*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.

---

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.

---

some thought wrong. indeed. magic, too. like i said, you just go right on making stuff up. first, it doesn't apply to god in that verse. it applies to judah. it's HIS rule jacob is talking about. second, not every shiny object is the same thing. yes. it's in god's prophecy to david, upon his coronation:

quote:

---

2Sa 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

---

remember now, this is god talking to david. not vice versa. it's david's kingdom, and david's throne, granted to him by god. or does david have a spaceship too? that's not what the verse says. the verse says judah would rule until the end of time. no, simple, i was talking about your ignorance. you should feel free to admit when you don't know something. which is apparently quite frequently, seeing has 99% of your postings are simply made up nonsense. simple, i was discussing the OP. if you don't like people being on topic that's your issue. the text does not say where they went. god wasn't physically there? have you READ exodus? seriously. pillar of fire by day, pillar of smoke at night. leading the way through the desert. you were basically saying that "you can't trust jews" to get the description of the messiah right. nevermind that it's their religion and their definitions. again, you are literally speaking ill of the people who wrote the bible, saying their books are lies. do you not see the issue with this? no. his silence speaks volumnes. look. let's say, hypothetically, that some great work of art is missing, say the mona lisa. if you were in charge of the louvre's inventory after ww2, and you failed to mention the mona lisa, and when we go check the museum now, it's not there -- did it disappear last thursday, or after ww2? it should be in 2 kings 25 if it was in the first temple before the babylonians came. it should be ezra 1 if it was in the second temple. what? this is 500 and 600 years before christ. it's NOT in the second temple when ezra has it rebuilt under cyrus. it's NOT in the second temple when babylon invades and takes everything else. the altar is also missing. you mean thing? you keeping using "ting." why? it's gotta be on purpose. you're not even making sense, either way. ....uh, no. it didn't get around by levitation. people carried it. on specially designed holy sticks made of shittim wood, covered in gold. inserted through four rings, one each corner. it didn't teleport. and even if it did, that's be a pretty cool miracle to write about. look, it's presence alone is enough to write about. miracles are even more worthy of writing. nothing was said about it? it wasn't there. *headdesk*do you really not understand how noah's ark -- a boat -- is a completely different thing than the ark of the covenant -- a box covered in gold and topped by two cherubim, designed to carry the ten commandments, and a few other relic?go back to sunday school. then it was destroyed when the temple was burned to the ground. remember, first and second temples -- there was a period in between when there was nothing there because the first temple was destroyed. the second temple had to be BUILT. it's not just a fruity naming system. there really were two physical temples. now, if you wanna talk simple remodelling, herod the great (you know, that madman from above) remodelled the second temple quite extravagently. it was still called "the second temple."

---

*sigh* not fired. killed. do you really not understand how being a king worked? you don't fire a king. you depose them. violently. a new king in israel, that wasn't herod's son, meant revolution, rebellion, and a violent coup. what? how did you get that from what i said? no, they saw a star, not a ufo. they gathered information from the star -- something routine in astrology, but that a UFO cannot do. do you just live in your own little world or something? you've got a very vivid imagination. here's this object, a chariot, that appears once in a vision in the bible, and you're reading it all over the place, arbitrarily calling it certain names, and then interpretting anything with a similar name to be it. how ludicrous can you be? no. you missed the point. the point is that a bunch of astrologers saw it from 1,000 miles away, but the people right under it simply hadn't noticed. that points to a star (you know, like it says in the bible) and not a UFO. no, simple. i know a lot more about this subject than you do. not just the bible, but UFOs too. you don't know jack, but you keep coming in here with your ridiculous intepretations that plainly defy any rational reading of the text. you're making shit up, proof positive of someone who doesn't know jack. considering that astrology was punishable by death in israel, yes. only astrologers from a foreign country would have noticed. and only astrologers from persia would have cared. why persia? read the book of esther -- persia had an israelite queen. the two nations were on good terms. i'm suggesting that ezekiel's vision was not of a klingon bird of prey. it was a vision, laden with symbolic meanings and not reality. do you understand the difference?

---

...or that it was really a close encounter with a UFO. i couldn't make up a more clear case of projection -- how can you accuse anyone else of making up silly and childish stories to explain away the meaning of the story, when you yourself have started a thread called "christmas star explained" where you explain it as a UFO?come on. really now.

