Star of Bethlehem?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25141
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 93 times

Star of Bethlehem?

Post #1

Post by Zzyzx »

.
The "Star of Bethlehem" is depicted in a bible story thus:
Matthew 2:1--2: In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, "Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage."

Matthew 2:7--10: Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage." When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy.
Apologists attempt to defend the story as being real by suggesting what the "star" might have been, or could have been, or might possibly have been. However, what the story talks about as being a "star" is IMMATERIAL

No matter what the "Star of Bethlehem" is proposed to be it would have been visible from a vast area of the Earth's surface. Therefore, it would not lead anyone anywhere and would NOT have stopped over any point on the Earth's surface.

The Earth is now known to be a rotating spheroid (actually an oblate spheroid or ellipsoid of revolution " IOW, bulged at the equator). It is understood that the apparent movement of celestial objects other than the moon is due to the Earth's rotation rather than their movement.

Since the Earth is NOT the center of the universe and celestial objects (other than the moon) do NOT revolve around the Earth, one object CANNOT "stop". For that to happen the Earth would have to stop rotating " and all objects would "stop" " and there would be immense effects on the Earth.

The Star of Bethlehem story can be made to fit IF one considers the Earth to be a flat surface around which sun, moon and stars revolve. Then one object could be proposed to move differently from others and to stop. THAT is the level of ignorance of the people who tell a story about a star leading people and stopping.

Each one of us has FAR greater knowledge about the Earth and about astronomy than did the best minds and greatest astronomers of ancient times. You are, in all probability, fairly confident that the Earth is a planet and that it revolves around one of billions of stars in a vast universe " and that the stars do NOT revolve around the Earth.

1. You can see the planets, stars, moon, etc from your location just as anyone can from other places on the globe. Does that "lead" you anywhere? Could you possibly "follow" the moon " or a star?

2. Could anyone "follow" a star? If so, describe in detail exactly how that would be done.

3. Could a star "stop" over a city? If so, explain exactly how that would happen.

4. In reality, the story is in all likelihood a "parable" or a myth or a fantasy told by people who thought the Earth was a flat surface and that the "heavens" and all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. If the writers were "inspired" by a "god" or a "holy spirit" to write truth, why did they not write truth?

5. In another thread a member attempts to use the "star" tale as an example of "evidence to support the Christian bible". Does the story provide such evidence? If so, how?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #61

Post by McCulloch »

The questions for debate are:
  1. You can see the planets, stars, moon, etc from your location just as anyone can from other places on the globe. Does that "lead" you anywhere? Could you possibly "follow" the moon " or a star?
  2. Could anyone "follow" a star? If so, describe in detail exactly how that would be done.
  3. Could a star "stop" over a city? If so, explain exactly how that would happen.
  4. In reality, the story is in all likelihood a "parable" or a myth or a fantasy told by people who thought the Earth was a flat surface and that the "heavens" and all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. If the writers were "inspired" by a "god" or a "holy spirit" to write truth, why did they not write truth?
  5. In another thread a member attempts to use the "star" tale as an example of "evidence to support the Christian bible". Does the story provide such evidence? If so, how?
The relative size of Earth and stars, particularly our star, is evidential support for these answers to those questions:
  1. No, you could not possibly "follow" the moon " or a star.
  2. No, anyone cannot "follow" a star.
  3. No, a a star cannot "stop" over a city.
  4. Yes, the story is in all likelihood a "parable" or a myth or a fantasy. The writers were "inspired" by their belief in a "god" or a "holy spirit" so they wrote "truth" only as they perceived it.
  5. No, the "star" tale does not provide evidence.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

ST_JB
Scholar
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:27 am
Location: "Galilee"
Contact:

Post #62

Post by ST_JB »

