| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2007 11:26:03 PM · #126 |
Hey, folks, for anyone following the discussion of the star in the east, here's an email my brother just sent me. He's as Jewish as I am, but he's very well-read. :)
Originally posted by My Brother:
My translation says that the magi saw the star "rising" (not "in the east").
Other translations say that they saw it "in the east," but the notes explain that the phrase was to be taken as seeing a new star rise (in the east, where they all rise), not that it's ALWAYS in the east.
So they star this new star rising, and the way some people translate that is that they saw the star in the east.
Then, because they were magi and knew stuff like this, they realized that it meant the "king of the Jews" was born somewhere in the land, and went to Jerusalem to find out where he was. That's when they met Herod, who asked them to spy for him, which they didn't do.
[Some people these days seem to think that the star was fixed over the manger or something. But that's not in the bible.] |
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 23:26:48.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 11:30:13 PM · #127 |
I have to say that I'm impressed with the participation in this thread. It's rare to find non-judgmental academic discussions about any religion in an online community. I applaud all of you for keeping the discussion about understanding rather than arguing "correctness." We'll help to keep it constructive as best we can.
If at any point you feel the thread could benefit from Site Council attention, please tag the "report post" button to let us know.
Sorry for the interruption... back to the regularly-scheduled discussion :)
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 11:31:52 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Hey, folks, for anyone following the discussion of the star in the east, here's an email my brother just sent me. He's as Jewish as I am, but he's very well-read. :)
Originally posted by My Brother:
My translation says that the magi saw the star "rising" (not "in the east").
Other translations say that they saw it "in the east," but the notes explain that the phrase was to be taken as seeing a new star rise (in the east, where they all rise), not that it's ALWAYS in the east.
So they star this new star rising, and the way some people translate that is that they saw the star in the east.
Then, because they were magi and knew stuff like this, they realized that it meant the "king of the Jews" was born somewhere in the land, and went to Jerusalem to find out where he was. That's when they met Herod, who asked them to spy for him, which they didn't do.
[Some people these days seem to think that the star was fixed over the manger or something. But that's not in the bible.] |
|
Okay that is definitely interesting. I may research it further just to see what I can find. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 11:37:15 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by EvanH:
Personally, I have a hard time with anyone who takes a real hardline biblically just for the reasons of inability to refute or validate what was written.
faith is what god called us to use to reach his love.
faith is not knowing all the facts
its putting your trust into something that you don't have complete evidence of
Jesus said "If seek you will find, if you knock, a door will be opened"
its difficult for those who haven't asked Jesus into their lives to trust him or feel his presence, but once you do, it'll change yo life!
:) |
That was kind of my point.....you have to have faith and belief, and having someone who cannot possibly know exactly what happened two thousand years ago taking something verbatim and stating unequivocally that this or that is so is pretty ludicrous.
So it's like, which translation are you using, are we sure this is *the* one, I mean the King James was the one, there's the NIV, there's one since then.....and let's face it, the various sects are all over the place about it and some of them have some pretty bizarre ideas.
That whole multiple wives thing?
That wasn't good.
What about the rapture?
That one is a pretty serious stretch.....and is one variation that is held very strongly as a belief in some sects.
And there's a whole bunch of stuff in the Old Testament that's really hard to swallow....I've heard interpretations that state that before the plagues, humans lived to be 500+ years old!
If the people that hold it up to be true, at least *their* version, are completely convinced that they're right, what is someone like me supposed to think will happen to a priest/minister/pastor/spiritual leader of one of the "wrong" sects?
Is someone who is a man of God who devotes his life to the service of God as he knows him simply making a big mistake because he's Lutheran and no Methodist?
That's an oversimplification, but this has been an issue I've had all my life.
The whole "We are all God's children." mantra, but then whispering under your breath, "But we're a little more God's chosen ones than those guys over there.".
That just sucks. And I cannot reconcile the judgmentalism of that type of belief system.
God, as I know and believe, will judge me.
Not some jerk on a portable podium shouting on a street corner, or some somber person in a priceless cathedral who looks down his nose with disdain at me because I haven't learned what I'm supposed to in order to be a practicing ______________________ whatever.
They have enough problems thinking that they can change people's beliefs based on their rhetoric. I don't want them judging me too.
I want others to accept me for who I am, trust that I have my belief system in place, and allow me to show them that as a friend, I will be a good and decent person to them.
