Who Put That 'Star' There?

[DonCameron]

I had said that since Luke didn't mention anything about a 'star,' that therefore there was no 'star' when Jesus was born.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

But it is not just the absence of evidence of a 'star' in Luke's account that indicates to me that there was no 'star.' There is also the presence of evidence in Matthew's account that indicates to me that there was no 'star' present at the birth of Jesus.

According to Matthew that 'star' didn't show up over Bethlehem until after the astrologers met with Herod (2:9). They didn't met with Jesus until as long as it took them to travel from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. By that time, according to 2:11 Jesus was a young child living in a house. And by thinking carefully about 2:16 he may have been upwards of two years old.


The Point: If that 'star' didn't begin to hang over Bethlehem until Jesus was two years old, that looks like positive evidence to me that that 'star' was not present at Jesus' birth two years earlier.


And so while it is true that, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," the presence of evidence is the evidence of absence- it would seem.

Don

[Canuckster1127]

I had said that since Luke didn't mention anything about a 'star,' that therefore there was no 'star' when Jesus was born.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

But it is not just the absence of evidence of a 'star' in Luke's account that indicates to me that there was no 'star.' There is also the presence of evidence in Matthew's account that indicates to me that there was no 'star' present at the birth of Jesus.

According to Matthew that 'star' didn't show up over Bethlehem until after the astrologers met with Herod (2:9). They didn't met with Jesus until as long as it took them to travel from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. By that time, according to 2:11 Jesus was a young child living in a house. And by thinking carefully about 2:16 he may have been upwards of two years old.


The Point: If that 'star' didn't begin to hang over Bethlehem until Jesus was two years old, that looks like positive evidence to me that that 'star' was not present at Jesus' birth two years earlier.


And so while it is true that, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," the presence of evidence is the evidence of absence- it would seem.

Don

I was making a general statement.

I agree the Magi did not arrive until Jesus was about 2 years old.

I agree that the indication that astrology was used in this instance is not endorsement of the practise. I recognize as well that astrology as a magical or "black" art in this instance can give occassionally accurate information or direction. Sometimes that is attributable to coincidence. It's possible that it can be outside of that as well, but it is not an endorsed Biblical practice and in fact can be seen as a form of idolatry with the creation elevated above the creator and his specific revelation.

I haven't followed this thread closely, but I wonder if it has been mentioned that between (4 BC and 8 BC) which is the generally accepted window for the actual birth of Christ there was a planetary alignment of all the known and observable planets of the age and that this might be the explanation for what the Magi saw as a "star."

I'm not particularly worried about the Christmas Tradition in terms of the Magi at the nativity. They clearly were not.

Maybe I'm not understanding your points but it seemed to me that you were appealing to the fact that the "Star" is not mentioned in Luke but is in Matthew, provides a basis to question the Magi's arrival and the means of their determining the time of Christ's birth. I take that as a historical fact related in the Bible and see it as reliable in that regard.

Historical accuracy doesn't equate to endorsement of the Magi's methods which were probably astrological and specifically tied into Zoroastrianism which was contemporary at the time.

Luke's failure to mention the Star cannot in my opinion be taken as any indication that the star as related in Matthew was not reported to have existed as per the Magi's report. You may argue if you wish that the Magi were mistaken or their methods illegitimate, but I don't believe you can argue that Matthew is not accurate in its accounting of the event and the Magi's claim without compromising inspiration and inerrancy.

In terms of the 2 years difference between observation and arrival, I think you can allow for travel and perhaps a lag between observation and a determination of its significance.

Hope that helps.

Bart

[DonCameron]

Maybe I'm not understanding your points but it seemed to me that you were appealing to the fact that the "Star" is not mentioned in Luke but is in Matthew, provides a basis to question the Magi's arrival and the means of their determining the time of Christ's birth. I take that as a historical fact related in the Bible and see it as reliable in that regard.

You must have misunderstood me. My thought is just that since Luke doesn't mention any 'star' in connection with Jesus' birth, and since Matthew shows that 'star' didn't show up over Bethlehem until some two years after Jesus was born, therefore apparently there wasn't any 'star' over Bethlehem when Jesus was born - as Christmas cards and pagents often show.

Luke's failure to mention the Star cannot in my opinion be taken as any indication that the star as related in Matthew was not reported to have existed as per the Magi's report.

I don't have any reason to doubt that that 'star' existed. I assume that it did exist. It's the source of that 'star' that I have questioned. While some think that it was something good that God used to announce the birth of his Son, I look at it as something bad that Satan used to try to destroy God's Son. That's a real big difference!

