Christmas Star Explained

I'm old. I was remembering the song.

---

“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

One may not know a lot about customs, as we check in a foeign hotel, but we can turn on a light, and see it. We can also look at a light in the sky. In the case of a star, why you had better have some good reason to infer it was a star that no one could see. Not agreeing with your dried out version of an interpretation for the famous star prophesy is not anything like you say. As you would have us interpret it, apparently God is a failure, and the silly dead king means that the sceptre thing is all a joke anyhow. Why trade sapphires, for dry dung??After making an ancient long journey, and finally coming to Israel, following a star they had seen in the east, you really think the king wanted to know the hour they saw it??? Or how long, as I suggest, it was in the sky, so he could know how old the king was?? Support you claim that they had the info king, and Israel from the star. Where does the star prophesy say that??? Try and keep it real. God was the Author, and He is fine, thank you very much. The savior was promised since the beginning. Not at all. What you are trying to be clever about there, is that I referred to any references, non bible, that were in any way connected to the life of Jesus, including the torn veil, and missing ark. You kidding??? God brought the silly chaps down to do just that, you really think He'd let the clods touch His ark??? It was safe. But since we do not have the records of it coming to the second temple, most assume it never got there. Not me. I think it was there, in that holy of holies, of course.Ask yourself a question: if it was there, and God ripped it back to heaven the second Jesus died, would you not try and cover it up?? Of COURSE it wasn't or they all would be dead! He called them down, so why whack them by letting them touch the ark???? You really just can't mess with the Almighty. Not at all. It isn't even an option. No, but enough to borrow a phrase, that shows some knew the ark was safe. Whether or not it was as they say is another matter. Why, did he say it wasn't in the temple!!!?? Ha. get serious. Anyhow that is off topic. I can't start new threads, if you had an ark of the covenabt thread, I might look at it.Edited by simple, : No reason given.

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.

---

quote:

---

Can you cite those legal grounds for a king getting fired for not being a proficient stargazer again?? Try and post with some seriousness.

---

quote:

---

Is there a point in disguise here??? Are you suggesting there was some astronomical event of note on record, of the sort you claim??? Tell us then. Really.

---

quote:

---

Who did Herod call in to help? Astrologers??? Or was it those that knew the bible, or scriptures, and about the star prophesy and others?? If the wise men understood everything before this, they would not have been chatting. Elementary.

---

Great! Then show us how a comet or star could guide us to a house, and etc. And you will officially have a point. Until then, work on it.Edited by simple, : No reason given.

Great. Now prove the wise men were that by trade. Or you have no point. I think there was more wisdom involved than just astrology. You have, and the Christmas star does not exist at the moment, that was a long time ago, We now, actually, truly can say, that the Sceptre is gone from Israel. It absolutely was not, only in your interpretation, the Sceptre indeed was here till after Shiloh came. Otherwise your God is a smuck. No, He took nothing at all away, His word is better than gold, more reliable than gravity, and more lasting than this earth and heavens! There is nothing in the bible I need to ignore at all. Nothing in science , either. Easy! The same reason that they stopped to ask directions. It was not moving until it guided them, after they fled the despot!!!! Which could not be something s star does normally, supporting the starship idea. The evidence mounts! OK, Correct me if I am wrong here, but I think we have some unknowns. Some feel that the wise men never got to Jesus till He was about 2 years old. Seems to me that would mean He was no longer in Bethlehem, or any manger. The angel told His dad to flee.an you support your claim they went to the town He was born???? If Jesus was long out of Bethlehem, why would a star guide them there???? So, where in the star prophesy do we see a son of Israel sit on the throne forever?? Or a king of that land, as you seem to interpret???? You do not seem able to back up your claims at all. They were saved by believing that Jesus would come, we by believing He did come. I agree, building the temple makes no sense. The savior was to save all men, not just spruce up the sinful state rule of Israel. They missed the mark on that idea, if they thought as you suggest. It fits with it being taken when the veil was rent. Nothing about absent records of those that had Jesus killed makes the ark absent in any way. God took care of business, and securing the ark was business. Who said he lied???? Where does Ezzie say the ark was destroyed, or whatever you think it was???? Stick to the text, and the facts. Missing from WHAT?????? Being taken??? Being returned???? Or....????
It laid low till it was put in the second temple. Can you cite Ezzie on some reason this is not so???? Chapter and verse please!!!! Ha. Let's see what you got. There were times that God, because of His people's sins, allowed their enemies to get it. But they dropped it like a hot potato, and many tens of thousands of the poor bastards died for the effort!It never left anywhere without the permission of God, be very very very sure of that. Not at all. But I do use other records, even things like Sumer texts, as evidences, however untrustworthy as a whole they may be. The bible does not say that the ark was not in the second temple. But, again, start an ark thread if you dare. I might as well finish the only thread i was allowed to start fairly on topic. Thank you!!!!! What did I say??! He said neither, here, nor there. And where's that?

