Evidence for God from Science

Hi Bart,

Bart wrote:I personally think the star may have been the (1) planetary alignment I mentioned which fits the time frame, or it may have been (2) a comet, (3) a nova or (4)many other things which occur in the normal course of the creation.

What is your thought about Matthew's statement about how that 'star'
"went ahead of the astrologers until it came to a stop above where the young child was"?

Have you ever heard of any of the natural phenomena that you mentioned above behave like that?

This is one of the reasons why I look to a supernatural source of the light from that 'star' rather than a nature source.

Don

DonCameron wrote:Have you ever heard of any of the natural phenomena that you mentioned above behave like that?

Yes, comets (and their tails).

Here's another explanation from the following link:

So just what is a triple conjunction, and why would it be significant to the birth of a King in Israel? A planetary conjunction is what happens when two planets come in close proximity to one another. A triple conjunction refers to when three separate conjunctions of the same two planets occur within a one year period. Triple conjunctions can be predicted, but they do not occur with regularity. There have been only 11 such triple conjunctions since 7 B.C. and the interval between them varies between 40 and 338 years.

The triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 B.C. was seen in the constellation Pisces in the months of May, September, and December. This provides sufficient time for the magi to see the first conjunction, begin their trip west to Judea, visit Herod by the second conjunction or at least soon afterwards, and perhaps not reach Bethlehem until the third conjunction when it is said to have appeared in the southern sky, and Bethlehem is just south of Jerusalem. Remember how the magi rejoiced to see the star again as they departed Jerusalem for Bethlehem. Ancient astrologers associated Jupiter with royalty or even a ruler of the universe. Saturn was associated with Palestine or even with the deity who protected Israel. And Pisces was associated with the nation of Israel. Later a massing of Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn occurred again in Pisces in 6 B.C. It seems feasible then that this triple conjunction followed by the massing of the three planets in Pisces could indicate to the magi that a King of Israel and a Ruler of the Universe was about to be born in Israel.

Although the above was discounted by the auther as the possible explanation for the star of Bethlehem, I believe he did so in favor of what he considered to be a better explanation (source of the star being God). Here's what he says:

The Shekinah Glory as the Star of Bethlehem
Remember that Jesus' birth was the ultimate coming of the presence of God in the midst of His people. How was God's presence manifested elsewhere in the Bible? Moses saw a burning bush that was not consumed and God spoke to him from the bush. Again in Exodus, Moses was allowed to see God's backside and afterwards his face shone with light so bright that the other Israelites could not look on his face. The Israelites were led through the desert by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. When Jesus was transfigured He shone with a light as bright as the sun. When Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus, Saul was blinded by the light which the others with him saw as well. When God was imminently present, a bright light was associated with His presence.

The Shekinah Glory denotes the visible presence of God. This presence was real, and the physical manifestation was real. Remember that Saul was blinded by the light. The Lord often announces His presence by a very physical manifestation of bright light. What better way to announce the coming of Jesus, God's Son, the second Person of the Trinity than by a special light that is not some mere improbable astronomical event, rather an expression of the Shekinah glory, God's divine presence among men?

Astronomer Sherm Kanagy and theologian Ken Boa advance this thesis in their as yet unpublished manuscript, Star of the Magi. One of their strong emphases is the necessity to try to interpret the text of Matthew from first century Jewish perspective. They reject the idea that any astrological meaning could have been on Matthew's mind concerning this star. It is certainly fair to wonder, therefore, what this star was and how the magi interpreted it as a star signifying the birth of the King of the Jews. Kanagy and Boa reveal that Kepler concluded that the star was not some astronomical event and was a light that appeared in the lower atmosphere and therefore was not visible to everyone. But how did the magi interpret the star? This admittedly is the weakest part of the interpretation. The text gives no real hints. Magi were simply wise men of the east, not necessarily astrologers. They were Gentiles whose presence in the context of Matthew's Messianic gospel hints at the eventual spread of the gospel beyond the Jews. But how did they know what the star meant? We can only assume there was selective revelation. Only Paul understood the voice from the light, though all who were with him saw the light. Only Moses was allowed up on Mt. Sinai to receive the Law. Only Peter, James, and John were present at the transfiguration, and they were told to keep it to themselves until Jesus rose from the dead. Manifestations of God's presence with men often were accompanied by selective revelation. Perhaps the meaning of the "star" was only revealed to the magi though others could actually see the "star."

Well, what was it, an astronomical event or the Shekinah Glory, manifesting God's presence among men? In my mind the mystery remains. Perhaps that is how God intends it to be.

