1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Matthew and that star

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by Rough Beast Sloucher, Dec 25, 2017.

  1. The Ragin Pagan

    The Ragin Pagan A.K.A. The Kilted Heathen

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,582
    Ratings:
    +2,789
    Religion:
    Heathenry (Norse and Slavic Paganism)
    Okay? Good for Gnosticism; doesn't make it true or accurate.
     
  2. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    28,938
    Ratings:
    +10,208
    Religion:
    dystopian Christian
    Ok I'm not trying to derail. I think its not just 'king of the Jews' implied by the star, because the arrival of Jesus represents a whole new order of things. It is the end of kings, the destruction of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar's vision where the statue is made of all of the kingdoms. For it to mean king of the Jews would be very disappointing. It would just be more of the same and not a whole new order.

    That the Babylonians had ziggurats I do not dispute, but if the magi followed the star from their land to Israel it could mean an overturning of their king's authority. They were following the star in search of a king, but why would they be searching for a king in Israel if it were only the king of the Jews? Somehow this star represented something worldwide rather than local, and it led foreigners to Bethlehem. Just going by various other statements by Jesus that his kingdom was not 'Of this world' it seems like the star was talking about something that replaced kingdoms and alluded back to that statue in Nebuchadnezzar's vision and the stone that destroyed it.

    Well maybe, but their opposition was spiritual. They were opposed to the principles upon which Babylon was founded.

    Ah, Ok I follow.

    ha ha respond whenever is convenient. I don't mean to rush and am just responding while this is fresh in my mind.
     
  3. socharlie

    socharlie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2017
    Messages:
    819
    Ratings:
    +176
    Religion:
    christian heretic
    I do not know if it is true or not - all dream land....it came to me in series of synchronicity points and dreams and many other messages. Gnosticism uses mythos to convey their points. Gospels are Gnostic.
     
  4. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,640
    Ratings:
    +6,893
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Sorry if we are overwhelming you....you must have hit on a good and timely topic. [​IMG]

    According to Matthew's gospel, the star was no ordinary heavenly body. The magi said that they saw "his star" when they were in the east. This makes the star unique to the royal child that they sought. The account also speaks about the star's "appearance" so this sounds like a star or bright light of unknown origin that "appeared" seemingly out of nowhere. The key I believe is that when they had received their instructions from the King to find the child and report back to him, this "star" led them right to the very "house" where they found the young child with his mother. No ordinary star, this one. [​IMG]

    The other question to ask is.....who did God inform of the birth of his son? The account says that angels informed Jewish shepherds who were living outdoors at the time. (not something they did in the cold of winter) God would not have informed pagan practicers of what he condemned, about such an important event.

    I believe that they got their information from another, more sinister source.

    Regarding the missing details of the account, we cannot really speculate too much, but in keeping with what we know about the devil and his schemes to keep Jesus from fulfilling his earthly mission, we can safely assume from what transpired that this star was a manifestation from satan, using pagan worshipers of false gods as dupes in his evil scheme. The very fact that God warned the magi not to go back to Herod, proves that they had no ulterior motives for what they did. They were unwitting accomplices in this murder plot.

    Satan tried again to sidetrack Jesus from his mission by three temptations after his baptism and subsequent fasting for 40 days in the wilderness. He failed again. Every attempt made on Jesus' life failed until it was time to lay it down in sacrifice for faithful humanity.

    We can only be guided by scripture. All we know for sure is that when Herod threatened Jesus' life, his parents took him to Egypt and when Herod was dead, they were told to return to "the land of Israel".

    Matthew 2:19-23...."When Herod had died, look! Jehovah’s angel appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 and said: “Get up, take the young child and his mother and go into the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the life of the young child are dead.” 21 So he got up and took the young child and the child’s mother and entered into the land of Israel. 22 But hearing that Ar·che·laʹus ruled Ju·deʹa instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Moreover, being given divine warning in a dream, he withdrew into the territory of Galʹi·lee. 23 And he came and settled in a city named Nazʹa·reth, in order to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He will be called a Naz·a·reneʹ.”

    There was always purpose to God's instructions. He became known as "Jesus of Nazareth".

