Yeru
And so you’re saying that you find NOTHING that I’ve said in all the above that’s reasonable, eh? Don’t rule out the possibility for that being that you are not capable of recognizing some things that are said that ARE reasonable, Yeru. And I can see that’s plainly the case with you here. And it well may have been for that very reason that You Know didn’t respond to your challenge earlier in this thread … afterall, it was he that you initially confronted with your Isaiah 60:6 theory.
The star these men followed led them, not directly to Jesus’ birthplace in Bethlehem, but to Jerusalem, where King Herod ruled. Their following that star resulted in the slaughter of all the male infants in Bethlehem … it’s therefore absurd -- ABSOSUTELY ABSURD -- to attribute the star to God. God would have foreseen the tragedy and not took them via Jerusalem if it had been Him that had been maneuvering the star. As it is, the way you would have it -- attributing the star to God -- you are making God responsible for the deaths of a huge number of children, which of course is not true at all.
From what scripture tells me GOD created the stars. I don't see creative power given to Satan anywhere in the scriptures. WHAT is this sound reasoning that would attribute the Star to Satan?
You certainly ARE out of your mind! You are implying here that you believe that “star” was a star like all the stars that shine in heaven, in other words another sun (since that’s what stars really are). Why you unreasonable person you! How on earth do you suppose that such a huge thing as that could come to a stop DIRECTLY above where Jesus lived so as to identify the ONE house in the village of Bethlehem where Jesus lived. It is quite obvious that this was no normal star. It wasn’t a sun. It was something that produced light, and therefore would be likened to a “star” because it shown visibly in the dark and was elevated somewhat above the rooftops.
You say that you “don’t see creative power given to Satan anywhere in the scriptures”. Here once again you infer that the “star” was an actual star (sun). And, once again as well I’ll say that you are quite out of your ever-loving mind. IT WAS NOT A STAR, Yeru!!! It was called a star because it gave the appearance of a star, because … do I really need to repeat what I said above? Probably so, because your head, I think, is about as hard as the concrete sidewalk that leads from my house out to the road.
You are not taking into consideration the disclosure the Bible makes about Satan being capable of performing “lying signs and portents”. Yes, Satan is quite capable of producing an artificial light that would resemble a star. We do it all the time, with light bulbs. Every time I turn on a flashlight I am fascinated at this little invention by man. The lit screen on the monitor that I see as I type this is something that was created by an intelligent creature that is far less intelligent than the lowest angel. Yes, Satan possesses the ability to place a light in the sky that resembled a star, and to make it move so as to guide those people where he wanted to take them. And, as already noted, he took them first, not to Bethlehem, but to Jerusalem, where resided a mortal enemy (Herod) of the promised Messiah who was perceived as a threat to his throne. No, the feat that Satan performed in producing a starlike light in the sky was no more difficult a task for him to perform than was making a serpent appear to speak.
Isaiah 60 is speaking about Messiah. Verse 6 mentions gold and frankincense being brought. Then we see in Matt 2, that gold and frankincense are brought to Messiah. Sounds to me like fulfillment of this prophecy.
I tried to call your attention to that very thing, reasoning with you about that. But you say “what sound reasoning was that? I must have missed it.” So what you’re saying here is that because Isaiah 60:6 mentions those two items that it surely, to quote you, “Isaiah 60:6 foretells the coming of the Magi.” Before I go further I think I would do well to restate what I had said to you earlier.
This is what I said:
What you’re doing is pulling ONE scripture (Isaiah 60:6) out of context and applying it to the Magi; all on the grounds that you see certain things mentioned that appear to YOU (and commentator Matthew Henry as well, I might add) to compare to the account in the 2nd chapter of the gospel of Matthew … namely gold and frankincense. I’m sure too that the mention of “camels” carry as much weight in your estimation as I suppose the mention of “kings” three verses back would.
The following words of yours, Yeru, verify what I said there: “Isaiah 60 is speaking about Messiah. Verse 6 mentions gold and frankincense being brought. Then we see in Matt 2, that gold and frankincense are brought to Messiah. Sounds to me like fulfillment of this prophecy.”
So you are saying that the mere fact that those items are mentioned in both cases, that’s enough to convince you that the verse in Isaiah had relevance to the Magi in Matthew’s account. Does this mean too then that you see, for example, Jeremiah 6:20 as a prophecy that “foretells the coming of the Magi”. There are several Biblical references that can be pointed out where such items as frankincense and gold are mentioned. But, as is in the case of Isaiah 60:6 they obviously have not reference to the Magi of Matthew, chapter 2.
The Magi…. recognized Jesus as KING … they … performed an act of submission….
I’ve already shown how ridiculous such an idea as that is, up above. You are merely refusing to be reasonable. Like I said, your head is as hard … It’s absolutely not true what you are saying here, that the Magi considered Jesus to be THEIR king. They were there for no other purpose than to witness the one born that after having grown up would supposedly, in their minds, replace Herod as king. That’s the reason Herod was so angry, silly!
To quote you again:
Isaiah 60 is speaking about Messiah. Verse 6 mentions gold and frankincense being brought. Then we see in Matt 2, that gold and frankincense are brought to Messiah. Sounds to me like fulfillment of this prophecy.
Sounds ridiculous to me.
You have yet to do fully what I requested of you, and since it is YOU that swears that Isaiah chapter 60 contains such a prophecy concerning the Magi it is your responsibility to demonstrate that you understand the content of the chapter from which you draw such a conclusion. If you can’t do that, you can’t reasonably say that you have justification for believing what you do. The mere fact that verse 6 mentions the same two items (gold and frankincense) that Matthew 2:2 does sure don’t cut it.
No, I really don't actually expect to convince you of something that would play havoc with your cherished Christmas celebration, Yeru. That holiday from its ancient beginnings has been very hypnotic, and it has a way of making peoples minds prejudiced and unable to reason soundly. It was originally called the Saturnalia until the Catholics decided to change it to "Christmas".
I hope that your wife’s surgery goes well.
Friday
PS> I won't be the least bit surprised if I have to edit this post, since I rarely succeed without having to come back because of failing to do the quote thing correctly or a misspelled word or not having been as clear as I had wished. So, give me a minute to make all those corrections, which don't seem to become apparent to me until I look back on the way it actually posted.
PSS> Just as I anticipated I fouled up on the quote thing and had to return.
.
