Christmas Star Explained

actually, you have not effectively demonstrated who or what "shiloh" means in this context. you quoted a few sources that said "obviously it's the messiah" and a few that pointed out the aramaic translators thought it meant "messiah."you then used that information to turn this into a messianic prophecy. it's not. it's a prophecy/birthright given to judah. "until shiloh comes" is an idiom for "until the end." the end has not happened yet -- this makes a lot more sense when you understand that the jewish concept of the messiah has more in common with the second coming of christ than the first.and in any case, the verse is about judah's royalty. not jesus. not a UFO. judah's royalty. no, as i keep pointing out, those groups of angels are different. you can't simply ignore that. you are trivializing the appearance of the heralding angels at christ's birth. i agree, your point is silly. if they wanted to describe a spaceship -- couldn't they have given a description even remotely like ezekiel's?

---

ad-hoc and doesn't follow. still not a spaceship. er, no. you missed the point. herod asked what time. time is an important point in astronomy, because the earth rotates. stars/constellations/etcs are only available to be seen in the sky for a certain time of night. that tells us that herod sure thought they meant a fixed astrological event. actually, you could find my address in a phonebook in a coffeeshop. i'm not even sure what you think you're saying. but the only evidence mounting is evidence of your state of mind. no, simple. your case. not the bible. your case. the records i'm looking at are the bible. they don't support your case. i'm not sure why you think the bible is automatically on your side, and anyone who argues against your silly reading of it must be challenging the bible. no, i'm challenging you on the basis of the bible. the time they went to see jesus is actually irrelevent, and the bible does not make it totally clear either way. in any case, people who study astrology would almost certainly record an event they saw as significant. the information they gathered from the star would have led them to israel, even if it took them several years to get there. why was it leading them the verse before they saw it? stars disappear every morning. you've probably noticed that by now in your life. if not, go outside when the sun is out and look for stars. see any? even if it weren't for the sun, the planet rotates. simple, i'm a christian. you wanna try some other line than me hating christians? and still, remember, you're talking about jews forging the old testament. think about that for a second, because i'm now going to bring it up any time you cite any verse in the old testament. ok. let's try this again. the first place it's not recorded as being in the temple is in the bible. it's not carried off into exile. second temple records are irrelevent -- the records for it stop before the destruction of the first temple. it goes missing before the exile. ad-hoc anti-semitic conspiracy theories don't count as "covered." but they did. what happened to the ark when the babylonians invaded? the bible doesn't say. why not? surely, the evil jewish conspiracy editted that, too. tell that to the people who live in israel and palestine. see, the "peace" that zechariah talks about isn't just a few good vibes here and there -- he talks about destroying all the impliments of war because there is no longer need for them. total and complete peace on earth. zechariah 9 is not fulfilled until that point. ...which hasn't happened yet. actually, that's sort of backwards. the messiah will be the one that builds the third temple, but there will be no need for animal sacrifices. um, actually, it's not. you should try reading the bible more. not just quote-mining and reading-into it. read it calmly, and coolly and not looking for anything specific -- you'll find it's a much better book than you realized. are you going to tell me that every king of judah ruled from a UFO? what about the kings of israel? did they rule from a second UFO? regardless, "the angel of the lord" is a unique and solitary figure. you should revelation again in regards to the afterlife.

---

because they were not men who were wise. they were magi.magicians... astrologers.

---

herod the great has a bad rep in the bible. afterall, he was a crazed madman. but so where a lot of leaders in the roman empire, and he wasn't nearly as bad as caligula...in any case, appart from tyrannical rule, herod the great was also "the great." he spent a lot of his time commissioning architecture in and around jerusalem. this is the man responsible for building the second temple, among other things.

---

other than the gospel of matthew, there is no other reference for this ever actually happening. the other gospel that covers similar subject matter, luke, doesn't see fit to mention it. and luke (not having been there) went out of his way to research all the available stories (as he says in his intro) and be the most comprehensive source. it's not mentioned in any of the early apocrypha. or by josephus. or by anyone, really.the only place a similar story appears is in the book of exodus -- pharaoh similarly kills all the jewish babies of a certain age but moses escapes unharmed. god later returns the favor, and kills all the egyptian first born sons.i'm not saying it didn't happen. just that it's very suspicious that luke at least does not mention it, and the literary reference is rather obvious. "moses" and "messiah" have the same root in hebrew. herod certainly was capable of killing innocent children who posed a threat to his throne (history records one such incident) but on a more specific and smaller scale. we're talking a forgotten genocide here.