    I always have to ask why it is important for things spoken about in the Bible to have a "natural" cause. Why do we need to impress those who require "scientific reality" as if that matters. If one does not have faith, then no scientific reality will suffice. They will always find excuses not to believe. Belief does not come from external human sources of evidence....it comes from the operation of God's spirit on a good and receptive heart. (John 6:44) Finding "natural explanations" impresses no one really...not even us because it takes power away from God. Either God has the power to make things happen or he doesn't. Either the devil is a real enemy out to destroy our opportunities for everlasting life, or he isn't. This requires faith on our part....not necessarily substantiated evidence. (Hebrews 11:6)

    I think the way God handled that situation was brilliant. It was not expected and therefore not able to be thwarted. The ones who understood one another had no choice but to separate into groups and go to territories where they set up dwelling with those who shared their language. Each took the legend of the flood with them so that is why we find it in almost all continents and cultures, albeit embellished with their own slant on the story.

    According to Wiki...."Ziggurats were built by the ancient Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Elamites, Eblaites and Babylonians for local religions, predominantly Mesopotamian religion and Elamite religion. Each ziggurat was part of a temple complex which included other buildings." So it appears that they were used for worship and probably sacrifice.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    #24 Deeje, Dec 25, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2017
  5. Tumah

    Tumah Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    11,498
    Ratings:
    +8,002
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    Just to see if I'm getting this story right.

    The Parthians were only removed from Judea about 30 years ago and are currently a client kingdom of the Romans. The Cappadocians are as well. If the dominant religion isn't Zoroastrianism in these places, it's still extremely significant. So a bunch of Zoroastrian Magi from a co-client kingdom decide to follow a star that portends the new king of the Jews, because even though that has absolutely nothing to do with them, there's still reasons, probably.

    So they come to Judea and they're like, ok Rome installed Herod as the king of the region and we're under Roman rule as well, but let's just get our names out there as revolting against the Roman Empire by giving obeisance to a Jewish king not installed by the Romans in Roman controlled Judea, because of reasons, probably.

    Then having concluded these matters which were utterly important for them as Zoroastrian Magi from a different client kingdom, they departed forthwith, henceforth never to be heard from again.

    Have I got the story right?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    18,178
    Ratings:
    +5,949
    Religion:
    deist
    That was actually fun to read, and put the proposal very well.

    At first reading it looks crazy, but then I thought about the world today and what goes on now, and all of a sudden your 'take' looked perfectly reasonable!

    There probably was a group of three merchant traders who were looked upon as magi for various reasons, and that bright astronomical body, and Herod's infanticide, etc...... but how anybody managed to stitch that lot together and then accelerate it all forward ten years into that census with several other anecdotes to fit with ancient fortune-telling is just one of the examples of how humans can magic up myths ........... just as they can today.

    Nothing changes, it seems.
     
  7. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    I agree that the Gospels do not need to match in very aspect. If they did, why would more than one be needed? Different writers present some different events, details and points of view. Since only two of the Gospel writers, Matthew and John, were even said to be eyewitnesses, differences would be inevitable. Nonetheless Luke very often tells his version in a way that seems incompatible with Matthew. I am not terribly concerned about this. I do not require the Bible to be inerrant. Although it is interesting…

    One significant point:


    Herod ruled over Judea and believed the child was in Bethlehem. Thinking the child would have been killed in Bethlehem and having no authority in Nazareth in Galilee, why would Jesus be in danger in Nazareth when Herod would have no idea Jesus might be there?


    Also:

    Why would Joseph even think of going to Judea if his home was in Nazareth. Matthew really makes it seem that they lived in Bethlehem and ended up in Nazareth to avoid danger, and to fulfill a prophecy. Luke makes it sound very much like they always lived in Nazareth. I do not see a way of reconciling the beliefs of the Gospel writers even when taking pilgrimages into consideration. Neither one of them was an eyewitness to the events surrounding the birth of Jesus. Perhaps it is not necessary to reconcile all the details.


    BTW there are three annual Pilgrimage Festivals: Pesach (Passover) Shavuot (Pentecost) and Sukkot (Tabernacles). According to the Law, all Jewish males who are Bar Mitzvah and are capable of making the journey are obliged to go to Jerusalem for these Festivals. Often entire families would go even without being obligated, especially Passover, Being too old or infirm or living too far away for the trip to be reasonable removes the obligation to make the pilgrimage but the festival must still be observed as much as possible at home.

