The origins of the Star of Bethlehem - was Satan really behind it?

by truthseeker 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Lady Liberty

  When will people wake up and start thinking, learning or researching for themselves?

  By the looks of things, and at the rate of new ones joining, I think they already are!!

  Sincerely,

  Lady Liberty
• 

  funkyderek

  Obviously the whole story is made up, but most of it is not immediately obvious as false. However, the wise men following the star is clearly utter nonsense. How exactly would they know when they had arrived at their destination? Did the star start flashing as they got closer? Did they just find the point when the star was directly overhead (or some other arbitrary position)? Even with modern instruments, it would be virtually impossible to measure the position of a star (or even a comet or planet) with enough precision to narrow it down to a particular house.

  But then, it's only a Christmas story, like The Grinch. It doesn't have to make sense. It's certainly true that there's absolutely nothing to indicate the star was from Satan. The WT only pushes this view because they're so opposed to astrology.
• 

  Clam

  Maybe the star was actually a space ship which shone a beam of light onto the relevant site as the wise men approached?

  If only Franz were still here to "throw light" onto this mystery.
• 

  Narkissos

  Lady Liberty,

  I firmly believe now, that Jehovah used the star in order to lead the Magi to Jesus so that he could not only be honored or worshipped, but also so that Joseph and Mary would have the money they would need to flee to Egypt.

  I agree with you that in the narrative the star and the Magi are entirely positive characters. But the last argument I personally find a little weak: without the Magi story, why would Joseph and Mary need to flee to Egypt?

  One other thing that I thought was pretty interesting when researching this subject, was that Daniel fortold the prophecy about the Messiah being born.

  See it here in Daniel 9: 25-26 (NWT):

  25

  And you should know and have the insight [that] from the going forth of [the] word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes·si´ah [the] Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks. She will return and be actually rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in the straits of the times.

  26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Mes·si´ah will be cut off, with nothing for himself.

  "And the city and the holy place the people of a leader that is coming will bring to their ruin. And the end of it will be by the flood. And until [the] end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations.

  He recorded this, and no doubt the Magi or wise men under him, learned of this prophecy because of him. And does anyone else find it really weird that Daniel was the cheif administrater over all the wise men of Babylon? Why did he reject eating the delicacys of the King when brought to Babylon, but to only later accept this position.

  Heres what Daniel 2:47-49 says(NWT):

  47

  The king was answering Daniel and saying: "Truly the God of YOU men is a God of gods and a Lord of kings and a Revealer of secrets, because you were able to reveal this secret." 48 Consequently the king made Daniel someone great, and many big gifts he gave to him, and he made him the ruler over all the jurisdictional district of Babylon and the chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. 49 And Daniel, for his part, made a request of the king, and he appointed over the administration of the jurisdictional district of Babylon Sha´drach, Me´shach and A·bed´ne·go, but Daniel was in the court of the king.

  So.. could it be that these three wise men..or Magi, had learned not from the study of the stars, but from Daniels prophecy, that the Messiah was coming soon? Afterall, the star did not predict the Messiah's birth, but lead them to the Messiah that they ALREADY KNEW was born. So could it be that while the Jews were in captivity, the Babylonian wise men learned of this Messianic prophecy and were in expectation of it?

  These wise men or Magi must have believed in the Messiah, or they would not have traveled such a long way, nor would they have brought gifts that would symbol Kingship and Divine Authority to a mere baby they didn't believe was King.

  The parallelism between the Magi's and Daniel's status is interesting, but I don't think there is any evidence that Daniel 9 was calculated by anybody in the 1st century AD as leadingto the 1st century AD. At least Matthew doesn't refer to it, nor does any other NT text.

  (As to the exegesis and interpretation history of Daniel 9 see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/101978/1.ashx -- especially Leolaia's posts).
• 

  Leolaia

  I don't think there is any evidence that Daniel 9 was calculated by anybody in the 1st century AD as leading to the 1st century AD. At least Matthew doesn't refer to it, nor does any other NT text.

  Actually, I don't quite agree with this....I have long wanted to do a thread on the history of interpretation of Daniel 9, and my earlier threads dealt more with the meaning behind the text itself, but there is in fact a good deal of evidence of a steady stream of reinterpretation that contemporarized the text from the second century BC onward through the first century AD, such that the prophecy was seen predicting the rise of Alexander Jannaeus, and then by the late first century BC it was recast as applying to King Herod the Great, and then by the time of the Jewish revolt it was reinterpreted as referring to Vespasian (this is the view latent in Josephus, with possible echoes in the NT). In none of these was the focus on the identity of the "anointed one" of 9:26 (which has a sacerdotal interpretation throughout, i.e. referring to the high priest or the priesthood in general), rather the focus was on the timing of the appearance of the "ruler who is to come" later in the same verse. The messianic view that focused on the identity of the "anointed one" as a coming Messiah is very late (e.g. third century AD) and AFAIK found only in Christian tradition (and relying on the Theodotionic text). In fact, there were also intermediate interpretations that are not based on Theodotion that, for instance, saw the priesthood in the first "anointed ruler" in 9:25 and Christ in the second "anointed one" in 9:26. For a reckoning that saw the 490 years as ending in the first century AD, see the Seder Olam (second century AD) which calculates them as pointing to the time of the Jewish Revolt...this is probably a reckoning that dates to the time of the Revolt itself (since it provides a sure hope for victory in 9:27, which foresees defeat for the one attacking the Temple).
• 