---

*dies laughing*

...yes, and i point out why those were neccessarily wrong, and a misunderstanding of the idiom. oh, that's apologetic nonsense. the world's only been around for 6,000 years. abraham was only 4,000 years ago, and the last 2,000 years have been "the end times?" that's a strange division. says the bible. on both accounts. ...no, i mentioned that many fundamentalists happen to think that, and you'll find more support for that point than your silly UFO stuff. they happen to be wrong too. and that's one of the many reasons why. you still don't know what "sceptre" means, do you? because "starship" is a piss-poor reading of ezekiel. reading it into other texts where it doesn't fit is just INSANE.look. astrologers came to see jesus. why would astrologers come? why would astrologers know that a king had been born in israel? why would herod, upon hearing this, ask the astrologers what time the astrological event appeared in the sky, as if it were an astrological event? spaceship ≠ star

---

god is a klingon! that explains so much.as we'd say in hebrew, — or, QAPLA'!

---

actually, we cannot make that assumption. in this case, it's rather like americans understanding the local customs guatemala. persia, at the time, was one of the biggest and most powerful nations in the world -- and the magi probably came from persia. israel, on the other hand, was a backwater little state of the roman empire. they probably knew rome -- but not so much israel. for one, judaism has had 2,000 years to influence the world, including making an indelible mark on western society via christianity. and yet, you've actually proven the reverse -- you know nothing about jewish prophecy, as you have misrepresented it at every turn. if you can be so inundated with something, and so painfully misunderstand it, how can you expect people who weren't to get something? he didn't ask "how many years ago" he asked "what time." those are different questions. no. they had the information "king" and "israel" from the star. that, and the fact that they were astrologers, tells us that it was an astrological event. if they were looking for a new king in israel, the first place to go would be the palace in jerusalem. when they find a king already there, they'd probably ask him what was up.which is exactly what we see in the story. you evidently don't care to try and understand biblical history.look, the prophecy (if you choose to call it that) given to judah, from israel, says that a son of his will sit on the throne until the end of time. the prophecy given to david by god himself says the same thing. the last son of judah, and the last son of david to sit on a throne was zedekiah, who died in 586 BC. no son of judah and no son of david has sat on the throne since. now, you could argue that jesus is a son of judah and a son of david, and that he's the king until you're blue in the face -- it doesn't matter.in 586 BC the prophecy was broken. period. no king of judah on the throne? broken.and the fact is that concept of the messiah, as we know it today, started evolving around that time and not before. people do not write about needing a saviour when they're sitting pretty in a rich and cosmopolitan state with a firm religious and political structute. they write about needing a saviour when they're in exile, broken and destitute and under an oppressive government. like babylon. or rome. yes, we've all noticed. you're talking about stuff you've made up in your head.and actually, here, you are talking about the bible. i'm not sure why the book of kings is so easily forgotten by so many people:

quote:

---

Now in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem. And he burnt the house of the LORD, and the king's house; and all the houses of Jerusalem, even every great man's house, burnt he with fire. And all the army of the Chaldeans, that were with the captain of the guard, broke down the walls of Jerusalem round about. And the residue of the people that were left in the city, and those that fell away, that fell to the king of Babylon, and the residue of the multitude, did Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carry away captive. But the captain of the guard left of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen. And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the LORD, and the bases and the brazen sea that were in the house of the LORD, did the Chaldeans break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon. And the pots, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the pans, and all the vessels of brass wherewith they ministered, took they away. And the fire-pans, and the basins, that which was of gold, in gold, and that which was of silver, in silver, the captain of the guard took away. The two pillars, the one sea, and the bases, which Solomon had made for the house of the LORD; the brass of all these vessels was without weight. The height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits, and a capital of brass was upon it; and the height of the capital was three cubits; with network and pomegranates upon the capital round about, all of brass; and like unto these had the second pillar with network.

​

II Kings 25:8-17

---

so the babylonians burned jerusalem to the ground. they demolished the first temple. they took the basin and the pillars, and broke them up to steal their bronze. ...and where's the ark? why no description of it? kings doesn't say the babylonians took it. it doesn't say someone hid it. it's just not there.the ark of the covenant has alread disappeared by the end of the book of kings. you are charging the author of kings as being part of your conspiracy. "other records" are irrelevent. we're talking about the bible. and in the bible, that's where the trail goes cold. do you read your sources? the ark of the covenant was not among the items taken to babylon -- that's my exact point. nobody knows what happened to it after that. the ark goes missing at the end of kings. apocryphal books. you want to lend credence to the apocrypha now? uh, no. the fact that it's not mentioned in second kings, or jeremiah for that matter, is very suspicious. you think they wouldn't have overlooked that, even if the location was sensitive.and even so, the second temple began construction right after the jews returned from exile. it's, um, the book of ezra, circa 520 BC. you're now charging the prophet ezra of being a liar.

