Christmas Star Explained

quote:

---

other than the gospel of matthew, there is no other reference for this ever actually happening.

---

How many books does God need to have it in??

quote:

---

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 guy did fine, but God saved some bits for others. The Holy Spirit brought things to mind, as well as people drawing on stories, they could also draw on experiences, and such.

quote:

---

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.

---

Bad spirits often are predictable, and follow a pattern. Could have even been the same spirits, different time and people.

quote:

---

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.

---

I already talked about the reliability of a lot of records from that time, having to do with Jesus. If they couldn't pay people to lie before the fact, they no doubt tried after the fact as best they could to make it seem like it never happened.

It doesn't matter why they didn't "see it". The fact is, they didn't.They didn't see it before the angel arrived and they didn't see it after the heavenly host left. One reason they might not have seen it at all is that it wasn't there. If we read just what's in the story, the most sensible inference is that the "star" was an alignment or something of that kind, which would not have been noticed by anybody but astrologers. No, we don't know that. That's sheer lunacy. It would make no sense to cloak the "ship" and show its passengers - especially because of the bright light. That's no way to hide anything. If no "ship" is mentioned, the sensible inference is that there was no ship there. Incoherent raving is not evidence.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

...yes, and i point out why those were neccessarily wrong, and a misunderstanding of the idiom.

---

Your attempt at overruling them is noted, and your favored interpretation.FYI, your opinion is of limited currency.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes. The latter time is the last third of history, and the final time of the end is about a seven year period at the tail of that.
Nice round numbers.

quote:

---

says the bible. on both accounts.

---

I should take your word, who tried to foist the one over on us, that the angel of the Lord was Jesus?? No, some angels are named, others are not, and there were also departed humans that came to earth, so a host could be people as well.

quote:

---

...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.

---

You keep us posted on what is silly, now, will you. No support needed really, I guess we all just take your opinion as gospel?

quote:

---

you still don't know what "sceptre" means, do you?

---

What it came to mean and what it started out representing are not necessarily the same. Besides, I can call the known wheels of God that if I like.
He is the One that has the sceptre, and looked down on Shiloh.

quote:

---

because "starship" is a piss-poor reading of ezekiel. reading it into other texts where it doesn't fit is just INSANE.

---

No, it is accurate, to question it is insane. It flew, and had God in it, what more do you want??? A throne??? Done. It is in there too.

quote:

---

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?

---

The magi may have known about stars, and the heavens, but they knew a lot more as well. One reason we call them the wise men!!!
One would suspect that if they were wise, they would not pack up and travel the world, bearing actual gifts for a king, just because a new star appeared. It was special, and they must have had a few indications, like prophesy, as well. I mean, how many quit their jobs, buy gold, and expensive gifts, and look for a king when a new comet, or star is discovered now??? Then, remember, it wasn't just one, but three!!!!Starship at the right height, in the ancient world = star!!! Bring it down a bit, and we have a great light.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter why they didn't "see it". The fact is, they didn't.

---

Nonsense! The only time they were mentioned was in that chapter, and they were so busy under the great light that shone, that I doubt they could have seen the regular stars! How would we know if they saw it after, of before?? You have no idea what you are talking about.

quote:

---

They didn't see it before the angel arrived and they didn't see it after the heavenly host left. One reason they might not have seen it at all is that it wasn't there. If we read just what's in the story, the most sensible inference is that the "star" was an alignment or something of that kind, which would not have been noticed by anybody but astrologers.

---

Alignments don't pop up, and move about, guiding one to a house. Really. Look into it, I kid you not.

quote:

---

No, we don't know that. That's sheer lunacy.

---

The bible says so in Eze. That is simple known fact. To deny it is lunacy. What are you claiming the sapphire throne in the wheels that came from heaven were??? Or have you any clue??

quote:

---

The evidence is that the Christmas star could not have been an astronomical event.

​

Incoherent raving is not evidence.

---

Then try and formulate a case. meanwhile google up some stuff, and learn how that the Christmas star really could not have been a star in the modern sense. Otherwise pizza delivery men would use a star to find a house to drop the food. Who needs addresses, maps, and names, and such??? 'Follow that Star Delivery' Long as they don't offer it in 30 minutes they might do alright. Hec, I'd pay to watch them try to deliver it!!
Edited by simple, : No reason given.

If they had mentioned it, we'd know. Since they didn't mention seeing any star, we can't just assume it was there. As far as we know from the shepherd story, it wasn't. Neither did the "star". On the first approximation, it (mis)led the wise men to Jerusalem. Once Herod had told them to go to Bethlehem, it conveniently "led" them there? If any part of the story is an exaggeration, the second coming of the star certainly is. Clearly, Ezekiel got into some questionable mushrooms. I'm saying that the Christmas star was not a star in the "modern sense". It was a star in the astrological sense. That's the only explanation that makes sense, since nobody but astrologers saw it.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

If they had mentioned it, we'd know. Since they didn't mention seeing any star, we can't just assume it was there. As far as we know from the shepherd story, it wasn't.