*headdesk*no. the birth of a new king meant his job. there have been a number of suggestions, each making far more sense than your UFO theory. i'm not particularly advancing any, because i don't care to defend them, but you can get some idea starting about here on the wikipedia page. um, yes, exactly. it always amazes me when you say the obvious, by complete accident, and fail to understand what you said.herod asked the parushim, the religious leaders of judaism (not astrologers) about a new king. the magi (astrologers) knew about the star, but not the prophecy. the parushim knew about the prophecy, but not the star. show us how a UFO could bring people from a thousand miles away, without the people under it noticing. and "selective" vision isn't a good way to announce to the world the birth of the saviour of mankind -- you're essentially saying god didn't want some people to know.

---

oh, of course. there was sorcery, and alchemy, and running the religious system of persia, too. seriously, look up "magi" in the encyclopedia. *sigh*i don't know why you think that "sceptre" means UFO. you don't want to listen to reason. you don't want to look up words in the dictionary. you don't want to read the bible. you just go on talking the same old nonsense, as if it's so natural that the rest of world would share your misunderstandings and delusions. ok, after zedekiah died, who was king of judah? what son of david sat on the throne, according to the promises god made to judah, and to david? you can argue with it all you want, but you're just spitting into the wind. the fact is that after zedekiah, no son of david has ruled judah, israel, palestine, or whichever name you choose to use for the area at various times. the wonderful thing about ignorance, you see, is that you don't know that you don't know something. i'm sorry, but ad-hoc apologetics is not evidence. it's ad-hoc apologetics. that's nice. some people are wrong. in the bible, the magi visit jesus before the angel tells jacob to flee to egypt. um, no. the text says that herod's priests told them to go to bethlehem, and they did. the star then pointed the way. this is the problem. you don't read. you ask where i got something from one prophecy, and i point out that we were talking about the other prophecy. and then you go back to asking where i got something from the wrong prophecy. except that they evidently did not preemptively believe in future-jesus. seriously, what need does your immortal soul have an in spiritual saviour when god himself is physically among you, on your side, and kicking ass left and right while leading you through the desert? that's more than a little silly -- god's literally on their side, but their souls need saving from... god's wrath? the problem here is that you're reading the bible backwards. you can't say that people who were "divinely inspired" by god to create these definitions were wrong, because the person you believe fits the bill, doesn't. you're comparing what, exactly? prophecy, with the people who quoted the prophecy? *sigh*no. it doesn't fit.and the prophet ezra was not among the people who had jesus killed, unless you mean "jews in general." the ark is missing in ezra's records. and ezra is the prophet that literally collected and compiled the majority of the old testament. to say that ezra is part of the conspiracy is to say the bible is part of the conspiracy. and at that point, you might as well admit you're just making shit up and it has nothing to do with the bible at all. i mean, it's obvious to everyone else. you want me to cite chapter and verse where something doesn't appear? look, ezra's book is about the construction of the second temple. the ark of the covenant, the single most significant object in judaism, is not mentioned anywhere in its pages. why?the only reasonable conclusion is that it wasn't in the second temple. if it was, ezra would have mentioned it, along with the far less significant temple objects brought back from babylon (now ruled by persia). even if they built a new one, ezra would have surely mentioned that. why? because that's what the book is about: rebuilding the temple, and re-establishing judaism and jewish scripture. yes, well, you just said that wouldn't happen. god wouldn't let the babylonians get ahold of it. why not? he let the palushtim get ahold of it. as he pissed then? cause he sure was pissed at them when he sent them into exile.so where'd it go? no, it doesn't say anything about it all being in the second temple. which is just the point -- it's not something one easily misplaces, or overlooks and forgets to write about. it's the single most significant object in judaism. whole chapters of the bible are devoted to its construction, and its movement. why isn't it in 2 kings? or ezra?and frankly, the apocrypha just doesn't count. those texts are all later texts, many of which were written to justify certain big questions people had -- "who did cain marry?" and such. "where did the ark go?" is another big question mark in the bible. the fact that it was missing was the reason references to jeremiah hiding it were written. and those aren't the only references, either. there's more like a half-dozen descriptions of where it went. including africa.the fact is that official records stop just before the exile. it disappears then -- not at some later point. in any case, the exile was a much more cataclysmic event for judaism than jesus's ascension. judaism barely blinked an eye in regards to jesus -- but the exile was more like the holocaust. they took it as a very, very clear message that god was punishing the jews.and if you're inclined to believe that god took away his throne (that is, afterall, what the ark was) from judaism, then it makes far more sense to suppose he did so as he all but abandoned and destroyed judaism. you derail every thread you participate in. consider your threads fair game.