(some emphasis mine).

John.

DonCameron wrote:Hi Bart,

Bart wrote:I personally think the star may have been the (1) planetary alignment I mentioned which fits the time frame, or it may have been (2) a comet, (3) a nova or (4)many other things which occur in the normal course of the creation.

What is your thought about Matthew's statement about how that 'star'
"went ahead of the astrologers until it came to a stop above where the young child was"?

Have you ever heard of any of the natural phenomena that you mentioned above behave like that?

This is one of the reasons why I look to a supernatural source of the light from that 'star' rather than a nature source.

Don

I don't have a clear explanation as to why the star "stopped". It's been a mystery to many for over 2,000 years.

The point is, neither do you.

Attributing it to Satan is an interesting and maybe even a possible theory.

My natural events as possibilities fall into the same category but with a subtle difference. The astronomical events of that time window are known and so there is a clear fact which can tie to the wording of the text. Drawing from an unrelated text to create a synthesis in this instance stretches things a bit further.

There's nothing in the text to directly support what you're seeking to infer. It seems to me there's perhaps more of motivation to impugn the popular tradition of the star (which we've both agreed is historically unsupportable) and make it even more unpalatable or tainted. Jehovah's Witnesses, who reject Christmas as a Christianized pagan ritual, would clearly have a motive to heap as much as they can on those traditions in order to make their own position look even better.

I'm not saying you're consciously doing that, but this may be somewhat of an example of what I've said before that the organizational incongruities that you noted in the Watchtower Organization did not come out of a vacuum. I think you have to examine the same type of rationalizations and mistakes that you realized were happening and caused you to leave, and ask yourself if those same or similar elements are at play in the way they interpret and read the Bible in other instances. There may be more of a tie there than what you realize.

Taking a passage which plays upon Satan appearing as an angel of light and tying it to this passage is completely unsupported by the text and very poor hermeneutics.

It's an example of a methodology that I've observed many times with JW's to be honest, although it certainly isn't exclusive to them and Christians of all brands have indulged in at to varying degrees at different times. It's pretty much a theory in search of evidence. It takes two unrelated passages, draws a fact or concept from each which are then employed to arrive at an independent conclusion that is not clearly presented in either passage. Voila. You have a new "truth" manufactured.

Asserting that because the impact of the Magi resulted in the slaughter of the innocents that the star itself which led them must have been a direct result or work of Satan, because Satan can appear as an angel of light begs many questions if you're going to employ that type of hermeneutic. It's a non-sequitur. As a method it leaves the field wide open for anyone to take any pair of passages they want and say what they want. It is the essence of "eisogesis" or reading into the text what you want it to say instead on exegesis, which elevates the text as primary and demands that the text be allowed to speak for itself and determine its own facts, and truth.

Is what you're suggesting possible? Yes. Many things are possible. It's the nature of man to want to understand things more clearly and in the absence of a clear answer, theories will be presented to help explain. It's a result of our curiosity and part of how we learn and catagorize and organize facts to bring meaning from the world around us.

I don't have a problem with doing it with issues in Scripture, as in this case where we try to explain an unanswered question. The bottom line however is that God didn't see the need to answer that question in this passage. So, to me, that means it's not particularly important.

The speculation doesn't necessarily harm anything, but the problem is that sometimes these "speculations" get used and presumed to be the Gospel Truth and incorporated into other logical threads to build more from it. Then we're several degrees removed from the truth and building castles in the air.

Bart,

Thanks for a great letter of explanation and reasoning.

Something I recently thought about (without the Society's help) is some-one's comment (perhaps it was yours, or maybe John) that Satan cannot create anything and therefore he could not have created that 'star light' that the astrologers followed.

But how about this:
Imperfect, lower-than-the-angels man has been able to figure out how to use things - that Creator has created - to 'create' numerous sources of very bright lights.

If imperfect lowly man can 'create' such light, then why not a superior higher-than-mankind angel being able to create something as simple as a light that appears to come from from star? Was Satan so limited in his mental ability that he couldn't figure out how do manufacture such a light source?

One of the reasons I keep looking for a supernatural explanation of that 'star' is because there is no natural occurring explanation for it or especially for how it moved. I don't recall ever hearing why, after moving 1500 miles, it stopped over Jerusalem and then waited until the astrologers' meeting with Herod was over and then began moving again only to come to final stop exactly over the house where Jesus lived.