    All of the Gospels have Jesus go to Jerusalem for Passover. John refers to several such instances as well as to Tabernacles. Luke mentions that the family went for Passover every year. Acts refers to Pentecost.
     
  8. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    As previously commented, Matthew’s viewpoint is the most Jewish of all the Gospels. A major objective of Matthew is to establish Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in the Jewish scriptures. In Judaism, the Messiah will be King of the Jews, among other attributes. This King will defeat the enemies of God and establish the kingdom of heaven. In Christianity, this will happen after the Second Coming.

    The opening chapters of Matthew are structured to establish Jesus as a descendant of David, a requirement for a messiah, and the rightful King of the Jews, as opposed to the ‘phony’ kings appointed by Rome such as Herod. It is not at all surprising that Matthew would recount the Magi would seek the newborn King of the Jews. In the Kidger hypothesis, that is exactly what the astrological signs would have meant. For important figures from other nations to recognize Jesus as the King of the Jews would have resonated with the image in the Jewish scriptures of all nations showing obeisance to the Messiah. Which the Wise Men did to Jesus. As I said someplace earlier, Matthew’s references are sometimes subtle.

    Matthew is concerned with showing that Jesus is the Messiah and therefore King of the Jews. As I said above, this includes primacy among nations. Luke is the one that universalizes Jesus. The kingdom of heaven can be seen as both the messianic kingdom on earth of Judaism and a heavenly kingdom after the end of days. Each of these appears in both Judaism and Christianity.


    The Hebrews would have been opposed to the idolatrous polytheism and ‘pagan’ lifestyles of the Babylonians. As far as a centralized kingdom is concerned, that is exactly what David established and Solomon expanded.
     
  9. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,815
    They started first with bible studies. Then they got this idea studying the Bible since there wasnt in the Bible at that time anything about not building the tower. they thought that was a great idea. Well it was a fiasco.. And so they then put an indemdum to the bible don't do that. Although they should have included "bible study is how we got in trouble don't be stupid."
     
  10. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    28,938
    Ratings:
    +10,208
    Religion:
    dystopian Christian
    The Jews are not supposed to have a king, because kings are not good. If this is the most Jewish of the gospels then it also recognizes it. The angels announce "... a savior who is Christ the King..." but Jesus repeatedly refuses to accept any crown and is then put to death. I think it doesn't get more Jewish than that.

    The genealogy in Matthew looks like three sets of 14 generations, but it is not continuous with other genealogies in the Bible as there are discrepancies. This is OK, because anybody can be a son of David, just as anybody can be a son of Abraham, and it is not about blood. Being a son of David is not a medical thing but is about who rears you. Look at David's own physical ancestry, and you can see that his is murky. That is because it doesn't matter. For purposes of inheriting land, yes; otherwise I do not see any emphasis upon breeding.

    Yet we know for a fact that the LORD is the only real king of the Jews, so why would they ever accept a man in that position? Reading Samuel makes it clear that having a king is an idolatrous practice for Jews. Look at how they've lived for millennia without any king. There's a reason, and its because they don't believe in them. They just work with whomever is in power, pay their taxes and move on. It would be idolatry. Hence Matthew's 'King' does not ever accept a throne or allow himself to be recognized as a king. How then, if he doesn't do anything that a king does, is he a king? If he is a king its in title only.

    Sorry but that is completely backward I think.
     
  11. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    According to the Kidger hypothesis, the star was the ‘last straw’ in a series of astronomical events that in Babylonian astrology added up to a King of the Jews being born. The star was a bright nova which was observed and recorded by the Chinese. It appeared at the end of February 5 BC and was clearly visible for at least ten weeks when the rainy season started.

    The hypothesis gives a credible timeframe for the Wise Men to be talking with Herod, a timeframe that results in seeing the star over Bethlehem as seen from Jerusalem at dawn, the standard time for recording the position of a star.

    No ordinary star appearing out of nowhere indeed. But neither the star nor the prior signs are supernatural in Kidger’s view.