McCulloch wrote:The questions for debate are:
  1. You can see the planets, stars, moon, etc from your location just as anyone can from other places on the globe. Does that "lead" you anywhere? Could you possibly "follow" the moon " or a star?
  2. Could anyone "follow" a star? If so, describe in detail exactly how that would be done.
  3. Could a star "stop" over a city? If so, explain exactly how that would happen.
  4. In reality, the story is in all likelihood a "parable" or a myth or a fantasy told by people who thought the Earth was a flat surface and that the "heavens" and all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. If the writers were "inspired" by a "god" or a "holy spirit" to write truth, why did they not write truth?
  5. In another thread a member attempts to use the "star" tale as an example of "evidence to support the Christian bible". Does the story provide such evidence? If so, how?
The relative size of Earth and stars, particularly our star, is evidential support for these answers to those questions:
  1. No, you could not possibly "follow" the moon " or a star.
  2. No, anyone cannot "follow" a star.
  3. No, a a star cannot "stop" over a city.
  4. Yes, the story is in all likelihood a "parable" or a myth or a fantasy. The writers were "inspired" by their belief in a "god" or a "holy spirit" so they wrote "truth" only as they perceived it.
  5. No, the "star" tale does not provide evidence.
And my response to the questions posted for debate were:
  1. No, you could not possibly "follow" the moon " or a star, not if it behave like a "tour guide" as claimed by the OP.
  2. No, anyone cannot "follow" a star, not if it behaved like a "tour guide" as claimed by the OP.
  3. No, a star cannot "stop" over a city after it behaved like a "tour guide".
  4. No, the story is in all not a "parable" nor a myth nor a fantasy. The writers were "inspired" by their belief in a "God" or a "Holy Spirit" so they wrote "truth" only as they perceived it not like what the OP claimed that the star behaved like a "tour guide".
  5. That's his claim to defend.

And these are my arguments for my counter-claim that were deliberately ignored.

ST_JB wrote:I suggested a possible HEAD-TO-HEAD with Zzyzx on this subject but I guess that would be impossible for now. I wonder what happened. I guess that will be history.

Why WE should not agree to Zzyzxx assertion on the Star of Bethlehem as he understood it?

An Analysis on Zzyzx's Position on the subject. This analysis will examine and show the flaws of Zzyzx's reasoning and why and how his rendering on the text flawed and should be regarded as untruthful, partial and devious.

To begin:

Zzyzxs position is that:
Zzyzx wrote:4. In reality, the story is in all likelihood a "parable" or a myth or a fantasy told by people who thought the Earth was a flat surface and that the "heavens" and all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. If the writers were "inspired" by a "god" or a "holy spirit" to write truth, why did they not write truth?
Page 1, Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:39 am Post subject: Star of Bethlehem?


In my pervious post, I clearly stated that I do not interpret the bible literally all the time and do not read them textually alone. Post 18: Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:19 am

And my position on the subject:
ST_JB wrote:Given that, it is very evident that the magi were not led by the star as it was understood by you and Z. Reading the context (and not the text alone) would tell us that the they navigated with the aid of the east star that led them to their destination, in Judea.

READ>>>
'...For we have seen his star in the East...' Matthew 2:2

This simply implies that the star was seen from a distant land. It didn't led them as the way you understood it.

DID the star led them literally???
Read >>>
'...there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, 2 Saying: Where is he that is born king of the Jews?' Matthew 2:2

The Magi didn't know the exact location where the child Jesus was. In contrast to the textual understanding that the star led them literally to Bethlehem.

And since they didn't know where the child was, (probably the star wasn't that accurate to led them directly to where Jesus was) they went to the capital of Judea, in Jerusalem and inquire for the born King of Israel.

Herod who was unaware where the born king was did inquire the chief priest and scribes.
READ>>
'And assembling together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where Christ should be born.But they said to him: In Bethlehem of Juda. For so it is written by the prophet:
6 And thou Bethlehem the land of Juda art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth the captain that shall rule my people Israel.'
Matthew 2:4-6

Clearly, they were not led literally as opposed to textual reading.

...and behold the star which they had seen in the East, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was.'

This should not be taken textually. The appearance of the star in their journey to Bethlehem simply suggest that the star continued to appear in the sky as they made their way to bethlehem until they found the Child Jesus. The use of the star in their journey ended when they had found Jesus in bethlehem. Thus, it stood over where the child Jesus was.

Why WE should not agree to Zzyzxx assertion on the Star of Bethlehem as he understood it?

Zzyzx asked 2. Could anyone "follow" a star? If so, describe in detail exactly how that would be done.

It gives me a chuckle to read how obtuse this question is. After a series of exchanges with Zzyzx, I am now ready to expose his FALLACY and DEVIOUS attempt to misread the text. The reading of text out of context is an obvious injustice done to the text.

