Was Christmas originally a pagan holiday? Nope.

[erowe1]

It's likely they would have had camels as part of their caravan. They traveled some distance, and we know camels were domesticated for carrying people and cargo since Genesis.

I agree that it's likely they would have. But that only makes the account more credible, not less.

 

[dusman]

What they saw looked like a star, and that is what Matthew is recording. It's doesn't mean Matthew was incorrect as he was simply relaying what he had learned.

An angel can look like a star, no?

Why not?

Scripture and tradition does not tell us. Maybe they realized it when it disappeared and then reappeared? Maybe when it took a turn and started acting like an unusual light in the sky? Maybe when it came to rest over the Child? Maybe they never realized it was an angel? We simply don't know. My guess is that they discovered early on this was not a "normal" light in the sky and was likely confirmed to them to be a supernatural light when they came upon the house where the Child was. In fact, some of the Patristic sources mention that this "star" was similar to the pillar of fire which led the Israelites through the deserts during the exodus. Not that it looked like a pillar, but had characteristics of the pillar, namely stopping when the caravan stopped, etc.

The important thing is that just because Scriptures do not necessarily and explicitly say that the magi ultimately realized the star to be an angel or supernatural phenomenon does not mean this was not indeed the case.

I also believe this must have been the case. There were plenty of amazing events and alignments occurring in the skies at that time, for example Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, the constellations, etc. There were plenty of signs to point to them that a King of Judah was to be born, the awaited Messiah. The angel/star which led them was an additional phenomenon which they witnessed and whose goal was specifically to bring these three wise mages to the Christ Child. Thus you have the celestial signs from the movements of the stars/planets, and then you have the supernatural manifestation of the angel/star guiding the seekers to the location of the Child.

That pictorial representation of Jupiter over Bethlehem does not point to the exact location of the child or even specific house. The Scriptures states that it came and stood over the Child, not over the city. Jupiter's position over Bethlehem is significant, but it is not the 'star' which is described in Scriptures.

The Scriptures described historical events more as a synoptic model. In developing the Nativity story, St. Luke's describes the events as they were happening and understood. To the magi, it did look like a star, albeit a strange and wonderous star. The end of of this journey of following the star leads to Christ, Who is the central figure of this story. That St. Luke does not explain if the magi ended up realizing that the star was indeed a messenger angel does not exclude this to actually be the case. After all, the crux of the narrative is not about the star or about the magi, but of the Christ Child.

I suppose this leads me to the question why the explanation of an angel might be more preferable than to this Jupiter/Venus conjunction? The latter seems to qualify on all the points we know so far from scripture. The angel theory is only plausible from a lack of an alternative and a necessity to explain what was actually seen.

It further requires us to assume scripture is wrong in defining it as a star.. and with a plausible theory available, I'm not ready to conclude on the angel theory and don't think we should yet until this event can be proven out of alignment with other chronological events we know. Again, the magi were most likely astrologers and so this conjunction must have been of importance in some way due to its incredible rarity. The entire basis of their belief system as astrologers would be giving meaning to events just like this. Bear in mind, this was also 8 total celestial events presented in the video that all relate and so we can certainly draw some major conclusions on how ancient astrologers would have interpreted the events, even without scriptural evidence. Luckily, we have an incredible account in scripture that matches the time frame and how this might have been interpreted.

I'm still not convinced there is any issues with the final part about standing over where Jesus was or that it concludes on an idea that it was so specific as to say this is the exact location of Jesus. From the perspective of this being understood as a star, it must be sufficient that it appeared in the southern sky over Bethlehem and I don't see a way around that. The scripture doesn't bare out that the star was used to identify the exact location of Jesus, simply that it stood over where he was. They knew to proceed to Bethlehem before the star directed them that way.

If you are referring to St John Chrysostom, it doesn't seem his account of the history is all that reliable from what you shared.

 

[TER]

It's likely they would have had camels as part of their caravan. They traveled some distance, and we know camels were domesticated for carrying people and cargo since Genesis.

I read a great article about how it was much more likely that they rode horses rather than camels because that was what animals the Persians used at the time. Will try to look it up...

 

[erowe1]

I read a great article about how it was much more likely that they rode horses rather than camels because that was what animals the Persians used at the time. Will try to look it up...

I actually think it's more likely that they came from Arabia than Persia.