    Matthew and Luke tell very different accounts of the Nativity. For one thing, Matthew seems to have Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem to begin with, while Luke has them living in Nazareth to begin with. Mathew referring to a ‘house’ rather than a stable is entirely in line with that. They lived there.

    The association of the birth of Jesus with December 25 was still centuries in the future when Luke wrote. The only clue to the time of year that I can see is that Luke says that the shepherds were with the sheep overnight. That suggests early spring when dogs might not be enough to guard the newborn lambs against predators.

    Matthew emphasizes the role of Jesus as King of the Jews, a title of the Messiah. Showing that Jesus was really the Messiah as prophesied in Jewish scriptures was a major objective of Matthew. Luke wanted to show both the humanity and universal relevance of Jesus. Instead of talking about Wise Men bearing expensive gifts, Luke talks about the humble shepherds who visit the newborn Jesus in a stable.

    I do not see any influence of the devil here. My original proposition was that Matthew might be making a subtle reference to the ziggurats of Babylon from which Wise Men looked at the stars. These ziggurats were supposed to be the means for the gods to enter their temples. Did Matthew have in mind something like Wise Men discovering the truth in the stars and going to see a genuine entrance of the divine into the world? If so, that is divinely inspired not demonic.


    Considering Herod’s reputation for cruelty in safeguarding his place on the throne, I do not see any need for satanic influence I Herod wanting to kill those children because one of them might become his rival. Herod even killed his own sons when he thought they threatened his rule.

    In the thread about Satan tempting Jesus, I had offered the opinion that Satan was not sure who Jesus was but that impressive show at the baptism worried him. I do not know if you have posted lately in that thread, being occupied with this one. If Satan was uncertain then, he would not have been certain about anything when Jesus was born.


    In another post in this thread, I called attention to the difference between Matthew and Luke concerning this matter.


    It is not necessary for everything in the Bible to have a natural explanation. The Bible is full of miracles which by definition do not have a natural explanation. In the case of the star, it might be that entirely natural events led to the Wise Men coming to Jerusalem. If the star is considered a miracle that means that God wanted Herod tipped off abut Jesus? Matthew talks about the Wise Men. Luke talks about the shepherds. Each writer chose their materials to make their own points. Matthew wrote to prove Messiah status. Luke write to emphasize the human nature of Jesus and his universal importance. As I said elsewhere if they all told everything the same way, why have more than one Gospel?

    The ziggurats were definitely used for worship. As previously talked about they were intended as means for the gods to come down to the temples. Temples are traditionally places for sacrifices. To my recollection, human sacrifices took place at remote locations not in big temples. But that is only going by memory.
     
  12. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    No, you do not have the story right by a long shot.

    Judea was part of the Hasmonean Dynasty from 140 BC until 37 BC. Until 116 BC it was a semi-autonomous entity in the Seleucid Empire, at which time that empire fell apart. Rome took over in 66 BC and the Hasmonean Dynasty became a client state. During the Roman Civil War following the death of Julius Caesar in 44 BC they effectively became independent again. When Rome tried to restore control in 40 BC, the Hasmoneans formed an alliance with the Parthians. But the Romans defeated the Parthian invasion in 37 BC and Herod was installed as the Roman-appointed King of the Jews. The Parthians never had any significant influence on the character of Judea, being involved in warfare with the Romans almost from the moment they arrived.

    Parthia did not become a client state of Rome until 113 AD when Trajan captured their capital. This was long after the time of Herod. Babylon was part of Parthia. Judea ceased to become even nominally a client state of Rome in 70 AD when military rule was established. Before that there were sometimes men called King of the Jews, but control was directly from Rome.

    Never at any time were Judea and Parthia co-client states of Rome. There is no evidence that Zoroastrianism had any influence in Judea. It would be extremely unlikely that it would during the very few years of Parthian presence and that during warfare with Rome. It is especially unlikely when one considers the trouble the Romans had concerning Jewish religious fervor in Judea.


    The question is … Is there any part of the story you did get right?
     
  13. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,640
    Ratings:
    +6,893
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    It is only a hypothesis though, right? That doesn't make it fact, no matter how much you may want it to "explain" what the magi identified as "his star" and followed, first to Jerusalem which alerted a lot of people, including Herod...and led to a terrible outcome.