Please note that I am not employing Theological Interpretation on the text from Matthew. This is a formal inquiry on the subject using the techniques available to us, such as but not limited to Philology, Historical Analysis and Interpretation, among others.


1. Inconsistency.

Zzyzxs comprehension/interpretation on the text from Matthew is in no way can be accepted as it will render inconsistencies on the entire story as told by Matthew. Zzyzx said that the star led the wise men by quoting the bible directly .. they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was.

Zzyzx asked:

A. Could anyone "follow" a star? If so, describe in detail exactly how that would be done.

His understanding, as shown in his posts is that, the star led the wise men to finding Jesus in Bethlehem acting like a tour guide. Thus, ruling out the possibilities that the wise men must have navigated with the star to find their way in to Judea, then to Bethlehem.

1. If the star literally led the wise men (as in like a tour guide) to their destination, there is no need for Matthew to include in his story the following details:

a. To declare that the wise men had seen the star in the east; (Matthew 2:2)

b. To come to Herod and inquire for the child Jesus; (Matthew 2:1-8)

c. For Herod to assemble the Chief Priests and the scribes and inquire for the birth place of the child; (Matthew 2:4)

d. To inquire what is written by the prophet about the Christ. (Matthew 2:4)

e. The inquiry of the wise men about Jesus certainly denotes that they dont know the exact location of the child. Rules out the claim that the star led them as claimed by Zzyzx.

Zzyzx asked:
B. Could a star "stop" over a city? If so, explain exactly how that would happen.


If the star is known to literally stop over the place where the child Jesus was, would certainly be inconsistent with the story as told by Matthew. If the star is known to stopped over the place where Jesus was, then

a. There is no need for the wise men to inquire for the birth place of the child Jesus;

b. If the star is known to guide the wise men and stopped over the place where Jesus was, as claimed by the OP, then Herod and the rest of Jerusalem must have come along with them since this will be an extra ordinary celestial phenomenon. And we know later that Herod ordered the slaughter of all infants in his territory. This could have been easier to do should Herod had gone with the wise men. Imagine, a star leading them like a tour guide? I wonder how Zzyzx picture out the star leading them to Bethlehem. Why the idea, anyway? :blink: Funny!

c. There is no implication in the text that the appearance of the star is of magical, supernatural or extra ordinary except that it leads them to Judea and to Jerusalem and finally to Bethlehem.

d. The series of stopped over in the journey of the wise men clearly shows that navigation by the star can be reasonably assumed instead of being led by the star in its literal sense.

These as I have explained in my pervious posts, would render inconsistent reading on the story presented in the bible should we follow Zzyzxs rendering on the text of Matthew.

Zzyzxs poor reading on the text leads to another dilemma, Poor or Not able to employ any methods or techniques on Historical Reading.

2. Violations on Principles of Historical Interpretations

Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part, and must address itself to the whole man rather than any phase.

In our exchanges, Zzyzx agreed that the stars were used for thousands of years for navigation. But deny that the same was used by the wise men to travel to Judea.

I openly acknowledge that stars have been used for navigation for thousands of years. Page 2, Post 14: Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:36 am

Why the partiality?

A predetermined notion can play a big part on the judgment/opinion of anyone. Neglecting historical considerations certainly can lead someones understanding to misinterpretation /understanding on the subject.
Zzyzx violate the Principles of Historical Interpretations. Either Zzyzx totally neglects it or doesnt really know about it or could it be did not employ the method in reading the text.

Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part, and must address itself to the whole man rather than any phase.


Surely Zzyzx will claim that he has not employed interpretation on the text but that doesnt mater. His simple understanding on the text renders his very personal interpretation on what he has read. It clearly denotes that the lack of knowledge on methods / techniques can lead anyone to devious stand.

My assertion is that Zzyzxs understanding on the text is devious based on the above " mentioned information.

This, again leads to another chaotic reading of Zzyzx on the text as he is facing another dilemma for the Lack of Historical Considerations on the reading the text.