---

Not really. A baby takes time to grow up. As it turned out, more time that he had to live anyhow. They can't be defended. The only thing they could address is what sort of star of comet it might have been. NO astronomical object guides men to a house miles and miles and miles away. They knew about Jesus being born in Bethlehem. But the issue is, was He even at Bethlehem at this time??? He was a child by now, and I have read of some that interpret that the wise men never got to Jesus house till He was something like 2 years old. Not at the manger, that apparently is a common misconception."Holidays celebrating the arrival of the magi traditionally recognise a sharp distinction between the date of their arrival and the date of Jesus' birth. Matthew's introduction of the Magi gives the reader no reason to believe that they were present on the night of the birth, instead stating that they arrived at some point after Jesus had been born, and the Magi are described as leading Herod to assume that Jesus is up to 1 year old."
Biblical Magi - Wikipedia OK, I'll go first, then your turn, to show how a star could pull off this act.
The Sceptre sits over Israel, and is seen by the wise men. They hustle it to that country, and stop in to ask the locals when there, where the king is. This was, as I recall, a few years after the manger scene. They catch on to the mad murdering king routine in a hurry, make a new plan, Sam, and slip out the back.
The sapphirethronemobile kicks it into gear, and maybe flashes a few colors or something, to get their attention, and proceeds to guide the wise men right to Nazareth, where Jesus now lived. Right to His house.If this needs a tweak, as to exact timings, etc, fine. But the basic idea is that the starship was stationary for a while, but started moving, and guiding for the wise men.Piece of cake.

herod the great reportedly killed two children he saw as a threat to his throne. it's NOT out of the question, because apparently it happened.and yes, herod did die very soon after that incident. no, not "astronomical." "astrological." they had gathered information from the star. you can't do that from a UFO sighting. and so what if it led them to the house? as i pointed out, stars move. what's more, they move from east to west. yes, it is. it's also totally irrelevent. the bible does not say whether or not they were still in bayit-lechem, or say had gone back to nazareth. but the priests sent them to bayit-lechem. oof, maybe i should edit that.

quote:

---

Mat 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

---

herod certainly thought jesus could have been two. i've already explained how an astrological event could have attracted the attention of astrologers. and i shouldn't have needed to. ok, let's be really clear about this.sceptre:

​

merkabah:

​

UFO: NOT the same things. and ONLY the astrologers. who happen to be proficient in astrology. did i mention astrology? similarly, the giant UFO over israel (which in this story has been relocated east of persia) is not seen by anyone who lives there. not the locals. the king. they ask the king where the new king (ie: his son) is. the bible does not specify. that's "make a new plan, stan." it rhymes, see? and "slip out the back" is generally followed by "jack." and anyways, they do neither of those things. the leave with the "blessing" of the king. herod wants them to find the baby, so he can kill it. it's AFTER they leave that see the star again, and follow it, to a place that may or may not be bayit-lechem. it is only when the magi do not return that herod makes a new plan. the merkabah is still not in the story. it says "star." followed by star gazers. jesus's house was in capernaum. and he wouldn't own a house for at least another 10-12 years, probably more. you mean "joseph's house." and that's not specified in the story, just "the house." it doesn't say whose. it might be reasonable to think it was joseph's home in nazareth, but the text does not say. there's still no starship. anywhere. god has a chariot, as described in ezekiel. but it's not a starship. it's one particular vision of the throne of god -- and not the only one. and it's not been established that something which is so obviously astrological would be god himself in his pimp-mobile.