    Why would this celestial phenomena come to a stop over the very house where the magi found Jesus? If I am imagining the housing situation of people in the first century then this would be puzzling indeed. A distant celestial body would not stop over a house.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    The gospels all have something to add to the overall story. Since Luke was not an apostle but a physician, and a stickler for detail, he compiled his account from eyewitness testimony and from reliable and verifiable sources. I see all the gospels as contributing different details about one story. I find that it is more believable because of that. The bones are all there in the gospel accounts and the details give it flesh IMO. All must harmonize because God is the overseer as to what is contained in his word.

    Luke includes so much background information....the miraculous birth of John the Baptist e.g. It is his account that rounds things out so beautifully IMO.

    I don't see a subtle reference to ziggurats in Matthew's account actually. Astrology was forbidden to God's people. I see nothing but demonic activity in what transpired as a result of the magi's presence in Jerusalem. Following that star led to the murder of countless infants...NOT something we could ever blame on God unless he was responsible for sending pagan worshipers of false gods to honor his son. Can you see him doing that? :shrug:

    "Rachel weeping for her children" was prophesied in Jeremiah and fulfilled in Herod's actions. At two years of age, she may either have had more than one....or she may have had twins? (Matthew 2:17-18) Just because something is foretold, does not mean that God caused it.

    Herod also beheaded John the Baptist on the whim of his wife. It was Herod’s adulterous relationship with Herodias that brought reproof from John. He could properly correct Herod on this matter, for he was nominally a Jew and professedly under the Law. (but of course a complete hypocrite) Herod put John into prison, desiring to kill him, but was afraid of the people, who believed that John was a prophet. Nevertheless, at a celebration of his birthday, Herodias’ daughter so pleased him that he made an oath to give her whatever she asked. Herodias instructed her daughter to ask for John’s head. Herod, though it was not pleasing to him, gave in to save face before those attending the celebration and because of his oath. (However, under the Law he would not be bound by an oath to perform an illegal act, such as murder.) (Matthew 14:3-14; Mark 14:3-12) He was easily influenced apparently. The devil would have no trouble employing such a morally weak and wicked man to do his bidding.

    How could satan not know who Jesus was? The three temptations were all specifically targeted at him as the son of God. He said he had authority over all the kingdoms of the world and could give them to whomever he wished.....so satan knows everything about everything that goes on in this world over which he holds dominion. (Luke 4:5-6; 1 John 5:19)

    That would make God responsible for the deaths of all those babies. What God did, was not prevent satan from plotting and carrying out his schemes. They were always thwarted. Every one of them was a lesson for his angelic sons and us. Rebellion only leads to disaster.

    Both are important in the complete story. All provide details the others leave out. This is why police interview multiple witnesses to a crime.....all the stories will provide details the others omitted....filling in the blanks. It is the human touch in the Biblical narrative that appeals to us......something, I think that would have been lost if told by angels from their vantage point. This is also why God chose humans to rule with his son in the heavenly kingdom. Every one of them had lived on earth as a human and will be compassionate and understanding of the human condition. They will make excellent priests for this reason.
     
  14. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    So David and Solomon were not good? Try reading Judges and the frequent exhortation that when there is no king, things get very bad. The word ‘messiah’ means the anointed one. Kings were signified as such by being anointed. Many of the messianic prophecies refer to the Messiah as a kingly figure.

    Jesus refused to be made a king because he had to be sacrificed first. At the Second Coming he will be a king. In Revelation he will be called King of Kings.


    Matthew has Jesus called Son of David numerous times. The name David in Hebrew Gematria becomes 14. Even the genealogy says “David, David, David”. Matthew also cleverly has the name David appear twice in the genealogy. Jewish scripture is very clear that the Messiah must be a literal descendant of David. That is not about who rears you but about hereditary.

    The issue of the two genealogies has been a subject of endless debate, with answers ranging from possibly reasonable to just silly. I have nothing new to add and am not going there.


    Jewish scripture and tradition is that the Messiah will be a king. Jews has had many kings and they were men.

