2. Christ's Birth and the Guiding Star

[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

[David]

True, maybe, if they were looking for it at that moment, they knew the prophecy in Micah, but didn't put the two together events together, don't it loads of times myself.

Just becuase I don't do the things that other people would expect doesn't make it historically inaccurate

D

[composer]

Originally Posted by David

True, maybe, if they were looking for it at that moment, they knew the prophecy in Micah, but didn't put the two together events together, don't it loads of times myself.

Just becuase I don't do the things that other people would expect doesn't make it historically inaccurate

D

Couldn't they see the bright shining star moving across the sky and asked the scientists / astrologers about it, but only the shepherds could figure it out?

The Chief Priests and Scribes had it already worked out -

After assembling all the chief priests and experts in the law,8 he (Herod) asked them where the Christ9 was to be born. 2:5 “In Bethlehem of Judea,” they said, “for it is written this way by the prophet: 2:6 ‘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.’”10 Then Herod11 privately summoned the wise men and determined from them when the star had appeared. 2:8 He12 sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and look carefully for the child. When you find him, inform me so that I can go and worship him as well.” 2:9 After listening to the king they left, and once again13 the star they saw when it rose14 led them until it stopped above the place where the child was. 2:10 When they saw the star they shouted joyfully.15 2:11 As they came into the house and saw the child with Mary his mother, they bowed down16 and worshiped him. They opened their treasure boxes and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense,17 and myrrh.18 (Matt. 2: 4 - 11) NET (My parenthesis)

[David]

The question is not that the didn't know the prophecy but they didn't do what I would have done, so therefore in your arguement, because they didn't do as I would do it becomes historically incorrect, and therefore dubious.

I don't know if Herod made any threats, or persuaded them by offering a more comfortable alternative, or it might have been on a feast day, Sabbath day or whatever, those details we don't know, because they are not relevant to the marative.

It appears that only the magi recognised the star, but the Jewish elders recognised the prophecy. They may not have believed the magi, but were bound to answer Herod's question.

People do wierd things, it was obvious that Hitler was a racist yet more people voted for his party than others in the 1933 election. Or using your foundations of belief, see the migration of birds etc as evidence of natural selection, not of the finger of God, and here I would agree with you.
D

[composer]

Originally Posted by David

The question is not that the didn't know the prophecy but they didn't do what I would have done, so therefore in your arguement, because they didn't do as I would do it becomes historically incorrect, and therefore dubious.

I don't know if Herod made any threats, or persuaded them by offering a more comfortable alternative, or it might have been on a feast day, Sabbath day or whatever, those details we don't know, because they are not relevant to the marative.

It appears that only the magi recognised the star, but the Jewish elders recognised the prophecy. They may not have believed the magi, but were bound to answer Herod's question.

People do wierd things, it was obvious that Hitler was a racist yet more people voted for his party than others in the 1933 election. Or using your foundations of belief, see the migration of birds etc as evidence of natural selection, not of the finger of God, and here I would agree with you.
D

Blind Freddy's Mum would recognise a star moving across the sky and then stopping at a specific location and if that happened today, in the same way, the authorities would be notified who you say didn't see it but just about every one else would have?

[dkiversen]

A wandering star is a planet. This tells us that a planet was doing something unusual that was recognised by the magi but not the Jewish authorities.

Those versed in astronomy usually interpret the star as a planetary conjugation. An interpretation that seems to cover all bases is given at http://www.bethlehemstar.net

[composer]

Originally Posted by dkiversen

A wandering star is a planet. This tells us that a planet was doing something unusual that was recognised by the magi but not the Jewish authorities.

Those versed in astronomy usually interpret the star as a planetary conjugation. An interpretation that seems to cover all bases is given at http://www.bethlehemstar.net

Thanks for the Link, however even the earliest remarks there only demonstrate that ' at best ' the evidence is basically ' speculation / guesstimation ' -

THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM FASCINATES. For millennia, believers, scoffers and the curious have wondered at the Biblical account of the Star. The Bible recounts unusual, or even impossible astronomical events at Christ's birth. For many doubters, the account of the Star is easily dismissed as myth. For many believers, it's a mystery accepted on faith. But what happens if we combine current historical scholarship, astronomical fact and an open mind? Judge for yourself... (Extract from your source.)

It is incomprehensible that the Jewish authorities (especially looking for signs of their Messiah) would miss such an event.

Thank you

[Flappie]

The word magi doesn't just classify some random people, they were leading astrologers. Those sort of people spend half their time gazing into the sky looking for uncommon phenomena. As far as I know, Pharisees weren't into that sort of thing. So, they probably didn't see any stars moving around, or if they did, they wouldn't associate it with anything. There's nothing in Scripture that says stars would move at the birth of the Messiah.