In terms of the 2 years difference between observation and arrival, I think you can allow for travel and perhaps a lag between observation and a determination of its significance.

That looks right to me too.

Don

[Byblos]

I had said that since Luke didn't mention anything about a 'star,' that therefore there was no 'star' when Jesus was born.

But you're not arguing the absence of a 'star'. You're arguing that the star was demonic, used by Satan to deceive the Magi into going to Jerusalem for the purpose of alerting Herod so he can in turn kill the children in fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15 (wooh, that was a mouthful).

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

But it is not just the absence of evidence of a 'star' in Luke's account that indicates to me that there was no 'star.' There is also the presence of evidence in Matthew's account that indicates to me that there was no 'star' present at the birth of Jesus.

According to Matthew that 'star' didn't show up over Bethlehem until after the astrologers met with Herod (2:9). They didn't met with Jesus until as long as it took them to travel from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. By that time, according to 2:11 Jesus was a young child living in a house. And by thinking carefully about 2:16 he may have been upwards of two years old.

Don, this suggests to me that you're not familiar with the map. The journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem is but a half a day's (around 6 to 10 miles). It's the journey from the Magi's native land to Jerusalem that would have taken anywhere between 12 to 15 months (a distance somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 miles). For the Magi to observe the star (in the general vicinity of Jerusalem/Bethlehem) and travel to Jerusalem (the capital), Jesus was well into his second year. That would have put the observance of the star around his birth. The fact that Luke didn't mention it is utterly irrelevant.

The Point: If that 'star' didn't begin to hang over Bethlehem until Jesus was two years old, that looks like positive evidence to me that that 'star' was not present at Jesus' birth two years earlier.

If the star wasn't around when Jesus was born and the Magi observed it 2 years later, only then to set out on their journey, they would not have arrived in Jerusalem until Jesus was into his 4th year.

And so while it is true that, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," the presence of evidence is the evidence of absence- it would seem.

Don

What presence of evidence do you speak of?

Also, you did not answer my earlier question:

But if in the natural course of spreading the good news about Jesus' birth throughout the middle so that even Herod got to hear about it, then I wouldn't feel that Satan had used those shepherds to accomplish his purpose.

In the above scenario, who then would be responsible for the killing of the children?

[Canuckster1127]

Maybe I'm not understanding your points but it seemed to me that you were appealing to the fact that the "Star" is not mentioned in Luke but is in Matthew, provides a basis to question the Magi's arrival and the means of their determining the time of Christ's birth. I take that as a historical fact related in the Bible and see it as reliable in that regard.

You must have misunderstood me. My thought is just that since Luke doesn't mention any 'star' in connection with Jesus' birth, and since Matthew shows that 'star' didn't show up over Bethlehem until some two years after Jesus was born, therefore apparently there wasn't any 'star' over Bethlehem when Jesus was born - as Christmas cards and pagents often show.

Luke's failure to mention the Star cannot in my opinion be taken as any indication that the star as related in Matthew was not reported to have existed as per the Magi's report.

I don't have any reason to doubt that that 'star' existed. I assume that it did exist. It's the source of that 'star' that I have questioned. While some think that it was something good that God used to announce the birth of his Son, I look at it as something bad that Satan used to try to destroy God's Son. That's a real big difference!

In terms of the 2 years difference between observation and arrival, I think you can allow for travel and perhaps a lag between observation and a determination of its significance.

That looks right to me too.

Don

Don,

I think we're pretty much in agreement. The source per se doesn't trouble me. As it is a reflection of creation whether it was a star per se or a planetary alignment or something else, I think we can attribute its physical existence to God. Satan does not create something from nothing. Satan's domain is in the area of perverting and twisting the perception of creation, perception of God or pereption of the Word of God. Satan is a created being with limitations subject to the allowances of God in His Sovereignty.

The meaning attributed to it by the Magi is accurate in the Bible as far as its preservation as a historical fact. Whether their interpretation matches as God's means of communicating with them, is very much in question.

I think people need to be reminded that the Bible in its entirity is the "Word of God" but not everything stated in it are the "Words of God." Satan's words, Job's friends etc are all accurately preserved and conveyed. We can rely on that. The actual message they speak are not necessarily endorsed just because it is preserved in the Bible as historical fact.