3. Lack of Historical Considerations

This should be a self-explanatory. Since Zzyzx claims that he has not done any interpretation on the text, it could mean that he has not done considerable study to properly understand the text.
Zzyzx wrote:I quote the bible tale verbatim. That involves NO "interpretation" on my part.
Page 2, Post 17: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:35 am

Admission to not having interpretations to what he has read would lead anyone to suspicion on his understanding on the text. I am certain that he has not done enough historical consideration to warrant an impartial rendering of the text, as he claimed that he has not done any interpretations.

And finally, as a common ERROR by many who attempt to interpret biblical text without proper knowledge, would certainly leads anyone to GREAT dilemma, DOUBTFUL RENDERING of the TEXT

4. Doubtful Rendering of the story

There is no escaping for Zzyzx. Either he claims that he has not employed historical interpretations nor he employs simple understanding on the text, clearly shows devious reading on his part by neglecting methods/techniques available to us to consider as impartial and truthful. Thus, Zzyzx has been untruthful, misguided, uninformed, bias on his rendering of the text from Matthew in regards to the story of the star.

To insist on the star literally led the wise men to Bethlehem would render inconsistencies on the story thus, making it more problematic. An obvious devious, partial, dishonest attempt to mislead unsuspecting readers and faithful of this thread.
"We must take the best and most indisputable of human doctrines, and embark on that, as if it were a raft, and risk the voyage of life, unless it were possible to find a stronger vessel, some divine word on which we might journey more surely and securely." -- SOCRATES

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25141
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 93 times

Post #63

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Matthew 2:7--10: Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage." When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy.
Okay, the text clearly says "there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy."

I apparently made the "gross mistake" of implying "led" when the tale clearly says "the star went before them". Pardon me.

Now, HOW, exactly does a star "go before someone"?

The nearest star is the Sun which is 93 million miles away. The next nearest is Alpha Centauri which is approximately four light years distant. Most of us are at least somewhat aware of the night sky " and are probably aware that no star is known to "go before" anyone.

I apparently made another "gross mistake" by implying that the star stopped over a birthplace " when the tale clearly says that it "stopped over the place where the child was". OMG, how could I be so wrong?

However, no star is known to stop over ANY location. The apparent motion of stars is caused by Earth rotation (a spherical body). Earth rotation is not known to stop, but if it did, all apparent motion of ALL stars would stop (along with a "few" other events known to physicists and astronomers who study such matters).

Perhaps someone can enlighten me about this unknown behavior of stars or Earth rotation????

Perhaps someone can also "properly reinterpret the text" to mean whatever they want it to mean or wish that it meant????

It makes far more sense to me (personally, in my opinion) that the tale is a legend formulated and repeated by people who do / did not understand astronomy and stellar motion (or perhaps even Earth spherical shape and rotation).

The tale does not fit with what is now known about astronomy. However, bible believers / literalists attempt to somehow manipulate the tale in an attempt to make it believable (at least to those who know little or nothing about stars or astronomy).
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

ST_JB
Scholar
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:27 am
Location: "Galilee"
Contact:

Post #64

Post by ST_JB »

So, Zzyzx don't want to debate with me about this stuff in the H2H, huh! :shock:

Now it is clear to me why Zzyzx requested for the deletion of the thread "Star of Bethlehem" in the H2H.

Just wondering though, why after he challenged me HERE and accepted my Invitation, as well HERE to H2H, would then refused to engage by requesting for the deletion of the thread. :confused2:
"We must take the best and most indisputable of human doctrines, and embark on that, as if it were a raft, and risk the voyage of life, unless it were possible to find a stronger vessel, some divine word on which we might journey more surely and securely." -- SOCRATES

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25141
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 93 times

Post #65

Post by Zzyzx »

.
ST_JB wrote:So, Zzyzx don't want to debate with me about this stuff in the H2H, huh!

Now it is clear to me why Zzyzx requested for the deletion of the thread "Star of Bethlehem" in the H2H.
I trust that it is clear to READERS, as Zzyzx indicated to Admin, that ST_JB attempted to start a debate in H2H without agreement. As Admin has indicated, it is inappropriate use of H2H Participant status to open a debate unless there is agreement between the parties involved.
ST_JB wrote:Just wondering though, why after he challenged me HERE and accepted my Invitation, as well HERE to H2H, would then refused to engage by requesting for the deletion of the thread.
Zzyzx is NOT going to debate on your terms and is not going to be maneuvered into taking a position he does not hold -- and is not impressed by macho blustering.

