[in a previous paragraph, he mentions how all natural explanations fail]:
Curiously, the magi seem to have been the only ones who saw the star—or at least the only ones who understood its meaning. Israel’s King Herod had to ask the magi when the star had appeared (Matthew 2:7). If the magi
alone saw the star, this further supports the notion that the star of Bethlehem was a supernatural manifestation from God rather than a common star, which would have been visible to all.
[If the magi alone saw the star, maybe it means the story was sodding made up??]
18 comments
Only the magi saw the star, so their story is completely unfalsifiable and thus is considered bunk. Take for instance there is a leprechaun on your shoulder who tells you to burn things, but no one else can see him and he disapeares every time you try to prove he exists. Chances are he doesn't exist.
So let's play along (and assume it's not just a nice story):
Magi = astrologers. King Herod = king (ie guy trained in earthly matters, such as holding onto power). Why the hell should a non-astrologer see any significance in most astrologically significant events (conjunctions, aspects, heliacal risings, etc)? Why would they even notice them? Seems to me that, if anything, the "special knowledge" of the Magi implies a natural manifestation, *not* a supernatural one. Ordinary people would see a natural phenomenon and go "yeah, and?" whereas they'd probably notice a bright purple star in the shape of a giraffe that appeared out of nowhere. Just sayin'...
Did you see the Magi to confirm this data?. I mean, when Jesus performed the miracle, there were a handful of witnesses, according to Gospel, does it disqualify their status as miracles?
"If the magi alone saw the star, this further supports the notion that the star of Bethlehem was a supernatural manifestation from God rather than a common star"
What is more to say than this? If something is proved by the fact that you can't prove it.
Or maybe it could have been, you know, a comet or something? And as the magi where the Babylonian priestly class, they where probably the only ones studying the sky?
Matthew also describes the slaughter of the innocents, and there are no other records of that either.
This establishes a trend that suggests that Matthew's gospel is not very credible, historically speaking.
Dr. Jason Lisle holds a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Dr. Lisle is a popular author for Answers in Genesis and also uses his knowledge of the heavens and his biblical perspective to proclaim the handiwork of God in lectures, such as Distant Starlight and Creation Astronomy.
It's hard to believe, but it does prove that someone can be intelligent, and mad as a hatter at the same time.
Here's the thing about the "Star that heralded the King of Kings" or baby Jesus' night light or whatever the fuck you people claim now.
The Bible says it led them to a stable (versions vary, sometimes they got a room or an animal free outbuilding) that had the star directly above it. Now try that in your back yard. or your neighbors, good luck getting directly, precisely "under a star".
Which by the way is often dipicted in religious paintings as direct rays of sun. The same images that raise awe in Christians when a cloud with a hole or the suns angle through several clouds gives you beams of direct sunlight, this is huge in Christian themed landscape calenders. Usually with some lame Bible verse not related to our landscape at all.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.