  Narkissos

  Leolaia,

  Thanks for the correction, that's indeed something I wasn't sure about and wanted to check.

  there is in fact a good deal of evidence of a steady stream of reinterpretation that contemporarized the text from the second century BC onward through the first century AD, such that the prophecy was seen predicting the rise of Alexander Jannaeus, and then by the late first century BC it was recast as applying to King Herod the Great, and then by the time of the Jewish revolt it was reinterpreted as referring toVespasian (this is the view latent in Josephus, with possible echoes in the NT). In none of these was the focus on the identity of the "anointed one" of 9:26 (which has a sacerdotal interpretation throughout, i.e. referring to the high priest or the priesthood in general), rather the focus was on the timing of the appearance of the "ruler who is to come" later in the same verse. The messianic view that focused on the identity of the "anointed one" as a coming Messiah is very late (e.g. third century AD) and AFAIK found only in Christian tradition (and relying on the Theodotionic text). In fact, there were also intermediate interpretations that are not based on Theodotion that, for instance, saw the priesthood in the first "anointed ruler" in 9:25 and Christ in the second "anointed one" in 9:26. For a reckoning that saw the 490 years as ending in the first century AD, see the Seder Olam (second century AD) which calculates them as pointing to the time of the Jewish Revolt...this is probably a reckoning that dates to the time of the Revolt itself (since it provides a sure hope for victory in 9:27, which foresees defeat for the one attacking the Temple).

  If you have some references at hand for the highlighted points I'd be grateful.
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos....The analysis that really turned me onto this is the article "The Apocalyptic Survey of History Adapted by Christians: Daniel's Prophecy of 70 Weeks," by William Adler, published in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (1996). The main finding is that the "alternative reckonings" of the seventy weeks given (and refuted) by the early church fathers originated in earlier Jewish apocalyptic interpretation. Further evidence can be found in: (1) Josephus' contradictory chronologies of the Seleucid and Hasmonean periods, which are motivated by different applications of the 490 years, (2) Qumran texts from the second and first centuries AD which favor a Hasmonean interpretation of the 490 years, (3) the Seder Olam and other rabbinic texts, (4) Josephus' own muted application of Daniel 9, as betrayed by the Danielic language he uses to refer to events in the Jewish revolt, and (5) Slavonic interpolations into Josephus which preserve older Jewish interpretations. The Herodian interpretation, which saw in Herod the fulfillment of both Daniel 9:24-27 and Genesis 49:10, is for instance attested in Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Slavonic Josephus, with echoes in Justin Martyr, Julius Africanus, and Origen.

  Slavonic Josephus even has a (legendary?) story about a private debate held between the priests during Herod's reign in which they counted down the 490 years to see if King Herod would the one prophesied to destroy the Temple, and they discovered that the completion of the 490 years was but 34 years away....this story is interesting in light of Herod's attempts to rebuild the Temple in 17-19 BC.
• 

  heathen

  Did they just find the point when the star was directly overhead (or some other arbitrary position)?

  Yes, the story says this particular star was moving and then stopped over where king herod was and then took up to the manger and stopped again .Does not sound like a natural event but a paranormal one.The gifts the magi were carrying were needed so my guess is that God did not intervene until after they found jesus and then warned them in a dream to not go back to herod. In any event it happened to fulfill prophesy.
• 

  Narkissos

  Thank you Leolaia, I'll try to get it asap.

  I just realised, though, that I expressed myself poorly in my two previous posts. What I had is mind is Daniel 9 as referring to the eschatological Messiah(s) (and some of your points might indeed be interesting in this regard). Of course Daniel 9:24-27 is alluded to about the Jewish war in 66-73 AD: Mark 13:14, and direct quotation in Matthew 24:15; Nestle-Aland 27 also notes a possible allusion in Matthew 4:5 about the "pinnacle (pterugion = wing) of the temple," 11:3 about "he who comes" (ho erkhomenos, cf. Daniel 9:26 by Theodotion), and Hebrews 9:12 about the "sanctuary" (hagia), but those are too faint to constitute evidence for messianic/christological use of the entire passage imo.
• 

  Witchettygrub

  Would the Magi be going by Balaam’s prophecy at Numbers 24:17 “…..A star will certainly step forth out of Jacob, and a scepter will indeed rise out of Israel And verse 19 “And out of Jacob one will go subduing.” The scepter, (a symbol of authority held by a sovereign) referring to the future King, Jesus Christ. Witchettygrub