Star of Bethlehem

by undercover 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  lurk

  'desert bums'

  LOL

  the jews didnt celebrate birthdays i seem to remeber.i never could figure out quiet how to see birthdays

  considering anniversarys are drinking gifts and partys ..they seem similar to me
• 

  gumby

  The society are the scroogiest bastards on this planet!

  There is not one person in their right mind who had never read the bible before.......then read the account in Matthew of this event........that would EVER come to the conclution that the Magi had evil intent! Their intent was good. They wanted to praise jesus, and give him gifts. God gave them a warning to not let Herod know where he was........and they obeyed god. This makes them bad??????

  Just because they were astrologers.....the society paints them as satans tools. I wonder why they don't paint prostitutes and tax collectors who also wanted to praise jesus, with the same label?

  Gumby
• 

  heathen

  I think there are many ways you could argue that the star was satanic. For one , if God had intended for herod to know the where abouts of the baby jesus he would have simply sent angels to declare the good news like he did with the shepards in the field. The magi were not of jewish decent so again why not send angels to them so they would have been prepared at an earlier time so they could arrive at the manger ? It's an interesting debate but I don't think it can be proven either way.
• 

  Narkissos

  In addition to the general thrust of the narrative itself, which never implies a negative overtone about the star or the Magi, I think the main argument for a POSITIVE interpretation results from the overall perspective of Matthew.

  My presuppositions (which I won't discuss here): this story is a pure legend; historical or astronomical considerations will be of no help here. The Lukan story is a different legend (common points being the virgin conception and Bethlehem as the place of birth) which is not meant to be combined with this one: in Matthew, Joseph and Mary just live in Bethlehem and move to Galilee as the result of the story (2:22); in Luke, they live in Galilee and make a special move to Bethlehem because of the (anachronistic) census (2:4). In other words, Matthew's Magi and Luke's shepherds belong to different stories and were never supposed to meet.

  This being understood, what is Matthew's interest in this story? To show that pagans succeed where Israel has failed (his view, not mine). This is a constant leitmotiv in his text. Just consider the following examples (all of which are specific to Matthew):

  - The four women mentioned in the genealogy (chapter 1) are pagans according to contemporary view: Tamar (1:3) is a "Mesopotamian" according to the Testament of Judah (1:10); Rahab (1:5) is a "Canaanite" from Jericho; Ruth (1:5) is a Moabite; the wife of Uriah (1:6) is supposed to be a "Hittite".

  - The specific mention of the enlightened "Galilee of the nations" (4:15).

  - Matthew insists on the "great faith" of pagans which is not to be found in Israel (the Roman centurion in 8:10; the "Canaanite woman" in 15:28).

  - 8:11f: I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

  - 12:18 he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles (or Pagans, or "nations").

  - 12:21 And in his name the Gentiles will hope.

  - 21:43 the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom.

  - 25:32 All the nations will be gathered before him...

  - 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.

  Convinced?
• 

  heathen

  I think the whole concept of the star being satanic is hinged on the fact that the magi were first led to king herod who was totally unaware of the situation and this turns out to be part of a tragic and evil plan to kill the young child jesus because herod felt threatened and did not care to look at the situation as he should have which would have been to be overjoyed at the prospect of the arrival of the messiah much as the magi seemed to have been . That guy was just plain evil . I can't remember if he was the same one that had john the baptist beheaded but he was clearly an enemy of God . The magi themselves were benevolent but it is clear if God had not intervened they would have been duped becuase they had no way of knowing of herods evil plans .
• 

  Yerusalyim

  It's also quite possible that the only ones who noticed the star, sent by God, were the Magi and other star gazers. One theory has it that a new star appeared in the constellation of the Ram, which signified Israel, and the new star...a new king.
• 

  heathen

  I don't think so yerusalyim . The star in question apparently moved from herods place to where the jesus family was staying at the time . I don't think the evidence supports a celestial body in the heavens but some strange phenomena that was spiritual in nature . I do lean toward the conclusion that the star was some sort of satanic illusion .
• 

  Leolaia

  Oooh, oooh, thanks for reminding me, there's some interesting stuff written on this in JH Charlesworth's volume on the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. A first century B.C. book called the Trestise of Shem attests Jewish interest in astrology and this is what Charlesworth wrote in connection with its significance with the Star of Bethlehem in Matthew 2:

  One passage in the New Testament receives new illumination because of the discovery of Jewish interest in astrology prior to Jesus and his followers. Matthew 2:2 mentions that the wise men (magoi) came to Judea to see a newly born King of the Jews because "we have seen his star rise in the East. . ." (RSV). An alternative and better translation is "we saw his star is it rose. . ." (JB) or "we saw his star when it came up in the east. . ." (GNMM). With either translation, and especially with the latter, it is conceivable that the author of this tradition -- either Matthew himself or more probably another Jewish Christian before him -- was influenced by astrological predictions. So strong were the astrological overtones in this verse (and Matt. 2:9) that some early Christians claimed it proved "that astrology can be depended on." St. Augustine claimed that "the star did not determine the marvels of Christ's birth, but Christ determined the appearance of the star among His other miracles."

  The new evidence for astrology among the Jews and the early astrological interpretation of Matthew 2:1-12 should demonstrate that merely discussing the obviously striking parallels between these verses and the tradition about Balaam as recorded in Numbers 22:1-24:25 does not totally exhaust the rich complexities in Matthew. It is no longer justifiable to approach Matthew 2 with the assumption that all Jews believed the stars intervened in man's destiny only in line with God's will; and it is unwise to presuppose that Matthew's wise men must be pagans because of their astrological beliefs. Astrological speculation could well have been linked with Jesus' birth by Jewish Christians before Matthew wrote. At his birth (or close to it in 7 B.C.) Jupiter and Saturn over a period of eight months were in conjunction three times in Pisces, the Hebrew zodiacal sign and the sign of the last days. Later Jewish and Jewish-Christian astrologers could well have noted the significance: Jupiter, the "star" that denoted kingship, was linked with Saturn, the "star" that represented Israel. The derived meaning seems clear: In the last days (Pisces) a great king (Jupiter) shall be born in Israel (Saturn). For Matthew's wise men, this phenomenon would have been a powerful and awesome omen since this kind of planet arrangement takes place only every eight centuries.

  W. Sinnott claims that Matthew's star was probably the conjunction of Venus with Jupiter on June 17, 2 B.C., which occurred in Leo. According to early Semitic records, Leo represented a lion, and Judah is called a "lion's whelp" in Genesis 49:9ff. The astrological connection between Judah and the lion is found in Revelation 5:5-7 which refers to "the lion of the tribe of Judah." The planets were equidistant from the star Regulus (prince), which always remains between Leo's feet (compare Genesis 49:9ff). After dusk fell on that evening, Venus and Jupiter crept closer and closer together until the two planets appeared to practically kiss each other at 8:51 pm, fusing into a single brilliant star in the western sky just over the horizon, pointing in the direction towards Judea from a vantage point somewhere in Babylonia. As Venus slipped below the horizon, it seemed to suggest the arrival on earth of a king (Jupiter) born of a virgin (Venus) in the tribe of Judah.

  It is possible that in the century that passed before Matthew's Gospel was written, the memory of these two spectacular events conflated them together into a single celestial sign that appeared at the time of Jesus' birth. Since both these events were astrologically legible as signs of a coming Messiah (coupled with the Balaam prophecy in Numbers), it is quite possible that people at the time in 7 B.C. or 2 B.C. were attuned to the "signs" and were expecting the birth of the coming King.

  Leolaia
• 

  Leolaia

  Apparently, according to this website, Jesus' birth happened on September 11, 3 B.C.

  http://www.versebyverse.org/doctrine/birthofchrist.html

  One thing this website does say that is persuasive is that Revelation 21:1-6 is astrological in character. And since it is explicitly referring the the birth of the Messiah, that makes it all the more interesting. Note the presence of phrases such as "a great sign appeared in heaven".... "standing on the moon (i.e. the moon at the feet of the constellation)" .... "twelve stars on her head".....But I don't agree with this individual's interpretation because it analyses features of the prophecy (such as the dragon) that appear to be separate motifs unrelated to the first "sign", and thus the attempt to identify the "star" seems to be rather suspect.

  And that is assuming of course that there was any such star at the time the time of Jesus' birth. It seems quite likely in my view that a lingering memory of the Messianic signs in heaven around the time of Jesus' birth (give or take a few years) was remodeled into an event that took place on that very day.

  Leolaia
• 

  barry

  The SDAs dont beleive the star was put there by the decil or that the Maggi had any evil intent. The slant on xmas from the JW perspective was totaly new to me. Barry