But an intelligent, supernatural source of that light would explain everything about that 'star.'

The reason I pick Satan rather than God as that source is because of its stop-over in Jerusalem which unnecessarily alerted the lying, evil, king-killer Herod.

If the shepherds had heard a voice from the invisible realm that told them to go to Herod to let him know that a new king of the Jews had just been born, I would be suspicious of that voice. But the voice(s) they actually did hear kept Herod out of the loop. That's why I feel that God rather than Satan was the supernatural source that guided those shepherds. But that Satan rather than God was the supernaural source that guided those astrologers.

Don

DonCameron wrote:But how about this:
Imperfect, lower-than-the-angels man has been able to figure out how to use things - that Creator has created - to 'create' numerous sources of very bright lights.

If imperfect lowly man can 'create' such light, then why not a superior higher-than-mankind angel being able to create something as simple as a light that appears to come from from star? Was Satan so limited in his mental ability that he couldn't figure out how do manufacture such a light source?

This is actually something that could make sense. I personally believe that the "star" was caused by God, but if Satan did it, he would not have had to create it out of nothing. The book of Job shows that Satan is able to directly manipulate physical phenomena (he inflicted Job with disease), so could he have possibly caused some kind of chemical reaction in the atmosphere which produced the "star" of Bethlehem?

Just a thought...

Swamper,

Swamper wrote:Just a thought...

Interesting thought. Although... I may be the only one who likes it!

Don

Swamper wrote:

DonCameron wrote:But how about this:
Imperfect, lower-than-the-angels man has been able to figure out how to use things - that Creator has created - to 'create' numerous sources of very bright lights.

If imperfect lowly man can 'create' such light, then why not a superior higher-than-mankind angel being able to create something as simple as a light that appears to come from from star? Was Satan so limited in his mental ability that he couldn't figure out how do manufacture such a light source?

This is actually something that could make sense. I personally believe that the "star" was caused by God, but if Satan did it, he would not have had to create it out of nothing. The book of Job shows that Satan is able to directly manipulate physical phenomena (he inflicted Job with disease), so could he have possibly caused some kind of chemical reaction in the atmosphere which produced the "star" of Bethlehem?

Just a thought...

Swamper,

That's a good example of how Satan can directly influence events, people, things. In my view, Satan could very well have directly influenced Herod to commit the infant killings (in fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15) without resorting to 'making' a light appear somewhere, have the Magi travel in its direction for over a year so they end up in Jerusalem, just for the sole purpose of alerting Herod that a king was born in Bethlehem who will be threatening his position. As if Herod could not have heard the news from any other source. It just makes no sense to me whatsoever but then again like Bart said, scripture is really silent on the source of the star and all of these 'opinions' are nothing more than pure conjecture. The only thing, again in my view, that might hint that the star is the product of God and not Satan is the fact that Matthew calls it Jesus' star (the Magi saw 'his star', not just 'a star'). If we believe that Matthew's gospel is inspired and inerrant and Matthew attributes the star to Jesus, I don't see how it could possibly be the work of Satan (unless he also influenced Matthew's Gospel, and we all know what the implications of that would be).

John.

Hi John,

You wrote:Matthew calls it Jesus' star (the Magi saw 'his star', not just 'a star')

I don't think Matthew called it "his (Jesus) star," did he? Wasn't he just quoting what the astrologers called it?

Don

DonCameron wrote:Hi John,

You wrote:Matthew calls it Jesus' star (the Magi saw 'his star', not just 'a star')

I don't think Matthew called it "his (Jesus) star," did he? Wasn't he just quoting what the astrologers called it?

Don

You are correct. The question is, do you think, given the inspiration and innerancy, Matthew would have quoted what the Magi said (and implied that the star is Jesus') if the star were actually the work of Satan?

Hi again John,

You wrote:Do you think, given the inspiration and inerrancy, Matthew would have quoted what the Magi said (and implied that the star is Jesus') if the star were actually the work of Satan?

It just looks to me that Matthew was simply quoting what the Astrologers said once they arrived in Jerusalem without any suggestion that he agreed or disagreed with them.

They asked, "Where is the one born king of the Jews?" I guess they then could have said, "For we have seen 'a star' when we were in Babylon." I'm sure they saw a lot of stars when they were in Babylon. But in order to specify the star they had in mind they referred to it as "his star."

For me, I don't get any feeling that when Matthew quoted those men that that it means that he agreed with them that the light they saw really was "Jesus star" placed there by God in order to help in the announcing to the world the birth of his Son.