In fact, there is no evidence at all that anyone apart from the magi saw the star. The shepherds didn't "figure it out" because they saw a star, they were notified of the event by an angel appearing in their midst and telling them about it.


If you don't want to believe the Bible, that's fine, but stop bringing up ridiculous objections like these.

[composer]

Originally Posted by Flappie

The word magi doesn't just classify some random people, they were leading astrologers. Those sort of people spend half their time gazing into the sky looking for uncommon phenomena. As far as I know, Pharisees weren't into that sort of thing.

As far as you know.

That says it all. You are guessing.

Originally Posted by Flappie

So, they probably didn't see any stars moving around,

More of your guess work.

Originally Posted by Flappie

or if they did, they wouldn't associate it with anything.

More guesswork on your part.

Originally Posted by Flappie

There's nothing in Scripture that says stars would move at the birth of the Messiah.

Micha's prophecy (5: 2 -) would have given them an indication to look out for something different or a special occurrence.

Originally Posted by Flappie

In fact, there is no evidence at all that anyone apart from the magi saw the star.

Every one else must have been blind.

Originally Posted by Flappie

The shepherds didn't "figure it out" because they saw a star, they were notified of the event by an angel appearing in their midst and telling them about it.

Sure the shepherds had an angelic notification according to the text.

The Jews who didn't show up had prophetic notification from Micha. (5: 2)

4sn The Greek term magi here describes a class of wise men and priests who were astrologers (L&N 32.40). (Footnotes Matt. 2: 1 NET)

There would undoubtedly have also been Jewish astrologers earnestly seeking for signs also, especially having been given the prophetic advice of Micha (5:2)

& the information that the Magi shared the Jewish astrologers would also have been aware - After assembling all the chief priests and experts in the law,8 he asked them where the Christ9 was to be born. 2:5 “In Bethlehem of Judea,” they said, “for it is written this way by the prophet: 2:6 ‘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.’”10 (Matt. 2:4 - 6) NET (My bold)

Originally Posted by Flappie

If you don't want to believe the Bible, that's fine, but stop bringing up ridiculous objections like these.

I don't entirely believe the Bible no I don't and with just cause. It has been tampered with and is not entirely trustworthy.

My objections are certainly not ridiculous nor unfounded and my ongoing evidences prove it is you and those like you that are being misled and your current ideology and beliefs are based upon e.g. guesswork, blind faith and denial of textual contradictions. (e.g. Ezek. 18:20 cf. Rom. 5:12)

Your aggressive attitude towards me does you no favours either. Your ' shooting the messenger mentality ' only reminds me of my past experiences with the CA's and other religions some of them hypocrytically dare to condemn for using the same or similar aggressive tactics as you do now.

Although I disagree with the Biblical Christ's role, I do embrace his more gentle approach than yours or those like you.

Thank you

[Flappie]

Well, the two questions raised were:

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?

There is no indication that the shepherds knew the prophecy. They were aware because an angel told them. There is no record of an angel visiting the Jewish scholars, so how exactly would they know?

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?

The magi were astrologers, they made it their job to look at stars, and since Persia and Israel have the same view of the constellations, it's not surprising they can see it.


The assumption on your part then is that there must be Jewish astrologers. Do you have any evidence for this? Even if they existed, is there any evidence that they interpreted the stars in the same way as the magi? There is no Biblical justification for associating the birth of the Messiah with a star. I look up at the sky plenty of times, but I wouldn't have a clue if one was out of place, do you have any evidence that non-astrologers would notice the star?

There is no evidence that the magi and the scribes shared any information. The magi came to Herod, asking him about a king. Herod then asked the scribes where the Messiah would be born. After that Herod asks the magi in private for more details.

Matthew 2:16 indicates that Herod needed the magi for the information rather than any other astrologers. Evidence that only people like the magi actually noticed the star.


So, in short, the shepherd knew because an angel told them. The magi knew because they were actively looking for that sort of thing. On the other hand there is no evidence to suggest that the Jewish scholars should know what was happening. There is no record of an angel visiting them, there is no record of them being astrologers, and there is no prophecy which says a star will be hovering over Bethlehem at the time of the birth of the Messiah.

The objections are hereby answered.

[David]

The law of Moses appears to have forbidden divination and soothsayers and augeries Leviticus and Deuteronomy, it appears that the Jews took this to cover astrology, and so from teh documents we have there were no Jewish astrology, so lacking this "science" they may have seen the star, but not linked it with anything.