---

you keep using that word. what on earth do you mean? wikipedia lists:

• The sound a bell makes.
• Thing (assembly), a historical Scandinavian governing assembly.
• Ting (administrative unit), an administrative unit in the Qin and Han dynasties in China, 10x10 li in area.
• Ting (soft drink), a carbonated grapefruit beverage popular in the Caribbean.
• Ting (vessel), the ancient Chinese vessel.
• A surname of southern Chinese origin.
• "Thing(s)" in some Caribbean dialects (e.g. "I'd like to buy that ting over there").
• Slang in the trading card game Magic: The Gathering for a lucky draw.
• Ting (phone service), a cellular phone service marketed by the South Korean firm SK Telecom.
• Ting, Afghanistan.
• "There Is No God", an antitheist phrase.

and "see also:"

• Thing

please elaborate on just why you keep using this word, what you are referring to, and what it means in this particular context of "first and second tings."

---

not just my opinion. your source agrees:

quote:

---

it rather signifies dominion, power, and authority, as the sceptre always does, it being an emblem of it, see (Numbers 24:17) (Zechariah 10:11) and this intends either the government, which was in the heads and princes of the tribe, which commenced as soon as it became a tribe, and lasted as long as it remained one, even unto the times of the Messiah; or kingly power and government, which the sceptre is generally thought to be an emblem of, "
Genesis 49 - Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

---

yes, david died. do you fail to understand what a "house" is? "house of david" was a traditional way that prophets like isaiah adressed the king. because a "house" is a family, and the family of david was royal. david's son solomon sat on david's throne. solomon's son rehoboam sat on david's throne. get it? this verse is talking about government. just the same as the judah verse. not UFOs. again, here is the verse:

quote:

---

2Sa 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

---

there is nothing about a sceptre there. just a throne -- david's throne. this verse, however, is the same meaning as the verse about judah:

quote:

---

Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

---

judah will rule, forever. your source, above, agrees on the symbolic meaning of "sceptre." israel did not literally give judah a staff, but he is figuratively talking about government. here's your source, again:

quote:

---

this intends either the government, which was in the heads and princes of the tribe... or kingly power and government, which the sceptre is generally thought to be an emblem of

---

no, he didn't. he saw the city of shiloh close up and personal, when he brought the ark of the covenant from there to jerusalem. mine is not an opinion. mine is what the text says. and your opinion is one that runs contrary to that, and is disagreed with by the very sources you cite. the completely honest truth of the situation is that nearly everyone who read the text comes down somewhere close to my reading of it, except for you. you go and tilt at windmills, pretending they're giants. see, that's the thing. no amount of evidence will ever convince you. not even the bible will convince you. you have the ad-hoc arguments prepared well in advance for everything. the bits about the ark being in heaven -- you made that up. nobody know where it is, if it even exists today.and what's a physical object doing in a solely spiritual "place" anyways? remember, simple, this is your explanation. heaven is no longer a physical place that can be reached by things that are purely physical -- like the ark of the covenant. so it can't be there. no, simple, you're the one making stuff up. that "the sceptre" represents god's rule is your assumption, and one, again, contradicted by the very sources you cite. and "jesus" is not mentioned at all. that "shiloh" means the messiah is also your assumption. these are both things that you have pretty clearly invented. and then, on top of that, to interpret it as a UFO from those thing -- well, that's about loony as it comes when it comes to making stuff up. no, we can't. peasant houses in the first century ad in israel were one and a half story deals. the main floor was raised and made of wood, and the space underneath was used for keeping animals inside during the colder months. during the warmer months (when shepherds slept outside with their flocks), the additional space could be used to house someone overnight if absolutely neccessary. not the greatest living conditions, but this was the barn that jesus was born in.there was no such thing as a "hotel." guests and travellers were put up for the night in houses. people looking for jesus would have come to a house either way. the text does not say whose house it was. the time frame was not given, either. it simply does not say. *headdesk* you just go right on making stuff up, don't you? god was there, in a very strongly literal sense. he led the way through the desert -- and not in a UFO. he let moses see him, and spoke audibly to the congregation. follow this bit, he assisted the israelites in conquering the holy land.now, when god is very literally among you, and kicking ass left and right, what, exactly, does one require saving from? jesus spoke ill of the people who wrote the bible? what book are you reading?! it's not the bible, that's for damned for sure. and let's be clear about this.

