers 24:17; Isaiah 9:4 "
Scepter (Sceptre) - Nave's Topical Bible -
And, it seems, a good word to use instead of scepter might be "lawgiver"
"Another word, mechoqeq, literally, "prescribing" (person or thing), formerly translated uniformly "lawgiver," is now generally taken, on the basis of parallelism, to mean "sceptre" in four poetic passages (Genesis 49:10, "ruler's staff" to avoid repetition; Numbers 21:18; Psalms 60:7; 108:8). "
Sedecias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia -
But, be it as it may, I said 'I call it' the Sceptre. You can call it a tomato if you like! I don't care.
Point is, we are talking about the Father's Starship here. That is the point, not naming it.
quote:
Why would God need a throne, God is spirit.
You seem to think that spirits are less real than physical beings. I don't see it that way. The spiritual ones just have a spirit body. Or, in the case Jesus, a spiritual AND physical body, as all believers will have.
quote:
The sceptre is clearly referring to the tribe of Judah and privilege it had. Read the verse in context.
NO!! The sceptre more clearly relates to the highest royalty of all. About all we need to worry about here is what refers to the Father, and what refers to the son!
quote:
What about putting some effort in to your posts.
It is easy to find out what the Hebrew word used in these verses for 'sceptre' is, and it isn't a flying saucer.
More special treatment for our creationist/theist friends by promoting this substandard OP?
Ah, an ax to grind here, have we??
Now, as I see it, the ancient prophesies may actually be referring to the Father looking down on the birth of His son.
If we look at that verse in numbers, it almost sends chills up the spine when we see this, and what it could actually mean!!!
"I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh:"
In other words, it would take a while for Shiloh to come, and then, the Father would SEE Him, from up high, not near, hovering above. And that also explains the mystery of what the 'star' was!!! Astounding.
™ Version 4.2