---

No, actually. By the very nature of a star, we must assume that it was seen at night, unless reason exists to assume otherwise. I see no such thing in the bible.
The shepherds did see something spiritual, and hear it as well, but a light shone down, so we can't expect that it would or should be recorded that they happened to see the star. Any more than the ass that Jesus tied to a tree, to walk up a hill ought to be expected to have said he seen it.
I didn't read that the innkeepers saw it either, but that doesn't mean no stars were in the sky. You will notice that it never said any of these folks saw the moon, or sun, or other stars up there either! Does that mean, by your logic, that we should doubt them as well??

quote:

---

Neither did the "star". On the first approximation, it (mis)led the wise men to Jerusalem. Once Herod had told them to go to Bethlehem, it conveniently "led" them there? If any part of the story is an exaggeration, the second coming of the star certainly is.

---

It sounds like it disappeared for a bit, so they asked the locals for directions. Knowing about the prophesy to some extent, they likely assumed the locals would be up on these things. Realizing they met a possessed king, intent on questioning them, to find out the exact age of the child, they had to flee.Seeing the Starship again then, naturally brought them unusual joy! That was when the Sceptre moved, and led them right to the house.We could also take it, that the star was still there, but just over Israel at first, so they asked around, and then, seeing it moving to guide them, that brought the great joy, or some such.
Point is, they saw a star, and followed it, and it actually led them many many miles away right to a house. That is why I say that a 'UFO' fits the bill.

quote:

---

Clearly, Ezekiel got into some questionable mushrooms.

---

Then you don't deny it is bible, fine.

quote:

---

I'm saying that the Christmas star was not a star in the "modern sense". It was a star in the astrological sense. That's the only explanation that makes sense, since nobody but astrologers saw it.

---

You mean 'no one was recorded as seeing it, besides the wise men, who I think were all astrologers'!Edited by simple, : No reason given.

The reason to infer that it wasn't a star is because it wasn't seen. Nobody said there were "no stars in the sky". There were no unusual stars in the sky, or somebody would have noticed. Since there is nothing unusual about the sun, moon or other stars, there is nothing wrong with assuming that they were in their usual positions. What we can't assume is that the shepherds saw something that only the wise men mentioned.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

The reason to infer that it wasn't a star is because it wasn't seen.

---

FIRST, there needs to be reason to infer it wasn't seen. There is no more reason to infer the star was not seen, than the sun.

quote:

---

Nobody said there were "no stars in the sky". There were no unusual stars in the sky, or somebody would have noticed.

---

The wise men noticed! And we have no idea who else noticed, but no reason to infer others did not, of course, notice. I mean, If you live in France, and noticed something over Spain, and went to have a look, why assume no one in Spain saw it?? Just because the bible doesn't deal with it in great detail, is no reason to assume it did what stars do, -and then some! At that time a star was more or less a light in the night sky.

quote:

---

Since there is nothing unusual about the sun, moon or other stars, there is nothing wrong with assuming that they were in their usual positions. What we can't assume is that the shepherds saw something that only the wise men mentioned.

---

Or not. Except I have great reason to assume that the shepherds didn't see the star that night. They were bombarded by a great light, how could they see a little star??How unusual is a star after all??? I mean, hec, it is just a light in the sky from down on earth looking up. Now, if you had some reason, then, to suspect that one particular light was the famous star prophesy, why, you might get excited. Now, I could be persuaded that there was an astrological event in the heavens that clued them in to start looking for it!!! Something that got them to tune in to that area of the sky!?But the description of the star itself, and what it did can't fit a comet, or star in the modern sense.

That's retarded. The default state for the answer to the question "does x exist" is that it does not, until there is evidence that it does. Otherwise, you have to admit that the Invisible Pink unicorn MUST be standing behind you right now, along with it's fairies and elves. Of course, it was night time. While we know the Sun DOES exist, it wouldn't be visible at night.Edited by Rahvin, : Edited for tone. Im sick of seeing this ridiculous flaw of logic.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

You have some wise men who claim they saw something that they called a "star". You have no corroborating witnesses. Pay attention. That's what I've been saying - it wasn't a comet or a star. It was an astrological sign - "when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars", that sort of thing. If it had been a physical star, somebody would have seen it, and there's no evidence that anybody did.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

If we didn't have the bible evidence, we wouldn't be talking. There is no reason to infer that the star was not seen as other stars were seen. Not everyone pays that much attention. Many likely noticed, and it likely was a topic of conversation.Just as many saw the sun, but the bible doesn't record it. (No, not at night) You have no REASON to infer that a star was not seen as stars are wont to be seen. You need a reason to make a claim. I have a reason, the same reason that the star is known worldwide, and sets the calendar, more or less. That is why the year is 2007. The birth, and resurrection of Shiloh.No other star in the heavens has the calendar set to it. When we see what that star that rose in Israel, and did not depart till Shiloh cam seems to have been, is it any wonder!!??

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.

---