JESUS WAS A JEW!

your comments are pure ignorance, and are highly offensive. we're not talking about first century records. we're talking about 5th and 6th century BC records of the second temple. we're talking about the bible. you are saying that we cannot trust the bible. sure you do. *headdesk* no, i have a better one for you. it's totally on topic here, because i'm saying that both arks were the same "ting" because both were really god's UFO. and you can't prove otherwise. the fact is that you brought it up. here, in this thread. now, i'm saying the ark of the covenant was a UFO, and what they really saw in the sky on christmas eve was the ark of the covenant. afterall, jesus was the new covenant, and what better way to establish that than by leading people there with the old one.you see, i can make up stuff too.

---

of course he was. in fact, i believe that point is fairly well documented by secular history. i'm not even sure what brought this up anymore -- i stated herod was understandably worried about a "new king" in israel, being the old king. why was this so hard to understand? does god's UFO come with mind-control ray, as well as a cloaking device? cause if it does, i suggest you go get your tinfoil hat. here in the real world "gathering information about the future from the stars" is called "astrology." no, it doesn't say that. it says it led them somewhere. let's think about this again for just a second. the simply saw the star. a star in the east. that told them to go west. from the star, they gathered that there had been a king born in israel. right? if they knew from the star "israel" guess what? it led them to israel. which, again, is west of persia, and the star was in the east. that's still not what that verse says. no, "sceptre" is a word that you have abritrarily applied to the merkabah. and clearly the bible describes other kings as having sceptres, as king ahasuerus or persia has one in the book of esther:

quote:

---

Est 5:2 And it was so, when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she obtained favour in his sight: and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre that was in his hand. So Esther drew near, and touched the top of the sceptre.

---

oh, and babylon too:

quote:

---

Isa 14:4-5 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.

---

and egypt:

quote:

---

Zec 10:11 And he shall pass through the sea with affliction, and shall smite the waves in the sea, and all the deeps of the river shall dry up: and the pride of Assyria shall be brought down, and the sceptre of Egypt shall depart away.

---

it's a symbol of power. jacob addressing his son judah, and granting him the birthright of kings is no exception. when god is described as having a sceptre, it is to portray him as the king by recalling the imagery of an earthly king. ezekiel's wheels, the merkabah, are not present in either matthew or luke, and are not "a host" which means "a lot." there are only four angels in the merkabah. no. i claim that a UFO flying about within the earth's atmosphere would be seen by the people directly under it, if it could be seen from 1000 miles away. learn to read. you're not talking about the ISS. you're talking about a UFO that, according to you, came to hover over a house, making it very explicitly certain which house it meant. what i said was that "surely the neighbors would have noticed." because you don't know jack. you don't know right from wrong, and sense from nonsense. you are deluded in your own ability to make up the TRUTH^TM, and wouldn't know which way was up even if someone drew you a map. i'm sorry i can't help you. *sigh* not "a jewish gal." esther. as in "the book of esther." as in purim, commemorating hadassah of judah, who won the heart of the king of persia as "esther," became queen, and saved her people from genocide at the hands of someone with a tribal blood oath. it's really a good a book, you should read it sometime.and yes, the text almost certainly means the magi came from persia. persia is the only country that had any reason to care. i think it's a bad idea to confine your notion of god to one way he would physically appear to one of his prophets.

---

"admit" is not the right word. i never claimed otherwise -- the merkabah is indeed the very first vision in the book of ezekiel. that is not what is described in the gospels. ...what part haven't you been listening to? a star is the only thing that can fit the bill. astrologers looked into the east sky and saw a star. not a UFO, a star. they knew what stars looked like. the information they gathered was "king" "born" and "israel." from that information, they went west, the opposite direction of the star. on the contrary, you seem to be the one with the problem here. i have in fact seen a UFO. but simple, that's just the problem. we're not talking about the bible. we're talking about your crazy made up idea of what it all means. there is no UFO in matthew or luke. there's just a star, seen by astrologers, who gathered astrological information from it.