We can not tell motives, either we look at the bible as story or history, people do wierd things in histroy, why does the flat earth socierty still exist, based upon the idea of stationary ether.

WE cannot judge that the motives and movements of others are illogical, and therefore it is false simply because it seems counter intuitive, people often act in a counter-intutive manner, hence the number of conspiracy theories.

I do not think it is a good argument to say because x saw something that when y saw the same event they would have reported it and interpreted in the same way. Simply looking at the accounts of eye witnesses and the differences in their account shows that not only can people see and intepret things differently they often do. That is why the Jewish law demanded at least two witnesses to agree.

D

D

[composer]

Originally Posted by Flappie

. . . . So, in short, the shepherd knew because an angel told them. The magi knew because they were actively looking for that sort of thing. On the other hand there is no evidence to suggest that the Jewish scholars should know what was happening. There is no record of an angel visiting them, there is no record of them being astrologers, and there is no prophecy which says a star will be hovering over Bethlehem at the time of the birth of the Messiah.

The objections are hereby answered.

Your answers are at best empty speculation based upon the biblical evidence alone (that apart from faith has little credibility) -

According to the bible -

That the Magi thought a star led them on, is clear from the words (eidomen gar autou ton astera) which Matthew uses in 2:2. Was it really a star? Rationalists and rationalistic Protestants, in their efforts to escape the supernatural, have elaborated a number of hypotheses:

•The word aster may mean a comet; the star of the Magi was a comet. But we have no record of any such comet.
•The star may have been a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn (7 B.C.), or of Jupiter and Venus (6 B.C.).
•The Magi may have seen a stella nova, a star which suddenly increases in magnitude and brilliancy and then fades away.

These theories all fail to explain how "the star which they had seen in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was" (Matthew 2:9). The position of a fixed star in the heavens varies at most one degree each day. No fixed star could have so moved before the Magi as to lead them to Bethlehem; neither fixed star nor comet could have disappeared, and reappeared, and stood still. Only a miraculous phenomenon could have been the Star of Bethlehem. (Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09527a.htm)

So all you have at best is empty speculation based upon the biblical text that we already know can not be fully trusted. (e.g. Ezek. 18:20 refutes the fundamental role of the Christian Jesus, 1 John 5: 7 KJV also shows how easily text can and was manipulated.)

(My Ref: #1:) Roman Catholic biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown in The Birth of the Messiah lists several reasons he does not believe the biblical account, including the fact that such a bright star would have been mentioned by others, but despite fairly good astrological records it is mentioned nowhere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(My Ref: #3:) Some critics wonder why "the star" led the Magi first to a hostile enemy of Jesus, and only then to the child's location—the argument being that if this was an event from God, it makes no sense for them to be led to a ruler with intentions to kill the child before taking them to Jesus. Indeed, if due to the activity of this star, or the visit from the Magi, motivated Herod to want to seek out Jesus and destroy him (Mathew 2:13), why would God, knowing this, set up a situation that would lead to a slaughter of innocents two years old and under? These lingering questions cause some scholars to be skeptical about the story of the Magi. (Source: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Magi)

Not only that - IF such a phenomonen had taken place, many Jewish witnesses would have observed it and notified the Jewish authorities if they had somehow allegedly missed seeing it themselves.

Your responses Flappie are easily refuted and my objections to the biblical account prevail more than before.

[Flappie]

Originally Posted by composer

Your answers are at best empty speculation based upon the biblical evidence alone

Obviously. The initial objections were about internal consistence, so I answered them.

Not only that - IF such a phenomonen had taken place, many Jewish witnesses would have observed it and notified the Jewish authorities if they had somehow allegedly missed seeing it themselves.

Yes, you keep saying that, and it is the main assertion for the initial objections, but it is not founded on any facts. You need to prove that people apart from astrologers noticed, and then that the Jewish authorities should have found anything significant about it. Since you can't, the objections raised in the first post are meaningless.

Your responses Flappie are easily refuted and my objections to the biblical account prevail more than before.

You haven't refuted anything, all you have done is stated another objection entirely, and repeated your unfounded assertion.

[steveyb3]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7791571.stm

I heard a talk once on an Apocryphal book which wrote extensively about the Saviour being found by following a star. I can't for the life of me find the book though. The point is that people could interpret the text and know they had to follow a star.

Does anyone know the book I'm talking about?

[composer]

Originally Posted by Flappie

Obviously. The initial objections were about internal consistence, so I answered them.