You first tried to manipulate the "Intelligent Design" supposed debate to the point it was unacceptable. When that failed (or you realized that you couldn't maneuver me into a position of your liking), you improperly opened the "Star of Bethlehem" thread without my approval -- and attempted to structure that in your favor.

Since you seem unwilling to even discuss the structure of debate fair, square and honorable, I see little chance that you can engage in honorable debate on either topic. It seems as though you are more interested in posturing rather than debating.


Edited to add: Now, if you are finished doing whatever you are doing, do you have anything to contribute to the present thread?

1) Can you show how a "star went before them"?

2) Can you show how a "star stopped over the place where the child was"?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

ST_JB
Scholar
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:27 am
Location: "Galilee"
Contact:

Post #66

Post by ST_JB »

Zzyzx wrote:
ST_JB wrote:So, Zzyzx don't want to debate with me about this stuff in the H2H, huh!

Now it is clear to me why Zzyzx requested for the deletion of the thread "Star of Bethlehem" in the H2H.
I trust that it is clear to READERS, as Zzyzx indicated to Admin, that ST_JB attempted to start a debate in H2H without agreement. As Admin has indicated, it is inappropriate use of H2H Participant status to open a debate unless there is agreement between the parties involved.

If it is not a violation of the rules to post your PMs and what I have sent to you and to Otseng about how I tried to make these debates to happen, I would have done so.

With your permission, can I post on here what we have discussed in our PMed and what I have proposed to Otseng?

You have not replied to my proposal I sent via PM. You have not offered a counter-proposal either. It is clear that you are backing out.

Zzyzx wrote:
ST_JB wrote:Just wondering though, why after he challenged me HERE and accepted my Invitation, as well HERE to H2H, would then refused to engage by requesting for the deletion of the thread.
Zzyzx is NOT going to debate on your terms and is not going to be maneuvered into taking a position he does not hold -- and is not impressed by macho blustering.
Okay, Z, since you deliberately derail the topics with your unfounded accusations and unwillingness to offer counter-proposal, I am adapting herein the terms and format you have suggested in the other thread. Funny that you seems to try to find fault and throw wild accusations just to get away with out debate.

But I will not give you that chance. I am accepting the terms and format as you have suggested from the other thread.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 0&start=50

Zzyzx wrote:
ST_JB wrote:Anyone knows how to request to open a thread in a HEAD-To-HEAD?
I will be happy to request such a thread if we agree upon particulars and agree to proceed.
ST_JB wrote:Z, kindly state your terms for our suppose H-T-H about the star in bethlehem. Also include limits and delimitations on the subject. I shall wait for your reply.
Proposal for Head to Head debate:

Topic: Is the "Star of Bethlehem" story literally true as written in Matthew 2:1-12?
Matthew2:1After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem 2and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."

3When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. 5"In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written: 6" 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'"

7Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him."

9After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. 12And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.
Structure of debate: Closely moderated by two moderators. One moderator will be invited by each participant from the list of admin and moderators. They will closely monitor for content as well as rule infraction and will make comments as they deem appropriate.

Confused has agreed to be one of the moderators. You choose another of the moderators.

Strict adherence to forum rules http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

Strict adherence to "Guidelines for C&A subforum" http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

NO personal comments allowed.

1. Debate is to consist of a total of ten posts each " alternating

2. No post shall exceed 1000 words including quotations

3. A response is to be posted within five calendar days (120 hours) unless delay is agreed

4. Ask no more than two critical questions (bolded and numbered / lettered to identify). Other questions may be asked but are not critical to be answered. One participant shall number questions sequentially from the beginning of the debate, the other shall use sequential letter designations throughout.

5. Answer honestly, openly and fully to the best of ability the two critical questions last asked by opposition or acknowledge inability or unwillingness. Answer any other questions optionally as judgment indicates.

6. Discuss additional issues only after answering the critical questions (or acknowledging inability or unwillingness). Additional points are permitted.

7. Substantiate all claims and statements challenged OR acknowledge inability or unwillingness and withdraw the claim or statement in the next post.

8. Discuss ideas, not personalities. Do not make any personal comments.

9. Standard English definitions of words shall prevail (no special, personal or esoteric definitions allowed). Merriam Webster Dictionary shall prevail. Any exceptions shall be by mutual agreement in advance.