---

because context matters. when they're talking about god, it's about god. when they're talking about judah, or egypt, or persia, or babylon, it's judah or egypt or persia of babylon, respectively. it's not "god" when it says "judah." get it? you have to read the verse, not make it up in your head. according to the gospels, jesus was of the house of david, yes. the problem isn't there. it's that the house of david was deposed from 586 BC until the present. jesus's people -- the jews -- did not "gather unto" him. jesus never sat on that throne in jerusalem, and never was literal king of israel. even supposing he re-fulfills this prophecy, it was broken during the exile. uh, no, read samuel again. "shiloh" is the name of the city where the ark of the covenant resides until david brings it to jerusalem. no, i did. it's called "content." i thought this thread should have some of it. the verse from samuel, about establishing david's throne, is the same as the verse about establishing judah's rule. the one you're pretending is about a UFO. david is a minor player on his own throne. only you. you are evidently misreading SOMETHING in this verse. yeah? i say they're UFOs. again, you write as if 75% of the bible doesn't matter. i find it amusing when you post a source that disagrees with the specific point you cite them to demonstrate. uh, no. when it's talking about the town, it's talking about the town. when it's talking about the end-times, it's talking about the end-times. neither of those are opinions -- they're context. again, context. you really have to read what the verse actually says not what you wish it said. ...by you. the rest of us who live on earth understand it. no. why don't you. this is afterall all about your little favored opinion. the one that disagrees with common sense, the bible, history, science, and everyone else who can actually read. why don't you try some humble pie and admit that you're not being imparted special knowledge from god's UFO mind-control ray, and you're just making stuff up. no, simple, the ones you read think it means that. and the problem is that even if it is the messiah it means the messiah that the jews will accept. the one that brings about the end, and establishes god's kingdom of earth. the stuff that hasn't happened yet, and sounds more like the content of revelation than matthew. "until shiloh come" is like "kingdom come" in english. it means "the end." it's an expression. i agree. it's nonsense. so is everything else you're saying. because, again, you are not actually addressing anyone's points. you are just stuck in your own little loop, like a broken record. nobody claimed that -- they claimed that you didn't know what you were talking about. if the text describes a UFO, we might talk. ezekiel describes somethign strange, yes, but it's not a UFO. and it does not show up elsewhere. you are arbitrarily reading any shiny thing you see fit as "UFO." you have to demonstrate your case before anyone will believe you. as it stands, the literal reading that astrologers saw something astrological and intepretted it astrologically makes a lot more sense. and you will find that it by far is the mainstream opinion. look, what i told came from knowledge and research about housing in first century ad israel. it doesn't matter what definition you pull up, "inn" would be the lodging place someone would have stayed in in 1st century israel -- someone's house. "manger" comes from the french, meaning "to eat." a manger is a troph for feeding animals. jesus was born in a place for keeping animals -- the basement of a first century ad israeli house. i am serious. have you not even read the gospels? there was no room. they stayed in a barn. your sentance is not even internally consistent. and anyways. you're comparing two different stories. in matthew, joseph and mary are from bethlehem -- there is none of thise bit about herod's survey, and them having to travel and stay anywhere. the house there is probably their own. in luke. they are from nazareth, and travel to bethlehem for the census, and stay in a barn. but there are no magi in luke, only heralding angels.i know you won't understand this point. but maybe it'll help clear everything else up for the other people paying attention. persia was the only country that would have cared about a new king in israel. it was about 400 miles from the closest point of the persia empire at that time. it probably took a while, yes. no more than two years. no one is debating that. the bible does not say. and, in any case, stars stick around longer than UFOs. and just how would you say that in klingon? and i suppose the destruction of jericho and the conquest of the holy land weren't "physical only" either. nor was the manna from heaven. not the water from a stone. nor the parting of the reed sea. one more time. maybe big letters will help.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OVERSIGHT IN RECORDS FROM 500 BC, MADE BY THE PROPHET EZRA IN THE BOOK OF THE SAME NAME!

get that? the bible. not the pharisees. THE BIBLE! those suspect records you're talking about are

THE BIBLE

sure i can. there it is in the east sky on christmas eve. must be flying! how would it ascend to heaven with jesus if it couldn't fly? and noah's ark flew too. how else would it have been kept safe from the crashing waves? he just didn't notice, because he was inside the whole time. and we can't trust his records anyways, because he was a dirty lying jew.Edited by arachnophilia, : really big typo, in great big letters