    Samuel did not say that having a king was idolatrous. He thought that kings were liable to abuse their power. But the Lord told Samuel there should be a king and pointed out Saul. 1 Samuel 8-9
     
  15. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    The Kidger hypothesis is certainly not confirmed fact. Nevertheless if it were, it would lend credence to a part of Matthew that sounds like a fairy tale, believable only by those who already accept it on faith. Kidger explains things like the star stopping over the right place. In Kidger, the star is at that time due south of Jerusalem appearing to stand over Bethlehem. Matthew 2:10 says “When they saw the star, they were overjoyed.” They had just been told that Bethlehem was the place to go and now they see the star over Bethlehem. The end of their quest was near. Reason to be overjoyed. If Matthew really had found a record written by the Wise Men describing this event as an astronomer would, a non-expert like Matthew could easily have written about it exactly as he did, using the right words but without really understanding their import.


    Nevertheless, in a large number of places Luke sure sounds like he is presenting a different story than Matthew. But as I said, I am not terribly concerned about it.

    Luke’s narrative brings Mary to life as Matthew does not. His presentation of the backstory of John the Baptist is very evocative of Sarah giving birth to Isaac in her old age as God had promised. The child is named John by angelic instruction as Jesus is also named. We discover that John is the cousin of Jesus born half a year earlier than Jesus. John is Elijah, the precursor of the Messiah. John baptizes Jesus bringing forth recognition of his true nature in the testimony of the Father and the Holy Spirit. John embodies the end of the Old Testament era and ushers in the era of the New Testament. Luke is not only a stickler for detail. He is one fine storyteller.


    Matthew was not practicing astrology nor does he ever mention it. My proposition is that Matthew utilized genuine historical material, as supported by Kidger’s hypothesis, in his presentation as a way of undoing the meaning of the ziggurats as places for gods to enter the world. Instead he has the Wise Men discover the truth by those same ziggurats, a truth that leads them to a genuine divine descent into the world, not the phony ones the ziggurats originally represented.


    Agreed. If prophecies were events fulfilled by acts of God instead of predictions of future events, that would totally undo the meaning of the word ‘prophecy’. Matthew’s wording often seems to give that impression, like ‘this was done so that the prophecy would be fulfilled’.


    It was Herod Antipas who beheaded John the Baptist, not Herod the Great who killed the children of Bethlehem. What the devil may have had to do with killing John the Baptist is an open question.


    Satan does not necessarily know everything that goes on in the world anymore than a person who has dominion over a country knows everything that goes on. Jesus did not appear to be anything like the warrior king the Jewish scriptures envisioned for the Messiah. The idea of a literal Son of God walking the earth was also a new thing not found in earlier scripture. Satan would be uncertain about what it all meant. If Jesus was simply a special human as the Messiah was thought to be, he would be vulnerable and possibly defeatable. I think that Satan was unsure about what was happening.

    How would God be responsible for the death of the babies? Herod did it on his own, not really any more horrendous that other things he did or planned to do. I never said the Wise Men were part of God’s plan. I said that Matthew used material he found to make points.
     
  16. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    28,938
    Ratings:
    +10,208
    Religion:
    dystopian Christian
    The time of the Judges was a lawless time. It was not a time when they needed kings but a time when they needed the law. The whole point of it was that without the law they were just wild men.

    David and Solomon both failed miserably, yes. The history of the kings of Israel reads like a history of failures, too. There's no way to prop them up as anything but, and do not forget the way that the kingdom begins. It begins as a rebellion against the LORD. The people are warned that kings are not what the LORD wants. Samuel is the priest who appoints both Saul and David, and Samuel is grieved about it. He's grieved, not happy, not glad; because its not good.

    Referring to gematria as evidence is to me just not a concrete avenue of inquiry. If I took a class on it I might be able to determine what its value was. At the moment its just another dreidle to me; and I don't know why you'd even mention it unless you actually have learned the gematria.