With no caveats.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 12:13:27 AM · #130 |
| This goes back to the ORIGINAL question about Jesus being dead for 3 days. If you read closely, he actually could have been dead for only about 34 hours. He died just before dark on Friday, and the empty tomb was found early on Sunday morning. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 01:18:56 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by Mulder:
This goes back to the ORIGINAL question about Jesus being dead for 3 days. If you read closely, he actually could have been dead for only about 34 hours. He died just before dark on Friday, and the empty tomb was found early on Sunday morning. |
Perhaps, given the state of medical knowledge at the time, Jesus was as good as a dead duck ...
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 01:22:40 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by Mulder:
This goes back to the ORIGINAL question about Jesus being dead for 3 days. If you read closely, he actually could have been dead for only about 34 hours. He died just before dark on Friday, and the empty tomb was found early on Sunday morning. |
I believe it says in most cases ON the third day anyways, most people just say 3 days. Not really sure how it matters anyhow.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 01:35:03 AM · #133 |
Oops. My brother stayed up just to research and convince himself he was wrong to claim the star didn't lead the magi to the manger after they'd been to Jerusalem to see Herod.
Originally posted by My Brother:
I was wrong wrong wrong wrong about something.
The bible does say that eventually the star sort of hung out over
Christ.
So here's the deal. They see a star (in the east, rising, or
whatever). The don't follow it, but instead recognize that it means
that Christ is born. They head (WEST) to Jerusalem to talk to Herod
about this. Where they go at this point has nothing to do with where
the star is.
//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202.1-2.2;&version=72;31;47;
They meet with Herod, who sends them to Bethlehem. At that point, the
star leads the way, and they follow it, and it ends up over Christ.
From to Jerusalem to Bethlehem is mostly south and a touch west.
//www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/israel-first-century.html
So, in short, the bible says clearly that when they weren't following
the star, they were heading west. When they were following the star,
they were heading south-by-south-west. All this is in Matthew 2.
This is my final word until I read more and see that I was wrong
about this, too.
|
Message edited by author 2007-02-02 01:47:06.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 05:43:30 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I tend to think that there was no talk of a trinity until the 4th century C.E., when the debate over the divinity of Jesus threatened to divide the Church between East and West (and eventually, it did!). Athanasius seems to have started the idea as a way to address the seeming contradiction of the Son being as divine as the Father. How could the Universe be big enough for the both of them? He was trying to answer that question.
And Jeff, it was bold of you to ask a question that Christians have been known to kill each other over! |
Indeed! The bible is subject to massive interpretation (evidence of it litters this thread) and varying degrees of literal v contextual analysis in order to achieve the religion as practiced today.
I was reading something the other day about the nature of the ten commandments in a historico-contextual analysis, which asserted that when written about, the commandments were only ever intended to apply within the Jewish race (ie you may not kill another Jew, but other races are fair game). This makes decent sense of surrounding passages where god orders the Jews to murder various neighbouring tribes down to the women and children - this may be an aspect that levyj413
could comment on from a Jewish perspective.
However, of course, the modern church needs a literal interpretation of a particular translation in order to comply with modern secular morality - hence the modern reading of that passage. The nature of the trinity is similarly developed, although interestingly divergently for different Christian sects.
It is a fascinating subject and critical for a decent understanding of history to understand the historical importance of religion and the reactive and environmental evolution of these belief systems.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 07:22:24 AM · #135 |
| That's interesting. I'd not really heard of that before. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 11:54:16 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
It is a fascinating subject and critical for a decent understanding of history to understand the historical importance of religion and the reactive and environmental evolution of these belief systems. |
I love it when things like this pop up. If such interpretation was so critical etc, etc, etc, then why is it I'm hearing it for the first time from a lawyer on a site about photography?
Sounds like someone's pet theory. I'm not much in for pet theories.
As far as the Christmas Star goes, I always find it sorta amusing that this can be some hinge by which the whole story falls apart. If you want a natural explanation, I would think a Comet would be the best answer, but really, if the story indicates that the magi are searching for a boy who has no earthly father, don't you think the beacon could have been placed, moved, made to flash in neon, or whatever by God? We're talking about a friggin' virgin birth people! Either accept the whole story as evidence of the power of God, or dismiss it in entirety as a nice story. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 12:08:36 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as the Christmas Star goes, I always find it sorta amusing that this can be some hinge by which the whole story falls apart. Either accept the whole story as evidence of the power of God, or dismiss it in entirety as a nice story. |
Oh, I agree, Doc. I didn't ask the question as a way of challenging the whole story. In fact, the story's veracity had nothing to do with my curiosity. I have no problem with people believing that God made a star-like light move anywhere desired.