10. Circular reasoning is not permitted (no work shall be cited to prove itself correct)
IF this is the structure you consider favorable to you, so be it. I will enter into this debate using your proposed structure.

I have conceded to whatever demand you made. It is time for you to put up or shut up. Back down or charge. Yes or no - that's all I'm waiting.

But of course, Zzyzx will never say HE back down, instead HE will make wild accusations against the other debater - that HIS position was misstated or that he was put in a disadvantage position or was never informed with the creation of the thread.
Zzyzx wrote:You first tried to manipulate the "Intelligent Design" supposed debate to the point it was unacceptable. When that failed (or you realized that you couldn't maneuver me into a position of your liking), you improperly opened the "Star of Bethlehem" thread without my approval -- and attempted to structure that in your favor.
What approval should I need from you?
What structure do you prefer that it would appear favorable to you?
You are not a child anymore to whine about things that you can do something about. This forum is not for childish quarrel. If you are willing to debate honorably, you will present your counter-proposal.

I don't used to doing tricks such as maneuvering people to my advantage. I presented my proposal as clearly mentioned in my opening statement. I was expecting you to either conform or present you counter-proposal. But you chose to echo your concern to the admin instead of settling the issue with me.

Tell me what structure is acceptable to you?
Zzyzx wrote:Since you seem unwilling to even discuss the structure of debate fair, square and honorable, I see little chance that you can engage in honorable debate on either topic. It seems as though you are more interested in posturing rather than debating.
Really now?:shock:

I've been asking for you counter-proposal since day one of these debates. You chose to not give but blasted me with wild accusations, instead.

Great Job!
Zzyzx wrote: Edited to add: Now, if you are finished doing whatever you are doing, do you have anything to contribute to the present thread?

1) Can you show how a "star went before them"?
HERE.
Zzyzx wrote: 2) Can you show how a "star stopped over the place where the child was"?
HERE.

Now, if you are done with your side comments, you may want to address the arguments I presented HERE.
"We must take the best and most indisputable of human doctrines, and embark on that, as if it were a raft, and risk the voyage of life, unless it were possible to find a stronger vessel, some divine word on which we might journey more surely and securely." -- SOCRATES

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25141
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 93 times

Post #67

Post by Zzyzx »

.
ST_JB wrote:I am accepting the terms and format as you have suggested from the other thread.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 0&start=50
Okay, if you propose accepting the terms of the January 2009 thread, I am willing. I do not consider it as favoring either of us. If you agree we can proceed with the H2H debate.
Zzyzx wrote:
ST_JB wrote:Anyone knows how to request to open a thread in a HEAD-To-HEAD?
I will be happy to request such a thread if we agree upon particulars and agree to proceed.
ST_JB wrote:Z, kindly state your terms for our suppose H-T-H about the star in bethlehem. Also include limits and delimitations on the subject. I shall wait for your reply.
Proposal for Head to Head debate:

Topic: Is the "Star of Bethlehem" story literally true as written in Matthew 2:1-12?
Matthew2:1After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem 2and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."

3When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. 5"In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written: 6" 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'"

7Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him."

9After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. 12And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.
Structure of debate: Closely moderated by two moderators. One moderator will be invited by each participant from the list of admin and moderators. They will closely monitor for content as well as rule infraction and will make comments as they deem appropriate.

Confused has agreed to be one of the moderators. You choose another of the moderators.

Strict adherence to forum rules http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

Strict adherence to "Guidelines for C&A subforum" http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

NO personal comments allowed.

1. Debate is to consist of a total of ten posts each " alternating

2. No post shall exceed 1000 words including quotations

3. A response is to be posted within five calendar days (120 hours) unless delay is agreed

4. Ask no more than two critical questions (bolded and numbered / lettered to identify). Other questions may be asked but are not critical to be answered. One participant shall number questions sequentially from the beginning of the debate, the other shall use sequential letter designations throughout.

5. Answer honestly, openly and fully to the best of ability the two critical questions last asked by opposition or acknowledge inability or unwillingness. Answer any other questions optionally as judgment indicates.

6. Discuss additional issues only after answering the critical questions (or acknowledging inability or unwillingness). Additional points are permitted.

