Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christmas Star Explained
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 278 (426634)
10-08-2007 2:33 AM


(The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy?)
The Star of Bethlehem has long been a mystery. Science has not found any star that fits the bill, of the time, and place that it was supposed to shine.
I propose that the star was a flying saucer, based on some evidence from the bible. That would explain why it was not seen far away, and not a 'star' in the modern sense of the word.
I propose that the word sceptre (whose origin is unknown, I think) was from this same ship, the mobile throne of the Almighty.
Gen 49:10 - The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
Ps 45:6 - Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
What about it??

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 10-08-2007 4:47 PM simple has replied
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2007 2:19 PM simple has replied
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 10-13-2007 3:43 AM simple has replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 278 (426743)
10-08-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
10-08-2007 2:33 AM


Not an Accuracy/Inerrancy Topic
This topic has no science or scholarship behind it. If anything, it would fit in Faith/Belief, but I need you to explain your sources of information, and I also need for you to explain why you believe this theory has any validity.
Why does the star have to have been anything other than a star?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by simple, posted 10-08-2007 2:33 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by simple, posted 10-08-2007 5:21 PM AdminPhat has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 278 (426765)
10-08-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
10-08-2007 4:47 PM


Re: Not an Accuracy/Inerrancy Topic
Well, it has to do indirectly with science, because there have been so called scientific claims that there was no star of Bethlehem in reality. Those claims are not supported if this was a star in the ancient sense of the word, which, basically meant about any light, or planet in the sky.
Therefore it can't be claimed that the star of the bible is scientifically inaccurate at all. Or errant.
The source for God flying in a mobile throne is the bible. Not a theory. The application of that known fact of the bible to the birth of His son, can be connected by old testament prophesy. The sceptre was not to depart until after Shiloh, or Jesus was born.
So we have the Suspect's vehicle make, and material. We have the birth of His son at a given location, and a mysterious light in the sky documented. What Father would not be close at hand forsomething like that? We also have angels singing in the heavens, another fingerprint of the mobile throne of God. (to the shepherds by night)
We also have it disappearing from the scene after Shiloh had come. In fact, the last act of this 'star' was to actively guide the wise men to the very house of the young Jesus, with gold, and precious gifts!
That establishes also it was not a star in the present day sense of the word.
There is more.
The star has to be something other than a star in the modern sense, because we know, by science, and records of the earth of the time, that there was no star there in the sky. It could not have been that kind of star.
That was one reason why I thought of the bible accuracy area. It can stand up to any science!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 10-08-2007 4:47 PM AdminPhat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminPhat, posted 10-09-2007 11:08 AM simple has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 278 (426981)
10-09-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by simple
10-08-2007 5:21 PM


Not Suitable For Promotion..
Sorry, but I am not inclined to promote you at this time.
Perhaps another admin will do so... so I am leaving this open for 3 more days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by simple, posted 10-08-2007 5:21 PM simple has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AdminNem, posted 10-09-2007 12:32 PM AdminPhat has not replied

  
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 278 (426994)
10-09-2007 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminPhat
10-09-2007 11:08 AM


Re: Not Suitable For Promotion..
Sorry, but I am not inclined to promote you at this time.
Perhaps another admin will do so... so I am leaving this open for 3 more days.
There is so little discussion on aliens in the forum. I think it might be a good topic.
Of course, I think his assertion that the star was actually an alien space ship is totally silly, but he's free to believe that.
I say let it fly, although I totally understand your apprehension. Up to you though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminPhat, posted 10-09-2007 11:08 AM AdminPhat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 2:52 AM AdminNem has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 278 (427326)
10-11-2007 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminNem
10-09-2007 12:32 PM


Re: Not Suitable For Promotion..
Right. Is there some taboo about interesting topics here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminNem, posted 10-09-2007 12:32 PM AdminNem has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 7 of 278 (427359)
10-11-2007 9:32 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 8 of 278 (427392)
10-11-2007 10:38 AM