I was just curious about the seeming contradiction between:
a) it being in the east but the song about it leading people west, and
b) it being a real star at normal stellar distances.
Of course, given the distance in time between the New Testament's writing and the songwriter, there could've easily been inconsistencies. But I had a feeling the songwriter had to be thinking of something, and my brother's research revealed what seems a likely answer: the star was a signal to the magi to go west to Jerusalem simply because it existed, not because it literally hung in the western sky.
Message edited by author 2007-02-02 12:11:16.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 12:26:16 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
It is a fascinating subject and critical for a decent understanding of history to understand the historical importance of religion and the reactive and environmental evolution of these belief systems. |
I love it when things like this pop up. If such interpretation was so critical etc, etc, etc, then why is it I'm hearing it for the first time from a lawyer on a site about photography?
Sounds like someone's pet theory. I'm not much in for pet theories.
|
I got taught comparative religion at school and most of the things discussed in this thread are fairly common concepts. Most religions have the same general concepts, moralities and ideas. That and they are all subject to shifting interpretation based on the current moral climate (e.g., views on slavery, homosexuality, women's rights etc). Like snowflakes, they are all uniquely different, just like all the others. That and each is completely convinced that they are right and all the others are wrong.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 12:27:03 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Of course, given the distance in time between the New Testament's writing and the songwriter, there could've easily been inconsistencies. But I had a feeling the songwriter had to be thinking of something, and my brother's research revealed what seems a likely answer: the star was a signal to the magi to go west to Jerusalem simply because it existed, not because it literally hung in the western sky. |
I've heard similar arguments and who knows what is really the truth. I've heard some people say that there was a planetary conjugation at the time in Leo which would have caused the magi to look for a country that was represented by a lion (Lion of Judah). I guess I could buy something like that, but of course it doesn't help with the part where the star points to the house where Jesus is living.
Personally, I like the comet idea. But that's just my preference.
BTW, my post came out a little on the snarky side. I've been grumpy lately while dealing with a terrible rash on my hand. :(
Message edited by author 2007-02-02 12:33:49. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 12:30:28 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by crayon:
i think all these holy wars that's been going on is one stupid thing. |
I can certainly agree with this sentence.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 12:37:37 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've been grumpy lately while dealing with a terrible rash on my hand. :( |
Sounds like you may be allergic to something. Good pictures perhaps. I prescribe that you stop taking pictures for 2 days weeks months, and come back and see us later :)
I also tend to think it was a comet or other such event . ..
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 12:56:45 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
It is a fascinating subject and critical for a decent understanding of history to understand the historical importance of religion and the reactive and environmental evolution of these belief systems. |
I love it when things like this pop up. If such interpretation was so critical etc, etc, etc, then why is it I'm hearing it for the first time from a lawyer on a site about photography? |
I'm frankly surprised that this would be news to anyone. An understanding of religion and dogma in light of historical context is essential, in my view, to appreciating current problems, differences of opinion, and the road to future understanding, even between those of different faiths, and beliefs or non-beliefs. (For what it's worth, his lawyerliness notwithstanding, legalbeagle seems pretty educated on this and many other subjects.) |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 01:11:53 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Louis:
(For what it's worth, his lawyerliness notwithstanding, legalbeagle seems pretty educated on this and many other subjects.) |
All due respect to both Louis and legalbeagle, but simply seeming pretty educated does not automatically infer correctness. There have been / are / will be many educated persons who are wrong about many things. I personally believe legalbeagle to be very intelligent, very educated, and even very scholarly. Those convictions do not assure me that he is correct in everything (or even anything) that he believes.
Again, due respect and no offense intended. Peace. |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 01:19:39 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
It is a fascinating subject and critical for a decent understanding of history to understand the historical importance of religion and the reactive and environmental evolution of these belief systems. |
I love it when things like this pop up. If such interpretation was so critical etc, etc, etc, then why is it I'm hearing it for the first time from a lawyer on a site about photography? |
I'm frankly surprised that this would be news to anyone. An understanding of religion and dogma in light of historical context is essential, in my view, to appreciating current problems, differences of opinion, and the road to future understanding, even between those of different faiths, and beliefs or non-beliefs. (For what it's worth, his lawyerliness notwithstanding, legalbeagle seems pretty educated on this and many other subjects.) |
Your surprised that it's news to me that the commandments should read:
Do not murder (other jews)
Do not covet (other jews property)
etc.