Bart

[DonCameron]

Hi John,

you're (Don) not arguing the absence of a 'star'. You're arguing that the star was demonic, used by Satan to deceive the Magi into going to Jerusalem for the purpose of alerting Herod so he can in turn kill the children in fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15 (wooh, that was a mouthful

Yep.
Although I would say it that Satan's reason for alerting Herod was because he knew that once Herod heard about a king of the Jews being born, that he would want him killed. Since Herod didn't know the street address in Bethlehem where that king lived, he decided to kill every child (two years old and under) to make sure that whoever that baby was and no matter where he lived in Bethlehem, he would be killed. In that way Jeremiah 31:15 would be fulfilled.

According to Matthew that 'star' didn't show up over Bethlehem until after the astrologers met with Herod (2:9). They didn't meet with Jesus until as long as it took them to travel from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. By that time, according to 2:11 Jesus was a young child living in a house. And by thinking carefully about 2:16 he may have been upwards of two years old

.

Don, this suggests to me that you're not familiar with the map. The journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem is but a half a day's (around 6 to 10 miles). It's the journey from the Magi's native land to Jerusalem that would have taken anywhere between 12 to 15 months (a distance somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 miles). For the Magi to observe the star (in the general vicinity of Jerusalem/Bethlehem) and travel to Jerusalem (the capital), Jesus was well into his second year. That would have put the observance of the star around his birth. The fact that Luke didn't mention it is utterly irrelevant.

You seem to feel that from 1500 miles away the astrologers could see that a stationary 'star' was hanging over the general vicinity of Jerusalem/Bethlehem. That would be similar to me (who lives in Western New York) being able to see that a 'star' was hanging over the general vicinity of Key West, Florida!

Do you picture that 'star' as being stationary? That it just parked itself over the manger (in Luke's account) or over Jerusalem or the house (in Matthew's account) and then waited for the shepherds (in Luke's account) and the astrologers (in Matthew's account) to show up? That's the impression I get from those who are posting on this subject.

But I noticed that Matthew explained that that star was not stationary. In 2:9 it says that it moved: "When they had heard the king (in Jerusalem) , they went their way; and, look! the star they had seen when they were in the east went ahead of them until it came to a stop above where the young child was."

I assume that that 'star' moved the same way when it led the astrologers from Babylon to Jerusalem. I picture them seeing that 'star' while in Babylon (about the time of Jesus birth) and then it 'went ahead of them until it came to a stop above Jerusalem.' If this is the way it worked then it would mean that that 'star' never appeared over anyplace in Bethlehem until after the astrologers met with Herod two years after Jesus was born.

A Point: Since the Bible doesn't place that 'star' over Bethlehem until after the astrologers met with Herod, then I don't either.

Don

[Canuckster1127]

Don,

It's a fine point but worth repeating and expanding I think.

Satan doesn't have creative power to manufacture such a "star."

Part of God's revelation is through His creation. I believe astrology is prohibited from God's people because it often is used in the sense of magical arts to attempt to discern the future. God's plan for His people in this regard is Specific Revelation which is inerrant and inspired. Using the creation to predict and understand world events in terms of Astrology doesn't meet that test and as I mentioned before, elevates the creation over the creator which is a form of idolatry.

That being said, that doesn't mean that Astrology doesn't have some power to it, albeit imperfect. Where the creation moves with the intended purpose and plan of God, there might be some truth to obtain, but it is not going to meet God's standard of prophesy which is perfection.

So, I think if you're stating that the star itself is a creative act of Satan to deceive the Magi for his purposes, then you're attributing power to Satan that he doesn't have. Only God can create in this manner.

If you're stating that Satan could use this event in terms of the Magi themselves arriving and tipping off Herod, I think that that is possible although it is not something the text iteself reveals. The influence in that situation is not creative in terms of the "star" but rather the understanding, response and actions of the Magi themselves, who, as I've mentioned before, were likely Zoroastrian astronomers in a practice and religion which I believe would indeed have occultic presence.

I think you're projecting onto the "Star" something which in your scenario there is no Biblical basis to attribute to Satan.

The involvement in terms of Satan in this instance is speculation.

Satan does not create. He can only pervert that which God creates and only within the boundaries God Himself draws for him.

The absence of the mention in Luke would have nothing to do with this. All you can state as fact is what Matthew states.

The rest is interesting speculation and I think we have license to do that in terms of our study and inferrence, but in the end it is eisogesis or reading into the text something it specifically doesn't directly say.

Bart

[DonCameron]

Bart,

Satan doesn't have creative power to manufacture such a "star."

The following may not be the answer but Paul said that Satan does have the ability to "transform himself into an angel of light."

I haven't thought of that 'star' (or light) as an actual celestial body that Satan created. That's why I always put it as a 'star' rather than a star. But since he can transform himself into an angel of light is it possible that he can manipulate light in order to mimic light as if coming from a celestial body? Do we know for a certainty that he does not have that ability? Of course, I don't know.