Don

DonCameron wrote:Hi again John,

You wrote:Do you think, given the inspiration and inerrancy, Matthew would have quoted what the Magi said (and implied that the star is Jesus') if the star were actually the work of Satan?

It just looks to me that Matthew was simply quoting what the Astrologers said once they arrived in Jerusalem without any suggestion that he agreed or disagreed with them.

They asked, "Where is the one born king of the Jews?" I guess they then could have said, "For we have seen 'a star' when we were in Babylon." I'm sure they saw a lot of stars when they were in Babylon. But in order to specify the star they had in mind they referred to it as "his star."

For me, I don't get any feeling that when Matthew quoted those men that that it means that he agreed with them that the light they saw really was "Jesus star" placed there by God in order to help in the announcing to the world the birth of his Son.

Don

I understand. But the feeling I come away with if I follow your line of thinking is that Satan deceived the Magi, Matthew quoted the Magi, then it follows that Satan indirectly deceived Matthew into quoting something inspired by Satan. It's just a difference of opinion and since we're speculating, my speculation is just as plausible as yours. Would you not agree?

Byblos wrote:

Swamper wrote:

DonCameron wrote:But how about this:
Imperfect, lower-than-the-angels man has been able to figure out how to use things - that Creator has created - to 'create' numerous sources of very bright lights.

If imperfect lowly man can 'create' such light, then why not a superior higher-than-mankind angel being able to create something as simple as a light that appears to come from from star? Was Satan so limited in his mental ability that he couldn't figure out how do manufacture such a light source?

This is actually something that could make sense. I personally believe that the "star" was caused by God, but if Satan did it, he would not have had to create it out of nothing. The book of Job shows that Satan is able to directly manipulate physical phenomena (he inflicted Job with disease), so could he have possibly caused some kind of chemical reaction in the atmosphere which produced the "star" of Bethlehem?

Just a thought...

Swamper,

That's a good example of how Satan can directly influence events, people, things. In my view, Satan could very well have directly influenced Herod to commit the infant killings (in fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15) without resorting to 'making' a light appear somewhere, have the Magi travel in its direction for over a year so they end up in Jerusalem, just for the sole purpose of alerting Herod that a king was born in Bethlehem who will be threatening his position. As if Herod could not have heard the news from any other source. It just makes no sense to me whatsoever but then again like Bart said, scripture is really silent on the source of the star and all of these 'opinions' are nothing more than pure conjecture. The only thing, again in my view, that might hint that the star is the product of God and not Satan is the fact that Matthew calls it Jesus' star (the Magi saw 'his star', not just 'a star'). If we believe that Matthew's gospel is inspired and inerrant and Matthew attributes the star to Jesus, I don't see how it could possibly be the work of Satan (unless he also influenced Matthew's Gospel, and we all know what the implications of that would be).

John.

I agree with you, I was just pointing out that I wouldn't be surprised if Satan does have the ability to cause phenomena like the star of Bethlehem.

Swamper wrote:I agree with you, I was just pointing out that I wouldn't be surprised if Satan does have the ability to cause phenomena like the star of Bethlehem.

I hear you, Swamper. I just don't see it applicable in this case as nothing in scripture remotely hints at it.

John,

You wrote:It's just a difference of opinion and since we're speculating, my speculation is just as plausible as yours. Would you not agree?

Well, since the Bible doesn't actually say what I have concluded then I should concede that you are correct in labeling my reasoning as speculating.

Don
P.S. But I do like the door that Swamper left open.

Everyone,

Here is something else I find 'interesting.' I've noticed that every time God was directing what was going on He did so by means of a dream. For examples…

1) Verse 2:12: He gave the astrologers a dream so that they knew not to back to Jerusalem.
2) Verse 2:13: He gave Joseph a dream so that he knew to take Jesus to Egypt.
3) Verse 2:19: He gave Joseph a dream so that he knew to return to Israel.
4) Verse 2:22: He gave Joseph a dream so that he knew to go to Galilee.

But what about those astrologers when there were living in Babylon? They didn't receive a dream so that they knew to go to Jerusalem. Apparently they figured that trip out using their profession of astrology - a profession that God doesn't seem too impressed with. (I'm not aware that God ever used astrology to help people understand His will.)

And so, what does the above prove? I guess it doesn't prove anything. But isn't it at least a little bit interesting to notice how God consistently used dreams to let people know what he wanted them to do — except in the one case of those astrologers in Babylon?

I think it's interesting...naturally.

Don