7. Substantiate all claims and statements challenged OR acknowledge inability or unwillingness and withdraw the claim or statement in the next post.

8. Discuss ideas, not personalities. Do not make any personal comments.

9. Standard English definitions of words shall prevail (no special, personal or esoteric definitions allowed). Merriam Webster Dictionary shall prevail. Any exceptions shall be by mutual agreement in advance.

10. Circular reasoning is not permitted (no work shall be cited to prove itself correct)
Of course, Confused is no longer a Moderator, so others will have to be asked to moderate.
ST_JB wrote:IF this is the structure you consider favorable to you, so be it. I will enter into this debate using your proposed structure.
The structure is acceptable to me. If it is acceptable to you, it becomes OUR agreed structure -- and I am willing to proceed and will post this to the H2H thread.

You may begin the debate.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #68

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

This is an attempt to show how intelligible meanings can be given to the mysterious parts of Matthews star story considering them from the point of view of an astronomer of the day. The speculation here is that Matthew got hold of some records written by astronomers in the era of Herod the Great concerning their search for the newborn King of the Jews and copied the terms they used without necessarily understanding them. Whether it is true or not I will not venture to guess but what the heck, it makes a good Christmas story!

My primary source for the information presented below is this book by Mark Kidger, a professional astronomer who investigated various explanations that might form the basis of an actual astronomical observation. After rejecting most of them as unsatisfactory, he came up with this one. I have thrown in my own speculations here and there but have tried to justify them.

First the evidence from Matthew:
Matthew 2 (KJV)
1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east
, and are come to worship him.
3When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
5And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea
: for thus it is written by the prophet,
6And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
7Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
8And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
9When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
10When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

11And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.
12And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
13And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
16Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,
18In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
19But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
20Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
Some questions arise:

What is the timeframe of these events? vv 19-20 tell us that it was not too long before the death of Herod, who died in the spring of 4 BCE. So we can guess that the timeframe of Matthews nativity is 5 BCE.

Who were these wise men? Probably Babylonian astronomers. Babylon had a tradition of astronomy so old that the records were still kept in ancient Sumerian, already not a spoken tongue for two thousand years. Educated Babylonians would also be familiar with Jews from Babylonian Exile. There was still a substantial Jewish community in Babylon at the time.

What astronomical event, called a star (an ambiguous term), would have brought them to Jerusalem seeking the newborn King of the Jews? Ah, therein lies the tale.

Kidgers speculation was that it was not one event but a series of unusual astronomical events that added up to taking a trip from Babylon to Jerusalem

First event: A triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn took place in the constellation of Pisces beginning in May, 7 BCE and ending in December of that year.

What is a triple conjunction?

All the planets revolve around the Sun in the same direction and close to the same plane. The further a planet is from the Sun the longer it takes to complete a revolution. The Earth takes 1 year to complete a revolution. Jupiter takes about 11 years; Saturn about 20. Since Jupiter goes around faster than Saturn, we will from time to time see Jupiter catch up to Saturn and pass it. The point of closest approach is called a conjunction. An actual eclipse (occultation) would be very rare since they are not in exactly the same plane.

Once in a while, Jupiter will be catching up to Saturn at the same time we are catching up to Jupiter. We would see a conjunction as Jupiter passed Saturn. Then if the timing is right, we would pass Jupiter and it would appear to fall behind Saturn from our changing perspective. Second conjunction. Then as we go further around in our orbit, Jupiter would appear to once again catch up to Saturn. Third conjunction.

Triple conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn can happen as close as 40 years apart, as happened in 1940/41 and 1981. Or they can be as far apart as 400 years. The last one before 7 BCE was 120 years before and the one before that the maximum possible 400 years. This was an unusual and interesting event not seen by anyone alive at the time.

In the Babylonian astrological conventions of the day Jupiter represented good and Saturn was evil. The constellation of Pisces stood for the Jews. So we have good confronting evil, three times for emphasis, and related to the Jews.

Second event: Just after the third conjunction, in January and February of 6 BCE, there was a massing of planets in Pisces.

Jupiter and Saturn were still pretty close together and Saturn was very close to Mars, which stood for war, blood and (guess what) Rome. Jupiter was even occulted by (went behind) the Moon and reappeared. Meaning: birth or regeneration. Evil and Rome getting together, a pretty common notion in those days, and good being born. And still the Jews.