    You refer us to 1Sam 8. 1Samual 8:7 the LORD says to Samuel "...it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king." It was pretty bad right from the beginning -- a terrible mistake. Later the prophet tells David that his own dynasty will always be at war, and this is probably why Jesus requires a sword to be present on the mount of Olives. (2 Samuel 12:10). David's dynasty is worse than a failure and can never be peaceful. Kings and Chronicles recount the eventual fall and decline of it, each king a failure, each dynasty lacking with one or two kings partially doing a good job and the rest terrible. Eventually ten tribes are completely gone, a tragic tale. Ezekiel 21:25 says "You profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, ... Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low." This is the same message preached by John the Baptist in the desert, though he is quoting from a different prophet. He preaches the voice in the wilderness and that the high places shall be made low and the low places brought up. It is the same message -- the end of the dynasty and a restoration not to a kingdom of men but to something better. Then comes the perfection and Isaiah's wish: "You will be a crown of splendor in the LORD's hand, a royal diadem in the hand of your God." (Isaiah 62:3) Until then Jesus remains in heaven while everything is worked out, and the moment he returns he will return rule the Father. 1 Corinthians 15:26 "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." So Jesus is far away now and when he does finally return, that is the end of kings and crowns except for the crowns of glory of the faithful.
     
  17. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,640
    Ratings:
    +6,893
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    You seem to want to base a lot on a little "if". Since no ziggurats are even mentioned in any gospel account, I don't understand your need to incorporate them. You must really need Kidger to be right....?:shrug:

    Anyone who reads scripture and thinks its a fairy tale is not going to come to Christ as the one who performed miracles by the power of God's spirit then are they? Since faith is a requirement, then do you really think God needs to provide what you seem to need as proof? Faith needs no proof.....nor does it need to save face in the presence of skeptics by presenting supernatural occurrences as "natural" phenomena. You dismantle God's power by doing that IMO.

    The star wasn't just over Bethlehem. It first led them to Jerusalem where their inquiries soon reached Herod's ears. Only after Herod hatched his plot did the star go ahead of them to guide them directly to where Jesus was.

    Matthew 2:9 (NASB)...."After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was."

    Or as the Greek Interlinear says...."And de having listened akouō to the ho king basileus, they ho continued poreuō their journey , and kai the ho star astēr that hos they had seen in en its ho rising anatolē went proagō before them autos until heōs it stopped histēmi over epanō the place where hou the ho child paidion was eimi."

    This star moved like no distant celestial body.....it came to a stop over the place where Jesus was. It virtually pointed an arrow at his house. That is a bit 'sus' to say the least. Kidger can't explain that as 'natural phenomenon'....can he? [​IMG]

    Again, you are counting on an "if" that is not mentioned or even hinted at in scripture. You seem to need to put more store in what Kidger says than what the Bible says......can I ask why?

    You are right...but like father like son....he was a branch off the rotten old tree. He had a great role model. [​IMG]

    It seems strange to me that Jesus resurrected Lazarus but not John the Baptist. I am interested in why, and I have my own theory, but what are your thoughts? Since no one went to heaven before Jesus, (John 3:13) both Lazarus and John went to the same place when they died, but only one of them came back.

    No other world ruler is an invisible spirit who has many thousands of minions who are also roaming the earth invisibly, seeking to undo the faith of those who still cling to faith in God and churning out propaganda designed to make God appear to be redundant. Since their confinement to this earth, satan and his hordes are no longer subtle in their approach....they are now in all our faces....full frontal...no holds barred. They are running out of time. (Revelation 12:7-12)

    Every game aimed at children in the world of entertainment, is violent and spiritistic, which translates over into the schoolyard. Supernatural themes dominate movies for kids, fostering an appetite for satanic things.

    Adults want graphic sex and violence with supernatural themes. This is satan's world. He promotes its evil goals and its greedy, immoral, materialistic lifestyle. (1 John 2:17-19) The levels of evil we are seeing beggar belief sometimes. [​IMG]

    Funny that. The Pharisees wanted a Messiah who was going to commend them and elevate them and reward them....not one who exposed them as the biggest and most hypocritical frauds in town! The humble "lost sheep" found refreshment in Jesus' teachings and gradually the "sacred secret" unfolded. (Romans 16:25-27) The Messiah was a man of peace who showed by his lifestyle that spiritual pursuits were more important that ego trips. He showed them the principles upon which the laws of God were based allowing his disciples to see the reasons for them and how to avoid taking false steps that lead to regret. He also showed how corrupt the Jewish religious system had become and how to come out from under that corrupt leadership. The Kingdom would rule mankind on the earth...but it would be from heaven. (Revelation 21:2-4)

    The demons knew exactly who Jesus was. (Matthew 8:28-29) and they knew exactly what he was going to do with them at "the appointed time".