The convention for describing someone's travel into Judea from Persia was to say that it was from the North, on account of the route they would have taken from Persia up through the fertile crescent. Generally references to the East, from the perspective of the Holy Land, were about Arabia.

 

[euphemia]

Not stating for fact, but the Magi would not have been three guys on camels. They would have each had their own entourage to help with provisions, gifts, tents, etc, so the animals would likely have included animals for riding plus animals for cargo.

 

[TER]

I suppose this leads me to the question why the explanation of an angel might be more preferable than to this Jupiter/Venus conjunction? The latter seems to qualify on all the points we know so far from scripture. The angel theory is only plausible from a lack of an alternative and a necessity to explain what was actually seen.

It further requires us to assume scripture is wrong in defining it as a star.. and with a plausible theory available, I'm not ready to conclude on the angel theory and don't think we should yet until this event can be proven out of alignment with other chronological events we know. Again, the magi were most likely astrologers and so this conjunction must have been of importance in some way due to its incredible rarity. The entire basis of their belief system as astrologers would be giving meaning to events just like this. Bear in mind, this was also 8 total celestial events presented in the video that all relate and so we can certainly draw some major conclusions on how ancient astrologers would have interpreted the events, even without scriptural evidence. Luckily, we have an incredible account in scripture that matches the time frame and how this might have been interpreted.

I'm still not convinced there is any issues with the final part about standing over where Jesus was or that it concludes on an idea that it was so specific as to say this is the exact location of Jesus. From the perspective of this being understood as a star, it must be sufficient that it appeared in the southern sky over Bethlehem and I don't see a way around that. The scripture doesn't bare out that the star was used to identify the exact location of Jesus, simply that it stood over where he was. They knew to proceed to Bethlehem before the star directed them that way.

If you are referring to St John Chrysostom, it doesn't seem his account of the history is all that reliable from what you shared.

St. John was not an atronomer and certainly not an astrologist, so we can give him some leeway with certain of the statements he made, such as stars not shining in the day, as we know supernovas can do that. A supernova however would not travel the way this "star" did.

Also, if you review erowe's excellent post above, Scriptures do use the term star to describe the heavenly angelic beings of light.

I agree with you that the magi could deduce through the astrological signs they witnessed (even absent the "star") that a great event was taking place, namely the awaited birth of the Messiah of the Jews. It looks like they were more intuned to those signs than the Jews of the day were, probably because they studied it much more and put much more emphasis and significance to those findings than the Jews around 1 BC.

St. Augustine and others concluded that it was not mere astrological signs of the star or the celestial bodies which motivated them, but also the Holy Spirit which enlightened them to carry out the mission.

 

[TER]

I actually think it's more likely that they came from Arabia than Persia.

The convention for describing someone's travel into Judea from Persia was to say that it was from the North, on account of the route they would have taken from Persia up through the fertile crescent. Generally references to the East, from the perspective of the Holy Land, were about Arabia.

I agree. From the writings I was referring to, they made the argument that the Arabians at that time used horses (Arabian horses, no less) for such travel was customary.

 

[TER]

Not stating for fact, but the Magi would not have been three guys on camels. They would have each had their own entourage to help with provisions, gifts, tents, etc, so the animals would likely have included animals for riding plus animals for cargo.

This is agreed upon. Most likely they were in large caravans given the distance, the terrain, and historical era.

 

[erowe1]

I suppose this leads me to the question why the explanation of an angel might be more preferable than to this Jupiter/Venus conjunction? The latter seems to qualify on all the points we know so far from scripture.

I don't think it qualifies at all. Why would a conjunction of Venus and Jupiter mean that Jesus was born? Why would this specific planetary conjunction mean that and not any others? Why would it be a way of telling, not just that he was born, but also where he was born? How would the Magi know that it meant those things? How would it lead them, not just in general directions, Westward and then Southward, but precisely to Jerusalem and then to a specific house in Bethlehem?

On the other hand, angels are a well-attested means of God giving information to people. An encounter with an angel would explain how the Magi knew what they knew about the Messiah's birth and how they were to find his location. It would explain how it could lead them to very specific places. Also, the method of leading them also has precedent, being similar to the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night that led the Israelites through the wilderness. This pillar of fire and cloud was also an angel (Exodus 14:19). But, though it was an angel, it was usually referred to according to the form it took (a pillar of cloud or fire), just like this "star" that led the Magi.