---

i dunno, but more than one would be nice. i mean, it's not like a crazed power-hungry king killed several thousand babies or anything! it's a pretty significant event for luke to have overlooked, especially if he was likely born around that time or soon after. ok, i get that it's not in the gospels that don't cover jesus's infancy. i'll even GIVE YOU that it's not in josephus's antiquities (josephus liked herod the great, afterall). but why not in some other jewish source? or luke?and luke, evidently, wasn't writing by having the holy spirit bring things to mind. read the first bit of luke again.

quote:

---

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

---

he's saying that a lot of other gospels have been written about what christian believe.

quote:

---

It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

---

and that since he was there for a good portion of it (most of the book of acts, and yes, they're two parts of the same book) he should set the matter straight. this heavily implies the rest was taken by research of the other gospels. which would have included matthew's, btw. why doesn't luke include matthew's account of the massacre of the innocents, when he word-for-word duplicates much of the rest of it?probably because he thought it didn't happen. there's nothing about herod being possessed anywhere. and the only "spirit" that possessed pharaoh was god. go read the book of exodus again -- who's yanking pharaoh around, hardening his heart? uh, you don't cover up the death of several thousand infants at the hands of a madman king installed by an oppressive foriegn power because a few cultists thought their leader escaped the massacre. that's like covering up the holocaust so people don't follow magneto. you might tell people that magneto is just a comic book character -- but you don't pretend the very real genocide didn't happen. it's hard to cover up that sort of thing.

---

i'm sorry, i just deal with facts. that's not my opinion. your opinion may contradict the facts, but that's just the point. you cannot claim stuff like "jesus fulfilled zechariah 9" without being pointed out that no, actually, he didn't seem to do the really important part: bringing world peace. and if you don't fulfill the prophecy, you don't fulfill the prophecy. again, not an opinion.the word "shiloh" is derived from the word for peace. also not an opinion. presuming "shiloh" means a person here (and not a city, or an idiom for the end), he'd be the person that brings peace to the entire planet -- as in the prophecy of zechariah, which jesus doesn't fulfill. get that? still not an opinion. maybe he will at some point, as described in the book of revelation -- but then that would the point the verse refers to. the end times. there is peace on earth in the end. the verse refers to the end. is it the end yet? no. that you have simply made up. no, but evidently, you shouldn't trust your own reading ability either. go get the cliff notes on the bible, or something. because, what said was "some fundamentalists think" that and "you will find more support for their idea than yours." i didn't say they were right -- they're not. and i didn't say i agree with them -- i don't. they're wrong, and for quite a few reasons. but there's more to their point than your UFO nonsense. show me a single instance of a deceased person discribed as residing in heaven, in the bible (other than elijah and enoch, who technically weren't deceased). no, simple. read the bible. again. and more carefully this time. really, please. read the bible again. more carefully. you aren't even getting the concepts even remotely right. for starters, the word is merkabah. it means "chariot." and to read into everything is just remarkably bad form. he evidently doesn't need it in genesis. or exodus. or joshua. or any other time he appears bodily in the text.and then to read the appearance of something else as if it meant the same thing, well, that's just wrong. objects with set definitions are not random words for you to toy with as you wish. the word in greek is magos and the plural is magi. "wise men" is a common translation, but the word means "magician" and was almost certainly applied to astrologers -- people who interpretted the night sky for signs and prophetic purposes. think about it for a bit. unless they were, you know, astrologers. and pretty good at their craft. uh, no. they were magi. they were the religious authority of probably persia. it's somewhat possible they knew something of judaism (jews did live in persia) but their knowledge was evidently based on the star alone. when they came to herod the great, they asked him about it. herod called the priests, who pointed them to bayit-lechem.it's probable that this was a sort of religious pilgrimage for them, or they were sent in an official capacity as ambassadors due the great respect the persians had for the jews. (after all, persia had a jewish queen once) um no. this is a big hint you're not actually reading the bible. "three wise men" is a tradition, and not a biblical one, based on the fact that they brought three gifts. the bible does not specify a number. anywhere. the reality is that some unspecified number of astrologers came to visit jesus. it might have been a lot, in the hundreds. it might have been two. it just doesn't say. but even "it does say" won't stop you from making stuff up.look, it was an astrological event, that prompted an astrologically-aware society, persia, to send astrologers, based on information they had gathered by merely looking at the astrological event.get it? star. not spaceship.

---

ironically, it was the dawning of the age of pisces not aquarius. at least, according to one interpretation. apparently people argue about that stuff.