Third event: A new star

In March of 5 BCE, about a year after the previous sign ended, there was a nova " a new star not previously seen. Chinese astronomers tell us when it happened and where in the sky. It was a hairy star (bright enough to seem spiked to the human eye) and was around for some time. The Chinese tracked it for about two and a half months then lost it when monsoon weather set in.

To the astrologers of the day, a nova signified birth and a bright one meant a royal birth.

From the top:

Good against Evil, Rome linked to Evil, birth of good, a royal birth and it is all about the Jews. It is not unexpected that some very observant Babylonian astronomer/astrologer types who knew something about Jewish lore should show up in Jerusalem asking for the King of the Jews who has been born because they saw his star.

Now what about the weird parts of Matthews star story?

The wise men say that they saw the star in the east, singular. Normally Greek grammar would have it as in the easts, plural. But singular is also acceptable. However the singular form also has a special meaning for astronomers. It refers to the heliacal rising of a star or more generally as a start being in the eastern sky at dawn.

Heliacal rising?
The heliacal rising of a star (or other body such as the moon, a planet or a constellation) occurs when it first becomes visible above the eastern horizon for a brief moment just before sunrise, after a period of time when it had not been visible.

Each day after the heliacal rising, the star will rise slightly earlier and remain visible for longer before the light from the rising sun makes it disappear (the sun appears to drift eastward relative to the stars by about one degree a day along a path called the ecliptic). Over the following days the star will move further and further westward (one degree per day) over the dome of the pre-dawn sky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliacal_rising
Stars move across the sky each night. As the Earth goes around the Sun, the stars visible in the night sky gradually change. To specify where a star is in the sky at a certain time of year, its position just before dawn would be given. The Chinese tell us that the nova was in the southeastern sky in the predawn period. Matthew 2:9 tells us that the star went before them, as indeed it would as viewed each day at dawn when they were traveling east to west.

The nova happened in March. From personal experience Kidger tells us that a camel caravan will normally cover 20 miles a day. Setting out in late March from Babylon, they would have arrived in Jerusalem near the end of April. Herods people tell the wise men they should go look in Bethlehem. The next morning they get up before dawn like the good astronomers they are and check out the stars. By now the predawn position of the nova is high in the southern sky, close to due south. Look south from Jerusalem and what would be the first thing you would see? Bethlehem.

Matthew 2:9-10
it came and stood over where the young child was.
When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy

No wonder they rejoiced. Signs. Star. Bethlehem. Whoa!

Herod wants them to go find this newborn king and come back and tell him where to go so he can killoopsworship him. But they do not. What does Herod do? He has the children of Bethlehem killed from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men (v 16)

If Herod diligently inquired of the wise men he would have gotten the whole story. When did the signs first appear? May of 7 BCE. It is now May of 5 BCE. Two years and under. Like I said: Whoa!

True story? Who cares! Merry Christmas!!!
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #69

Post by Goat »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
If Herod diligently inquired of the wise men he would have gotten the whole story. When did the signs first appear? May of 7 BCE. It is now May of 5 BCE. Two years and under. Like I said: Whoa!

True story? Who cares! Merry Christmas!!!
I don't know either. I do know I have seen at least 4 or 5 contradictory astronomical claims other than this one, each as complete and complicated as the next.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm
Has thanked: 1 time

Post #70

Post by micatala »

I find ThatGirlAgain's suggested explanation interesting. It certainly has the advantage of not hewing to the overly simplistic scriptural reading presented by Zzyzx the alternative explanation by ST which seems irreconcilably at odds with the text in some spots.

Even though it is speculative, the same can be said of other explanations for why Matthew wrote what he wrote, and what facts Matthew was taking into account in his writing.

I do think one has to keep in mind that possibility Matthew is manipulating or distorting facts to fit his purpose. His gospel does tend to emphasize the case for Jesus' divinity and authority, and part of this case is made by linking Jesus to OT prophecy and other witnesses to that authority. This narrative is likely included for that purpose. Even the gentile wise men from the East (whether Babylonian or not) testify to the authority and importance of Jesus, as do the heavens themselves.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Post Reply