It further requires us to assume scripture is wrong in defining it as a star

This statement seems odd, since the view you're defending is also one that says it was not scientifically speaking, a star, but a conjunction of two planets.

I don't think scripture is wrong in calling it a star. I just think that scripture is using phenomenological language. When people refer to those little symbols on the American flag as stars I don't think they're wrong either.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I'm sorry, your extraterrestrial threads that appear in the Religion forum.

When you finally get your story straight, be sure to get back to me.

OK?

My study of history has lead me to the conclusion that the "Peace Though Religion" Forum was only just a very bad RPF Admin joke.

Confirmed by much thread experience.

 

[erowe1]

I actually came across the 7BC conjunction earlier and thought it wasn't plausible due to the dating. This would have been impossible as Luke tells us that it was in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, John the Baptist began his ministry and soon after Jesus was baptized (before 30).

Luke does not say Jesus was under 30. He says he was about 30. If Jesus was 35, or even older, that's still "about 30." I think most people who look at me would say that I'm about 30, when I'm actually over 40. Most likely, neither Luke nor anyone else knew Jesus' exact age. It would be a rare thing for adults in the ancient world to know their exact age in years, much less the very date of their birth.

 

[Ronin Truth]

The Bible doesn't say anything about camels or how many magi there were. But I don't get your question. Why couldn't they do that?

Maybe it's that Christmas carol, "We three kings" yada, yada, yada. Uh, because under a "star" covers a whole lot of territory? Under a UFO not nearly so much.

As an aside: Do angels qualify as being extraterrestrials?

 

[erowe1]

Maybe it's that Christmas carol, "We three kings" yada, yada, yada. Uh, because under a "star" covers a whole lot of territory?

I take it you haven't actually read the posts you've been replying to.

As an aside: Do angels qualify as being extraterrestrials?

Yes.

 

[euphemia]

Maybe it's that Christmas carol, "We three kings" yada, yada, yada. Uh, because under a "star" covers a whole lot of territory?

I am not altogether sure there were three kings, although that is the tradition. There were definitely three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. That much we know, and the Bible describes a star. I don't know that it means something different than a star, but I do think sometimes the language did not reflect what was actually there. Ezekiel is a good example. Not to derail the thread. Just saying what I think after learning good hermeneutical principles under very conservative professors.

 

[fisharmor]

So I'm gonna post this again because this guy does a very complete analysis of the sky as it was back then and comes up with multiple consecutive events that match the consecutive Biblical narrative. The Venus/ Jupiter conjunction is one of them.
His theory is that the Magi were descendants of the Jewish diaspora who came from Babylon, who would have known something about both Eastern astronomy, and also the prophecy of the Jewish messiah.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I take it you haven't actually read the posts you've been replying to.

Which replying to posts are those, you are referring to?

Yes.

Thanks, the question was largely rhetorical. The true answer is obvious.

//

 

[Ronin Truth]

So I'm gonna post this again because this guy does a very complete analysis of the sky as it was back then and comes up with multiple consecutive events that match the consecutive Biblical narrative. The Venus/ Jupiter conjunction is one of them.
His theory is that the Magi were descendants of the Jewish diaspora who came from Babylon, who would have known something about both Eastern astronomy, and also the prophecy of the Jewish messiah.

I've witnessed several Venus/Jupiter conjunctions. None of them have seemed to lead or guide to any Earth location, as far as I could tell. Any more guesses?

 

[fisharmor]

I've witnessed several Venus/Jupiter conjunctions. None of them have seemed to lead or guide to any Earth location, as far as I could tell. Any more guesses?

Yeah.
I guess you're not going to watch the video.

 

[TER]

So I'm gonna post this again because this guy does a very complete analysis of the sky as it was back then and comes up with multiple consecutive events that match the consecutive Biblical narrative. The Venus/ Jupiter conjunction is one of them.
His theory is that the Magi were descendants of the Jewish diaspora who came from Babylon, who would have known something about both Eastern astronomy, and also the prophecy of the Jewish messiah.

This is a great great video, fisharmor! I am watching it now! Thank you for posting it!

 

[hells_unicorn]

Look if this was important Jesus would have written it down when he was here just like all the other things he wrote. Omnipotent...DUH!!!

Omnipotence does not mean that one DOES all things, or that one does everything that man wishes he would do, it simply means that one is sovereign and in control. This argument makes God out to be some sort of divine automaton, completely unable to choose when to act and simply a slave to his nature.