---

The wise men were sent to Bethlehem. There's no reason to think they didn't meet Jesus there.Herod would have waited for them to report back for some time. Then he would have waited for some more time before he decided what to do.When he finally did order the slaughter of the innocents, he didn't know exactly when Jesus was born so he needed a fairly wide margin of error to make sure he got the right baby. He must have been fairly certain that Jesus was much less than two years old.Going by the text alone, Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem for a month or so and the wise men found them there. The slaughter of the innocents would have been maybe a few months later.

---

“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

Actually, it is somewhat unknown, some even thought they were kings. They well may have had a fairly well rounded knowledge of more than just stars."TraditionsMost of what we associate with the "Magi" is from early church traditions. Most have assumed there were three of them, since they brought three specific gifts (but the Biblical text doesn't number them). They are called "Magi" from the Latinized form of the Greek word magoi, transliterated from the Persian, for a select sect of priests. (Our word "magic" comes from the same root.)As the years passed, the traditions became increasingly embellished. By the 3rd century they were viewed as kings. By the 6th century they had names: Bithisarea, Melichior, and Gathaspa. Some even associated them with Shem, Ham and Japheth--the three sons of Noah--and thus with Asia, Africa, and Europe. A 141h century Armenian tradition identifies them as Balthasar, King of Arabia; Melchior, King of Persia; and Gasper, King of India.(Relics attributed to them emerged in the 4th century and were transferred from Constantinople to Milan in the 5th century, and then to Cologne in 1162 where they remain enshrined.)These are interesting traditions, but what do we really know about them?The Priesthood of the Medes.The ancient Magi were a hereditary priesthood of the Medes (known today as the Kurds) credited with profound and extraordinary religious knowledge. After some Magi, who had been attached to the Median court, proved to be expert in the interpretation of dreams, Darius the Great established them over the state religion of Persia. (2) (Contrary to popular belief, the Magi were not originally followers of Zoroaster. (3) That all came later.)It was in this dual capacity, whereby civil and political counsel was invested with religious authority, that the Magi became the supreme priestly caste of the Persian empire and continued to be prominent during the subsequent Seleucid, Parthian, and Sasanian periods. (4)"
http://www.ldolphin.org/magi.html I already covered that. I said I thought it referred to God, and His rule, including kings of Israel. But, since we know He has wheels, the starship is part of that. First of all, who said that a son of David needed to be on a throne somewhere??? Can you show us the exact basis of that claim?
All I say, is that the Father would still rule Israel as His people, till Jesus came. I would recommend that if you don't know something, like whether the ark was hid, or whatever, that you simply admit that ignorance, rather than glorying in it. "Although the common myth is that the Magi came to worship Jesus in his crib, the Gospel has them arrive while Jesus is a child (pais in Greek). Indeed, this is the reason that Herod orders the death of all children two years of age or under (not all infants!), since he must reckon that Jesus was born two years before the Magi arrived."jesuspolice.com - jesuspolice Resources and Information."8. How old was Jesus when the magi visited Him?The Biblical data to guide us in answering this is as follows. (1) We know from Luke's Gospel (2:21) that Jesus was circumcised at 8 days old; (2) We also know from Luke 2:22-24, that when the 40 days of Mary's "uncleanness" had passed (see Leviticus 12:1ff.), they presented Jesus, their first born son in the temple in Jerusalem, according to God's Law (Exodus 13:2ff.; Numbers 3:13, 8:17. (3) Herod asked the magi when they had first seen the star (Matthew 2:7) and on this basis later killed all of the male children in Bethlehem, age two and under (Matthew 2:16). In addition to this, there is (4), that the magi came during the reign of King Herod, whom we know died in 4 BC;On this basis we can lay out the following with a fair amount of certainty. Jesus was between 41 days and 2 years old when the magi arrived. The magi had to have come after Jesus' presentation in the temple, that is, after Jesus was 40 days old. Why? Because, Matthew's Gospel tells us that after the magi departed, an angel warned Joseph to flee to Egypt, since Herod would seek to kill Jesus. According to Scripture, Joseph left that very night and went to Egypt (2:13-15). This would have left no time or opportunity for the presentation in the temple, which we know happened.Is the fact that Herod killed all Bethlehem boys age 2 and under evidence that Jesus was 2? Not necessarily. First, the murder of these little ones does not necessarily mean that the magi told him that the star had appeared two years before. They could have told him a lesser number and ruthless Herod might have chosen two years in order to "take no chances." Second, if the magi did tell him that the star had appeared two years before, this also does not necessarily mean that Jesus was 2. The star could have appeared before Jesus was born, giving the magi advanced notice."
http://www.orlutheran.com/html/magifaq.html Simple solution there, just reference what you are talking about and be clear. Otherwise the first ting gets confused for the second ting, and the two tings don't know what end is up. Work on that. Cute, so now you claim that these good and wise men listened to the madman's henchmen!?? Prove it. Seems to me they were humoring the palace demons there, till they could flee for their lives! He was not physically there. He is not physical. He was present, yes, but is present today as well, inside our hearts. He still kicks it for us, and soon will really cut loose, and it'll be like old times. Not sure what you are talking about here, was it the first ting, or the second ting?? If you mean the old temples, no, I mean the new temples, the third ting. Get it?? I mean the Pharisees and scribes, and rulers in Jesus day. Ezzie does not say either way anything significant about the presence or location, or absence of the ark. Does he??? So, he is neither here nor there on it. Can you show us exactly where in it's pages it should be??? What chapter?? I would even consider the poor guy may not have known at the time. If the ark was taken from the holy of Holy by God at the death of Jesus, why not have it put there after the temple was set up, in the second temple. Remember, no need for the first ting to be the same as the second ting. Just because they carried it, or whatnot into the first, doesn't mean circumstances were the same in the second instance. Does it?? God works in mysterious ways. In the first ark, of Noah, He closed the door Himself. That could be precedent. All tings considered. Not unless they were allowed. From the bible it seems they neither took it, or returned it. The ones He let get it for a bit were not allowed to destroy it. We also see that the bible tells us of the ting. Since it does not say it went to Babylon, we have an obvious case of the first ting, again, being different from the second ting. All tings considered, we should allow God the benefit of the doubt on which these tings.As for the rest of your questions on the ark, you may start a thread if you like. I think I covered it pretty good here as a side issue.Edited by simple, : No reason given.