---

again, "admit" is not the right word. talking about ezekiel's vision, yes, ezekiel does describe god as having a chariot. your logic, or rather lack thereof, is simply astounding. in your book, god himself might as well be the UFO. anywhere god appears, or talks, or does anything? that's a UFO. the ladder jacob sees? levitation ray. the man he wrestles with in the desert? that giant silver robot from "the day the earth stood still." the pillar of fire? a tripod from "war of the worlds." burning bush? roswell wreckage. enoch and elijah? alien abductees. the bit about no homosexuality? only god gets to do the anal probes. animal sacrifices? cow mutilation. i could really go on like this all day, just making shit up like you. really now. if you were god of the universe, and you wanted to send a message to a bunch of astrologers, how would you do it? i think we are closing in on the problem here. are you an abductee by any chance? have you checked your body for implants? experienced missing time? deja vu? bloody noses? the strange impression that something you were looking at was really something, if only for a split second, like an alien's face? on the contrary, just about anything else does. nor does a UFO. not without being seen by everyone else in bethlehem. or nazareth. or capernaum. or jerusalem. or wherever you think it led them.

---

ooooh, i see.

thank you! i thought so too i think it's been done, actually. i mean, erich von daniken, of course, but i think i've this one specific idea blown up into a whole books before. i mean, amazon returns some 180 hits for "bible" and "ufo"

---

the thing is that not everything in the bible means god. some sentances have other subjects. you wouldn't say that isaiah condemnations the babylonian kings is really isaiah condemning god -- well, no actually, that is just what you said here. because the verse -- the first thing -- you mentioned is about judah being the father of earthly kings. not a spaceship. so you have to pay attention to context. no, you were pretending something about the verse in genesis, the one about judah. the verse in samuel is the same prophecy but slightly more specific. you really have complete and utter disregard for the bible, don't you? no one who's read samuel would call david and solomon "mickey mouse" kings. and again, you are literally attacking the very authors of the bible -- david (supposedly) wrote most of the psalms and solomon (supposedly) wrote song of songs. you really can't built any credibility for your case if you take every opportunity to speak poorly of the bible. except that the prophecy had to do with real reality. "ultimate fulfillments" are excuses for the plainly evident truth of broken prophecy. god says david's family will rule forever -- but for 600 years, they did not. the only talking ass here... i'm really starting to think you're a troll. you can't seem to take this seriously. "the star." not "the UFO." stars do move -- some of them in strange ways, appearing to wander. in greek, they called these stars planetai, or "wanderers." again, astrology. astrology astrology astrology. you used a source that said the opposite of what you were trying to say. i'm not sure what you think you're arguing about. ...which has not happened yet, and will at the end of times. it's talking about the end of times. ezekiel saw something special. let me phrase this in a language you'll understand -- ezekiel's vision was spiritual only. there was no physical substance to it; it was in his head, shown to him by god, to teach some mystical point. it's not something god gets around in, it was something spiritual-only for ezekiel and ezekiel only.nowhere else in the bible is it ever described again. if i saw it in jesus's day, i would have described it like ezekiel did. words have meanings. i really wish you'd learn that. so one verse in your OP has nothing to do with the other, except that jesus is from the tribe of judah. because there were four different stories. more than four, actually. like i said, i knew you wouldn't understand this point -- you're basically asking at what point gilgamesh visited noah, before or after he got drunk. i'm continually amazed at what you think passes for an argument. the astrologers were very likely sent as diplomats to visit the new king of israel, giving gifts from the royal treasury of persia. they were men, yes. who lived in a country. and were probably sent by that country. it's not a concession. i never claimed otherwise. just that the bible does not say. because it doesn't. *headdesk*so a UFO hovered over bethlehem (or nazareth, or wherever) for two years straight, and it took astrologers from persia to notice it? nobody else, not the king, not his court, not the pharisees, no one else saw it? why was it news to herod and his priests? you sure it wasn't mind control telepathy? you just keep on making stuff up, don't you? now, you are discreditting miracles.

YES IT IS

because that's the point it stops appearing in records. not in jesus's time. it's like arguing that jimmy hoffa went missing yesterday. we know when he went missing because of when the evidence for his existence stops. that's the definition of "missing." YES! the book of ezra, which does not mention the ark. well, this boat flew! ha!

---