No! the objections were initially that the Bible Text is not to be trusted. I have already proved the internal text is not consistent but contradicts itself and has been tampered with along the way and contains self contradictions. (e.g. Ezek. 18:20, 1 John 5: 7 KJV)

Originally Posted by Flappie

Yes, you keep saying that, and it is the main assertion for the initial objections, but it is not founded on any facts. You need to prove that people apart from astrologers noticed, and then that the Jewish authorities should have found anything significant about it. Since you can't, the objections raised in the first post are meaningless.

Not at all. Having shown that the event didn't actually take place (apart from blind faith that it did) there are no astrological records to show it did ever literally take place except in the fabricated ideologies of those that concocted it and those like you, that currently perpetuate that fallacy.

Originally Posted by Flappie

You haven't refuted anything, all you have done is stated another objection entirely, and repeated your unfounded assertion.

Not just another objection, I provided at least two more -

#1. Roman Catholic biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown in The Birth of the Messiah lists several reasons he does not believe the biblical account, including the fact that such a bright star would have been mentioned by others, but despite fairly good astrological records it is mentioned nowhere.

#3. Some critics wonder why "the star" led the Magi first to a hostile enemy of Jesus, and only then to the child's location—the argument being that if this was an event from God, it makes no sense for them to be led to a ruler with intentions to kill the child before taking them to Jesus. Indeed, if due to the activity of this star, or the visit from the Magi, motivated Herod to want to seek out Jesus and destroy him (Mathew 2:13), why would God, knowing this, set up a situation that would lead to a slaughter of innocents two years old and under? These lingering questions cause some scholars to be skeptical about the story of the Magi. (Source: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Magi)

Both of which easily decimate your ' internal evidence based solely upon faith '. Yes I also repeated my other assertion and your empty and wishful thinking denial of it doesn't impede the validity of that assertion in the slightest.

[composer]

Originally Posted by steveyb3

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7791571.stm

I heard a talk once on an Apocryphal book which wrote extensively about the Saviour being found by following a star. I can't for the life of me find the book though. The point is that people could interpret the text and know they had to follow a star.

Does anyone know the book I'm talking about?

Hello, I hope some one can help you locate this book.

This highlights of course the continued extension (discussed further with other Threads also) of my intial complaints against the trustworthiness of the NT biblical text we are presented with -

As we will see in the development of the New Testament, there were institutional or political forces that began to dictate what writings were included or excluded from the canon. (p. 98 - How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

Many disregard the Apocryphal (apparently not inspired?) writings, but of course Donald O'Dell's research referred to above, demonstrates corrupt influences dictated even those writings currently accepted by some as allegedly ' inspired? '

Cheers!

[steveyb3]

Which books does Donald O'Dell say had political influence then?

The Apocrypha is not inspired. I've read lots of it. Maccabees are good but most of the Apocrypha is unauthorative and reads nothing like the Bible.

[dkiversen]

Originally Posted by composer

there were institutional or political forces

To me, the easy answer to this assertion is that the bible doesn't say what institutional and political bodies would like it say.

They'd like it to talk about an immortal soul, it doesn't.
They'd like it to talk about a Trinity, it doesn't.
They'd like it to talk about a kingdom in heaven rather than a kingdom on earth, it doesn't.

This "difficultly" of what the Bible actually says is taken by Lower Textual Critics to be good evidence of accurate transmission of the the text.

[composer]

Originally Posted by steveyb3

Which books does Donald O'Dell say had political influence then?

A sample -

As we will see in the development of the New Testament, there were institutional or political forces that began to dictate what writings were included or excluded from the canon. In the

98

How the Bible became the Bible

development of the Old Testament, that was not as apparent. Since the Israelites were so rooted in the connection between their knowledge of Yahweh and their history, they simply edited (or re-edited) existing texts to reflect whatever were their current thoughts. Sometimes they simply rewrote something and let it stand beside the previous account, e.g., the two Books, I and 2 Chronicles (‘circa 350 B.C.E.) constitute a priest-like version of 1 and 2 Kings (circa 750 B.C.E.); the priestly account of Creation (Gen. 1:1-2:3,) was simply inserted prior to the Yahwist ‘s account of Creation (Gen. 2:4-25,).

99

Also I emailed the author and one of my questions was also concerning Paul -

Me: Just for my records, is it true that the later writings attributed to Paul were not written by Paul but others about what they say Paul said?

Donald: Absolutely. Paul wrote 1.2 Thess; Galatians; 1,2 Corinthians; Romans; Philemon; and Philippians.

[Flappie]

Originally Posted by composer

No! the objections were initially that the Bible Text is not to be trusted.

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

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?

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.