That has what to do with your claim he would get fired?? You now claim that they never saw the star, and followed it to Israel. Ok. Thin ice indeed, there. In fact. So, again, we don't know. But, from the other parts of the bible, it can be determined that it was not to the manger, as I showed in the link in the previous post. But, if there was no star over Israel, and they were not up on prophesy, as you suggest, what's left??? I said I called His ship that name. And it is fitting, since it is His rule, His sceptre that the star prophesy speaks of. The ship is like something that carries out the royal will, gets the job done, on the scene, Hands on, involved, execution of royal decrees. I can see why the name got to mean what it did, something we could wrap our little heads around. Are you suggesting that the star could not have been seen by the 'king' of the east?? First of all, if it did come down to rest over Israel at the time of the birth of the Messiah, one might presume it came from real high! That means that the kings could have seen it, even heading for a ceratin area, and get real excited! Sorry, it was called a star for a reason. They can be see quite a ways off, you know. Jack didn't really seem fitting, besides it seems like you don't seem to know Jack, sometimes.
Anyhow, no, they humored the palace thugs, and left another way, and Herod knew he was duped, and got real mad. Star meant light in the sly, more or less. And it was not followed by stargazers, only those gazers that it wanted to guide. Are you claiming the wise men were the only gazers!!??? Ridiculous. Ah, some progress here! Now then, are you suggesting that His 'chatiot' could not travel in space?? What, the wheels of the Almighty creator of all universe, had to spin His wheels only in earth's atmosphere!!!!!!!????? Think about it.

Yes there is. From other evidences in the bible, as I posted a few posts ago. The timing is within a certain possible range, and the manger is ruled out. We have God, who was responsible for guiding them warning them in a dream NOT to do as Herod said. Why assume He guided them where the wicked king wanted, or suggested??? It would not fit with the preponderance of scriptures. It can be ruled out, as a matter of fact. Maybe. Maybe not. How would we know if spies on the road to Bethlehem reported that no wise man convoy was anywhere in sight?? We do not know how long it took Herod to figure out that he was a dope. We don't know. We do know the possible margin of error, however. And going to the manger is not an option. One clue you might notice to confirm that, is that they clearly went to a house, not a stable. Going by the bible, and balancing texts, and info, we see that there is more to consider than a simple reading of one chapter, and assuming God is a real loser, inept, and missing in action most of the time.Edited by simple, : No reason given.