But the main reason I lean toward Satan being the author of that light that the astrologers followed is because of the outcome of them seeing it compared to the outcome of the shepherds hearing about Jesus' birth. In the case of the shepherds it was that "they went back, glorifying and praising God for all the things they heard and saw." But in the case of the astrologers the end result was that all those babies in Bethlehem were slaughtered!

I sure have a hard time involving God in anything having to do with those astrologers.

Don

[FFC]

I sure have a hard time involving God in anything having to do with those astrologers.

I hear you, Don, but it can hardly be denied that God has not only allowed plenty of horrific events such as this in the OT, He even seems to have orchestrated many of them, ie, women, children, and animals being slaughtered at his command. I don't like it either but it's there, and him being the soveriegn God who owns all that He has created, He has the right to do with them as He pleases. We can disagree and be appauled but He is God and He stands on His own name...and we are not.

[Fortigurn]

I think I understand where this is coming from now.

'Who do you think provided the star that moved in the sky to guide the astrologers? Remember, the star did not guide them directly to Jesus in Bethlehem. Rather, they were led to Jerusalem where they came in touch with King Herod, who wanted to kill Jesus.

And he would have done so if God had not stepped in and warned the astrologers not to tell Herod. It was God's enemy, Satan the Devil, who wanted Jesus killed, and he used that star to try to accomplish this purpose.'

Watchtower, July 1, pages 16-17, 1985

[FFC]

I think I understand where this is coming from now.

'Who do you think provided the star that moved in the sky to guide the astrologers? Remember, the star did not guide them directly to Jesus in Bethlehem. Rather, they were led to Jerusalem where they came in touch with King Herod, who wanted to kill Jesus.

And he would have done so if God had not stepped in and warned the astrologers not to tell Herod. It was God's enemy, Satan the Devil, who wanted Jesus killed, and he used that star to try to accomplish this purpose.'

Watchtower, July 1, pages 16-17, 1985

Hmmm.

[DonCameron]

Hi Fortigurn,

Isn't that Interesting how that July, 1985 Watchtower sounded just like me! Also interesting is that I was disfellowshipped the very next month in August of 1985 because I no longer believed that the Watchtower Society is God's organization.

Question for everyone on this Forum:
What if you discovered that your present religion is not what you thought it was? Would you automatically stop believing everything that religion teaches? Or would you hang on to those teachings that still seemed scriptural and only let go of the ones that no longer made any sense?

That's what I have done. I now have the freedom to believe what I understand the Bible to be teaching. I also now have the freedom to change what I believe if something comes to my attention that convinces me to change what I have believed.

I realize that I don't understand everything correctly. Is there anyone who will understand everything correctly before Jesus returns?

Do I have the correct understanding of what Matthew had to say about that 'star' that led the astrologers to Jerusalem? Maybe not. But our discussions have helped me better understand why others feel differently about this matter - and that is good. Will my understanding ever change? I don't know. Is this a salvation issue? I don't think so.

Don
P.S. One of the positive things that has come from our discussions is that I sense that some are able to put up with me better!

[Fortigurn]

Don, I respect your capacity to examine honestly what you were taught, and to keep an open mind.

[Byblos]

Don, I respect your capacity to examine honestly what you were taught, and to keep an open mind.

I agree. Perhaps that's what is meant by 'walk a thin line' in the board purpose. Even though some may have differing beliefs than what we deem 'traditional orthodox Christianity', as long as it is done respectfully and with an open mind then it is not only tolerated but also encouraged. (but I still think the 'star' was a great thing ).

[Canuckster1127]

Bart,

Satan doesn't have creative power to manufacture such a "star."

The following may not be the answer but Paul said that Satan does have the ability to "transform himself into an angel of light."

I haven't thought of that 'star' (or light) as an actual celestial body that Satan created. That's why I always put it as a 'star' rather than a star. But since he can transform himself into an angel of light is it possible that he can manipulate light in order to mimic light as if coming from a celestial body? Do we know for a certainty that he does not have that ability? Of course, I don't know.

But the main reason I lean toward Satan being the author of that light that the astrologers followed is because of the outcome of them seeing it compared to the outcome of the shepherds hearing about Jesus' birth. In the case of the shepherds it was that "they went back, glorifying and praising God for all the things they heard and saw." But in the case of the astrologers the end result was that all those babies in Bethlehem were slaughtered!

I sure have a hard time involving God in anything having to do with those astrologers.

Don

Don,

What I see in this cross-application of Scriptures is again, not exegesis but eisogesis.