---

herod sure hadn't noticed -- and it meant his job, so i think he'd care. the jews aren't really into astrology. considering how it was punishable by death in judaism. now, i'll ask you honestly, when was the last time we had a significant alignment of three or more planets in the night sky? can you recall? i bet you didn't notice.but you'd damned sure noticed a UFO buzzing over your house. think now, these people didn't have telescopes. you want to presume that they saw a ufo from more than a thousand miles away, but the people right under it didn't see it?i'm sorry, but all clues point to astrology. nothing leads anyone other than you to think it was a UFO. ...yes, that's why people like herod and his clergy didn't see it, but astrologers did. um, yes, it can. and does. you just have to read the bible instead of making things up in your head.

---

quick, how many stars are there?...that's what i thought. you haven't bothered to count. would you notice if a new star appears tomorrow that wasn't here today? no, you wouldn't. but you know who probably would?astronomers.and you know who would have in the first century?astrologers. well, when you phrase it like that, i guess i would easily trade a pile of manure for shit that doesn't exist. quite happily, in fact.look. the prophecy was broken. that's all there is to it. it's not my fault -- it's not god's fault, either. according to jeremiah (you know, the guy who supposedly hid the ark all on his lonesome) god took away the birthright and broke with the prophecy because judah had severly pissed him off. that's in jeremiah... um... the whole book really.you can't get a mulligan on it. god gave it, and god took it away, and that's all there is to it. you cannot then misread the birthright, pretend it means something else, and then go on as if nothing happened. but that's what happens when you ignore those long boring books in the middle of the bible in favor of the pretty jesusy stuff. you miss 500 years of history. i'd like to remind you of geography. would you like to explain to me how a star in the east led the magi west to israel?following a UFO doesn't work here. only an astrological sign, that would have told them "israel" in some other fashion. otherwise, they went the wrong direction. well, first of all, the saw a star in the east and went west. and all they said to herod was:

quote:

---

Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

---

they don't give any other information -- herod's priests tell them of the prophecy and to go to bayit-lechem. no, the "sceptre" prophecy says that. the one you're misreading as being about a spaceship, and then telling me to try and keep it real. saviour from what?see, you're making a fatal assumption here: that "messiah" refers to some fruity spiritual salvation. jews didn't need spiritual salvation -- they were god's chosen people, afterall. oh, right, you haven't read that part of the bible. no, to the jews, the messiah is king from the line of david that sits on the throne in jerusalem, brings home all the exiled jews, rebuilds the temple, and establishes peace on earth under his rule. notice anything? having a king from the line of david makes little sense as a requirement if there's already one of the throne. rebuilding the temple makes little sense if it already exists. bringing home the jews makes little sense before the exile. the messiah is the person who fixes problems -- if no problems exist, there's no need for a messiah, and nobody writes anything to that effect.and you can't tell me that you honestly believe people sat around 2,600 years ago saying their own religion was bunk, and they'd have to wait until the next one came about. come on. your statement does not make sense. i'm not trying to be clever -- i'm pointing out what the bible does and does not say. it's not my fault that the ark's mysterious absence at the end of the book of kings does not support your point that it was in the second temple to have disappeared then. ok, and it's fine to think that. "it was hidden somewhere" is a perfectly reasonable way to way read that, in the absence of better evidence. well, again. the second temple was built under cyrus of persia, and the prophet ezra. the records of what went into the second temple are found in the book of ezra. the first chapter, i believe. similarly, the ark is nowhere to be found in ezra's time. why? did ezra -- the man responsible for putting together the bible -- forge his own book to cover up for jesus?i mean, let's be straight here for a second. if there's one person you do not want paint as a lying coniving jew bastard here, it's ezra. moses, david, whatever -- but the old testament we have today bares an incredible debt of gratitude to this man. without him, it would not exist. to charge ezra with lying in his work as part of the jewish conspiracy is to say we should just ignore the old testament. again, i will bring this up every time you quote ezekiel -- ezekiel wouldn't be around if it weren't for ezra. yes -- by making another one.look, this is simple, simple. the book of kings existed before jesus was even born. the book of ezra existed before jesus was born. the ark is missing from the accounts it SHOULD be in, in those books. the ark wasn't there. the actions precede the motive. no, clearly god would never let ANYONE take the ark of the covenant.

quote:

---

And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer unto Ashdod.

​

1st Samuel 5:1

---

oh. right.of course, the israelites got it back when all the people of ashdod were mysteriously found dead. but clearly, you can take the ark out of... actually, well, in this case it was in a city called "shiloh." hm. ok, so you do trust the apocrypha? but not the bible? i'm just trying to get this straight, because you're not making very much sense. no, but he didn't say it was. you have no reason to assume it was there -- and every reason not to. it is by far the most significant single object in judaism. it's not the sort of thing you casually forget to mention.

---