    If God sent the star, then he knew in his omniscience that Herod would use the information conveyed by the magi to murder those children.

    I see the Magi as part of satan's plan to kill Jesus before he even had an chance to grow up. The star then becomes his symbol in a pagan celebration that promotes everything the Bible condemns.

    I cannot see where scripture tells us anything about the material Matthew used to write his gospel. Since I believe that he was guided by God's spirit when he wrote his gospel, perhaps he needed no written material at all? All we can do is speculate. [​IMG] Does it matter anyway?
     
  18. Tumah

    Tumah Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    11,498
    Ratings:
    +8,002
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    After Syria was occupied by Pacorus' army, Labienus split from the main Parthian force to invade Anatolia while Pacorus and his commander Barzapharnes invaded the Roman Levant.[91] They subdued all settlements along the Mediterranean coast as far south as Ptolemais (modern Acre, Israel), with the lone exception of Tyre.[93] In Judea, the pro-Roman Jewish forces of high priest Hyrcanus II, Phasael, and Herod were defeated by the Parthians and their Jewish ally Antigonus II Mattathias (r. 40–37 BC); the latter was made king of Judea while Herod fled to his fort at Masada.
    -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire

    Antony defeated Parthia's Judaean ally Antigonus in 37 BC, installing Herod as a client king in his place.
    -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire
    I don't seem to have said they did.

     
  19. Baroodi

    Baroodi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Messages:
    409
    Ratings:
    +92
    Religion:
    Muslim

    a tower reaching to heavens!!??
     
  20. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    Judges frequently says “In those days Israel had no king” often adding “everyone did as they saw fit”.

    Judges 17:6
    Judges 18:1
    Judges 19:1
    Judges 21:25

    This expression was associated with people doing bad things, sometimes really terrible things. Having a king was a requirement for there being law. Otherwise everyone did as they saw fit. Having a king by itself was not a guarantee of a lawful environment. Judges also tells us about murderous Abimelek who forced his way into the kingship. A king must be anointed, approved by God at least nominally. All of the kings of Israel were human and imperfect. While some were downright bad, none were perfect. Their failings generally resulted from straying from God’s Law. It is true that it is Law that is needed – and remember the Torah contains penal codes as well as ritual observances. What is needed is a perfect King, one who will be able to not just defeat the enemies of Israel but also to establish true justice throughout the world. This will be the Torah in Israel and the Noahide laws in Gentile lands. See Jeremiah 33 for example.

    This was the Jewish vision of the Messiah and it is Matthew’s vision as well. Defeating the enemies of God and establishing the kingdom of heaven will happen when the Messiah returns in the future. But the Messiah, Jesus, nevertheless merits the title of King. He will be the perfect King, the one the world needs. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus emphasizes that the Law is here to stay. Matthew is after all presenting the Jewish viewpoint.

    Matthew also associates Jesus with Moses the Law Giver. Like Moses, Jesus escapes a slaughter of children at the hands of a king. Jesus returns from Egypt, called by an angel of God (“I have called my son out of Egypt”) just like Moses came out of Egypt. The Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus expands on the Law of Moses sounds a lot like Moses bringing down the Law from the mountain.


    Gematria is not hard at all. No need for classes. It is simply taking the numeric value of each letter of a name, according to some standard, and adding them up. Using gematria in a symbolic way is common in Jewish culture even today. The gematria value of the word chai (life) is 18. It is traditional to give money gifts to young people in multiples of 18.

    The word David in Hebrew is spelled Daleth Vav Daleth, the equivalent of DVD. Vowels are not represented in ancient written Hebrew. In Hebrew gematria, Daleth is 4, Vav is 6. David is 4 + 6 + 4 = 14. Matthew left out a couple of names in his genealogy that are present in scriptural genealogies and used David twice to get three sets of 14, showing that this was intentional.

    See here: Gematria - Wikipedia


    A king is needed for law to be effective, like Judges says. But the results will not be perfect unless the King is perfect. Jesus will be the perfect King, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords as in Revelation 19:11-15
     
Loading...