Why on Earth did this drivel get promoted?
The OP is something a ten year old would write, not a single thing in that post is supported in any shape or form.
The Star of Bethlehem has long been a mystery.
Has it? An unsupported claim, no name of anyone that has found it a mystery is given, and how do we know that this has long been a mystery, do we take Simple's word for it?
Science has not found any star that fits the bill, of the time, and place that it was supposed to shine.
Again, unsupported. What about a reference to an article or a scientist who has tried to explain the 'star' and failed to do so?
I propose that the star was a flying saucer, based on some evidence from the bible.
A saucer?
That would explain why it was not seen far away, and not a 'star' in the modern sense of the word.
But we are not talking about an observation made in the modern world, we are talking about an alleged event in the first century CE. Also, how do we know it wasn't seen far away?
I propose that the word sceptre (whose origin is unknown, I think)
"I think", the author doesnt even know the basics of his own argument.
was from this same ship,
A word came out the ship?
the mobile throne of the Almighty.
Why would God need a throne, God is spirit.
Gen 49:10 - The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
The sceptre is clearly referring to the tribe of Judah and privilege it had. Read the verse in context.
Ps 45:6 - Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Simple has just done a search for 'sceptre' and added this without any support at all.
Why did this ever get promoted?
What about it??
What about putting some effort in to your posts.
It is easy to find out what the Hebrew word used in these verses for 'sceptre' is, and it isn't a flying saucer.
More special treatment for our creationist/theist friends by promoting this substandard OP?

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 4:53 PM Brian has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 9 of 278 (427452)
10-11-2007 2:08 PM


Christmas star
I do think the 'Christmas Star' can be explained, but it isn't a physical phenomena. It was a political one.
I feel that the entire book of Matthew was political commentary on the Roman Empire. The 'Star of Bethlehem' was a political statement that was mirroring the cult of Augustus. The divinity of Julius Caesar was
shown by a comet. This made Augustus 'The Son of God'. He proceeded to
name himself 'Savior' and he brought 'salvation' to the empire.
This is the terminology that the author of Matthew used many years after Augustus' death.
The difference between Augustus and Jesus is that Augustus was a physical savior, and the salvation was economic (prosperity to the roman empire). Matthew used that as a counter point to have Jesus
the savior of the poor, and have the 'salvation' be spiritual in the world to come, not materialistic, in this world.
This can be shown with the following two pictures of coins issued by Augustus

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-11-2007 2:17 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 14 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 4:58 PM ramoss has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 10 of 278 (427455)
10-11-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ramoss
10-11-2007 2:08 PM


Re: Christmas star
i've heard that it wasn't a star so much as an astrological sign (since the "wise men" were probably persian zoroastrians--special note, the word used for them is the same use to describe sorcerers in the rest of the bible). this sign was a clear reference to the people of israel and thus directed them to it. and um. a star or any such body of light coming to rest on a stable is just silly.
anyways. the sign was probably the end of the reign of taurus. this is the same sign described in mithraist mysteries, hence the discussions i've tried to initiate before about the similarities of christianity and mithraism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 10-11-2007 2:08 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 5:08 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 278 (427457)
10-11-2007 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
10-08-2007 2:33 AM


I propose that the word sceptre (whose origin is unknown, I think) ...
Latin sceptrum, from Greek skeptron, meaning "staff".
That took me all of five seconds to find out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by simple, posted 10-08-2007 2:33 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 5:04 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 12 of 278 (427458)
10-11-2007 2:20 PM


Before discussing explanations for the star it needs to be established that there was a star.
There are good reasons for doubting the reality of not jsut the star but almost all of Matthew's Nativity story. Luke's nativity story is quite different - to the point where we cannot reasonably accept both as true. There is no corroboration from any other source, not for the star or the three wise men or for the alleged Massacre of the Innocents (which is the sort of thing we might expect the author of Matthew to invent).
Whether the reason Ramoss suggests is correct or not it is most likely that this star is a fiction.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 5:02 PM PaulK has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 278 (427486)
10-11-2007 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Brian
10-11-2007 10:38 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Brian, posted 10-11-2007 10:38 AM Brian has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 278 (427487)
10-11-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ramoss
10-11-2007 2:08 PM


Re: Christmas star
The entire book of Matt revolves around the life of Christ, not the Romans.This is news? One of the most important events was the birth of Christ. That was marked by a star in the sky, seen by shepherds, and wise men. Not Ceasar in the sky with diamonds.
So important was this star, the starship of the Father, that your computer is set to it, and most calendars in the world!You are running on Sceptre Time, whether you knew it or not!!! That was where they tried to set the calendar to, as best they could.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 10-11-2007 2:08 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ramoss, posted 10-11-2007 7:16 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 278 (427488)
10-11-2007 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
10-11-2007 2:20 PM


The records of the area were controlled by those that had Jesus killed, and the bible documents the fact they tried to hire liars to say He never arose, and other things. They were known liars, and no doubt their records reflected that. Much the same way that the defeated Egyptians of old likely purged their records of their abject defeat at God's hands!
Therefore, since the starship was a very local event there, it is reasonable to assume that the local records would be sure NOT to reflect that, except for the record of records, the bible!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2007 2:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2007 5:19 PM simple has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024