There is nothing in the text to suggest directly what you're asserting here. Further, to support such a thought by the idea that because Luke doesn;t mention the Star that that supports your idea is very weak hermeneutically.

As I said before, I don't necessarily have a problem with the thought that what you're saying could be a possible conclusion, but I would never take it any further than that. Satan as an angel of light is a concept not of physical appearance, but one that expresses that he and his lies are made to seem appealing. That's really the whole definition of evil. Satan is not a co-equal of God's who balances His power. Satan is a created being, who rebelled and sought things that belong only to God. He is more than a match for us humanly on our own power. He is no match for God and when we resist him, he flees based upon God's power, not ours.

False prophets often get some things right. The Scripture does not attribute the star of Bethleham as a means by which God sought to confirm Jesus' birth and spread the news to those who knew how to watch for the signs. As you stated, God intended for the Shepherds to know and he sent and angel to deliver the news and invite them to the manger.

I frankly don't have a problem believing that God would tie his pronouncement of Christ's birth and include the method of signs within the creation itself. If he did that it would not be surprising that those who were not of His flock could read the signs and perhaps rightly understand what they meant in some instances.

However, it would be speculation on my part to presume that. That seems to me what you're reacting against in terms of the common Christian tradition of the Magi at the manger or the Star symbolized over Bethleham in popular Christmas Card art.

As I've said, I think you have a point. Historically the Magi weren't on the scene until as much as 2 years after the fact. The text doesn't claim that God called for or asked the Magi to come. The text makes no claim for the Star as attributable to God's intended revelation.

Is it reasonable to assert that Satan could be seen as seeking to use the situation to attempt to thwart God's plan. Yes. I can see some logic there that is consistent with the general teaching of Scripture.

Going one step further and attributing the Satan the actual "Star" is another matter.

Astrology as a whole (apart from the physical science of astronomy which was a part of it as well as someone else pointed out) relies upon things that God created. He created all the stars, the planets, the constellations (which are simply figures that man projects upon certain arrangements, much like seeing cloud bunnies and duckies ) and he determined the motions that they follow. Astrology is a perversion of something that God created that is good. God did not intend for people to seek after the creation for prophetic knowledge.

What I don't understand is why in one breath you would make that point and rely upon the text and then in the next, make a claim like this which is not in the text.

You're just doing the same thing you complain about or reject in terms of the attribution of God's use of the "Star" in the opposite direction.

I think the "Star" has a logical explaination based in the creation God made. I personally think it may have been the planetary alignment I mentioned which fits the time frame, or it may have been a comet, a nova or many other things which occur in the normal course of the creation. There's simply not enough given in the passage to say with any certainty and we're looking way beyond what the purpose of the text was in terms of the reason God inspired it and included it in His Holy Word. It is an historical fact. Matthew in particular has an emphasis upon Christ as King as a theme in terms of Christ as a Successor to King David as a fulfillment of prophecy and so it's not surprising that Matthew would include this from a human perspective as well, because these types of signs were commonly seen as attendant upon important events. Even there however, we read more into it that the text itself states if we seek to say more with any degree of certainty.

The answer to whether God tied meaning to it intentionally in order to bring the Magi who were pagans is simply, that Scripture doesn't say and so we don't know.

Could Satan have created an illusion? Maybe. Certainly not without God's allowance and forebearance so at some higher level the point is moot.

So, I agree with your initial point in terms of the misuse of it in terms of popular symbolism in Christian tradition. You're right that there are many pagan elements in the popular celebration of Christmas from the tree, the star on top, to the giving of Gifts.

I just don't understand why you would make that point and then build a case in the other direction with nothing in the text to support it.

It's one of the problems with corelating proof texts out of context to create an entirely independent thought that there's no indication that the text itself in its context intended it.

And by the way, I too resepct that you've left the organization of the JW's. I don't believe that something is wrong simply because the JW's believe it. That would be silly.

I do wonder though still why you imagine that the JW organization can be seen as distinct from it's teachings especially when there are elements of JW teaching that are not found in other groups.

I understand why there might be some difficulty standing aside from it especially if that is the faith you've been brought up in or which you've spent the majority of your life learning and reinforcing.

I'm glad you made the decisions you have. As I've stated before, I enjoy interacting with you. I believe God has a purpose at work in all things and in this case, if you'll allow me the presumption which I can't tie to any text I wonder if part of God's purpose might be to challenge you to look beyond just the organization and begin looking at the methods of hermeneutics and interpretation themselves to see if perhaps this explains how the organization came out of the teaching and had the elements that you chose to leave over.

Bart