2. Christ's Birth and the Guiding Star

[David]

This is beginning to sound like another conspiracy theory, Take some facts as being highly important and then reject everything else, and there was a hidden group of people influencing the strucute of this time the bible for their own political ends.

For example the assetion that Colossians was not written by Paul was first mooted not in the writtings of the early Christian writers, but in fact in the 1800's. Colossians is included in the Chest Beaty papyrii from AD250, before the Nicean conference which is usually taken as the point when the political exclusion of text occured. Though of the 25000 ancient manuscripts containing including scraps of manuscript the new testment as we know it is reconstructied.

Another way of looking at the reason for the books included in the New testament being so, was that they were the ones everybody agreed were in the New testament.

The reasons for exclusion of the authorship of Paul by a few critic depends on 36 unique words in the letter. Words we use often depend on context, some words I use often other rarely.

Most critics will state that the differences are irrelevant.

So when we look at the authorship of the N.T do we look at the majority of textural evidence or higher critics from the 1800s

[composer]

Originally Posted by Flappie

Same thing. This was the initial objection in this thread:

You have been given an answer to why it's more than reasonable for the Jewish scholars not to have been there. I haven't seen anything that invalidates that answer. An entirely different objection, which renders the above objection meaningless anyway, does not constitute a refutation of the answer.

Well I have offered other objections that is true. I already stated that.

The failure of your premiss, is because it is merely internal biblical text based upon ' faith ' that it is valid and that other biblical evidence refuting you hasn't been removed or the existing text manipulated, and of course those like yourself who ' believe it to be true as it stands, do this based upon faith alone ' then try to justify the biblical claim that the Jews were not there at the birth or soon after based upon that flawed evidence. I have already proven that the biblical text can not be trusted as it stands by the following examples already given by me (1 John 5: 7 KJV and Ezek. 18:20).

Yes, you have given an answer, however your answer has about as much actual serious credibility for your cause as 1 John 5: 7 KJV has been used by trinitarians to support their cause. (None)

Conversely, my answers refuting yours are supported with tangible evidence against you. (See Post #12 or 15, My Refs: #1, #3)

Your claim that you allegedly ' Haven't seen any evidence refuting it " has the same empty rhetoric the violent AB said to the ecclesia when they lied about the true reasons I had left. They refused to read openly my letter of resignation containing the true reasons why I left CA land and instead they also ' gave an answer ' as to why I had left whilst (like you now (My Ref: Posts 12 & 15 #1 & #3)) but dismissing the true facts before them that they refused to acknowledge and instead presented spurious testimony that better suited their fallacious and dishonest cause.

Thank you for assisting me in presenting those truths.

[Peter]

I put a response to the Star of Bethlehem topic on the forum last night. But it isn't listed. Are some responses blocked?

[Peter]

This is a rough repeat of what I wrote last night.
The Star of bethlehem has a certain weirdness about it. It doesn;t seem to be a normal star or planet.
What star or planet for that matter could have gone ahead of the Magi and then stood over a certain house so designating the location of the baby Jesus?
I don't know of any! Only a "star" within earth's atmosphere could do that. Wherefore I hypothesise that the "star" was the "shekinah" or God's glory. It is most appropriate given that Jesus was Immanuel "God with us" Interstingly on the night of his birth that light did appear above the hills of Bethlehem to the shepherds.
As for the Magi it appears to me that they can be classified as believers. They believed that the baby was King of the Jews.(Now only God could have revealed that to them) They knew his significance and so worshipped him. They were emotionally connected to him -they rejoiced exceedingly when they saw his star. The whole episode is a reminder that the There are always "7000 more in Israel who do not bow to Baal". There are going to be salvation surprises.

[Peter]

I was hoping someone would have made comment on blog #24.

[David]

I agree, the word used is often the same word used for a shooting star. If I rememeber a study from a long time ago correctly.

D

[Evangelion]

Originally Posted by composer

I would like to explore several questions raised by Donald O'Dell in his Book - How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com

I shall give each one a separate Thread to avoid confusion.

4. • I never understood why the High Priests, Sadducees, or Pharisees didn’t show up at Bethlehem. If the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem was such a well-known prophecy of Micah—known well enough that shepherds were aware—then why weren’t the Jewish scholars there? If the star was so visible that magi (wise men) from Persia (Iran) came to witness it, why weren’t the local Jewish scholars and religious community there? It simply didn’t make any sense to me then.

See Matt. 2:1 - 6 cf. Micha 5: 2

The shepherds only knew what was going on because the angel told them. The High Priests and Sadducees knew of the prophecy; we know this because they told Herod:

Matthew 2:1-6
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the time of King Herod, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem
saying, "Where is the one who is born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him."
When King Herod heard this he was alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him.
After assembling all the chief priests and experts in the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born.
"In Bethlehem of Judea," they said, "for it is written this way by the prophet:
'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are in no way least among the rulers of Judah,
for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.' "

I suspect the reason why they didn't go to Bethlehem is because they didn't believe the wise men. They might also have been disturbed by the report, since it had the potential to threaten their authority (hence "Herod was alarmed and all Jerusalem with him.")

Then, after the wise men had visited Jesus, Herod started killing all the children in Bethlehem under 2 years old. I guess that left the chief priests and scribes with a pretty fair indication of what would happen to anyone who tried to get involved in the hunt for the Messiah, so they decided to keep out of it!