Ya, that's news to me. Certainly it is not news that the Jews considered the gentile to be different. There is a big push in Jewish law to reinforce isolation and seclusion from other groups of people. However, I am unaware that such laws didn't extend to the "foreigner". Look at some examples below:
Leviticus 24:22
"You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.' "
Numbers 15:15
"The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the LORD: "
Some where even concerned with their welfare...
Leviticus 19:10
"Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the LORD your God. "
Leviticus 25:35
" 'If any of your own people become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. "
How does Matthew's source's pet theory jive with these? |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 01:22:02 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've been grumpy lately while dealing with a terrible rash on my hand. :( |
Sounds like you may be allergic to something. Good pictures perhaps. I prescribe that you stop taking pictures for 2 days weeks months, and come back and see us later :)
I also tend to think it was a comet or other such event . .. |
Actually, the rash might be caused by the Comet! I get rashes on my hands if I don't wear rubber gloves while doing dishes and general cleaning tasks.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 01:27:40 PM · #146 |
The following is speculative, but just a few things to consider:
The men were magi, these were a powerful class of ruling mystics in Persia and had great influence over who would become king during sucessions. Daniel, was put as the head of this order both under Babylonians and the Persians. It's possible that Daniel had prophecies that were given to the order similar to the one's included in Scripture. The magi might have been acting on prophecies of theirs.
Now, it should be understood that the region of Judea was essentially the bridge to Egypt & north Africa from the northern mediterranean. As such it had be bounced around as to who controlled it. The idea of setting a Hebrew king as ruler of the Persian empire was not outrageous. As Jewish blood had already been introduced into the line before (with Esther). Doing so would have essentially secured by blood the region of Israel to Persia. Which could have been strategically beneficial.
Furthermore, although they're often portrayed as three wise men it was likely an entire caravan and accompanying army. There is a bit of insight into this from Scripture:
Matthew 2:3 "When Herod the king had heard [these things], he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him."
Sure we can understand Herod being bothered. But let's put things into perspective. You're King (even if merely a puppet king under the Roman empire). A group walks in and asks "Where is the real king?" to your face. You're not going to tolerate that. You're going to have them executed. UNLESS...there was a reason not too. Unless they were stronger.
Also note that it said "all Jerusalem" was also troubled. At this time it's believed much of the Roman garrison was away and the region was not at full force. So here was a caravan with accompanying army. A very touchy situation to be sure.
Now, going back to the magi. They say "we have seen his star in the east". This may mean they have literally seen the star in the east. Or rising from the east. Possibly, even that while in the east they have seen his star ascend.
Here is something to consider, there was a large emphasis on star movements, etc. Certain alignments. In fact, many stars had names and when they aligned with other stars were considered in a state of ascension. This was a sort of clock system as well. It's possible that it was not a comet or supernova but simply a particular star for which they had writings concerning. That star having finally moved into it's position of ascent related to sun, moon, planets and other stars. To match the pre-ordained events. These were common beliefs and practices of said region.
Perhaps the rotation and placement of the star led them toward Judea, but they might have even had writings (possibly via Daniel) that there would be a king born in Judea when said star comes into ascension.
//www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=Mat&chapter=2&verse=2&version=KJV#2 |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 01:42:27 PM · #147 |
Regarding the Law being only applicable for Jews. Well, it might seem an explanation. But it doesn't match up to what Scripture states. And I believe such is just hypothetical postulation without a clear review of the underlying facts and declaration of laws.
Leviticus 19:34 "[But] the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I [am] the LORD your God."
Leviticus 19:33 "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him."
Deuteronomy 10:19 "Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."
Exodus 12:49 "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you."
Leviticus 18:26 "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:"
Leviticus 19:10 "And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather [every] grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I [am] the LORD your God."
Leviticus 24:22 "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I [am] the LORD your God."
Numbers 15:16 "One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you."
Numbers 35:15 "These six cities shall be a refuge, [both] for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither."
Deuteronomy 1:16 "And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear [the causes] between your brethren, and judge righteously between [every] man and his brother, and the stranger [that is] with him." |
|
|
|
02/02/2007 01:44:05 PM · #148 |
And just as you have considered and explained that, how about this.
The bishop of auckland, the right reverend Richard Randerson has come out of the closet and declared himself an athiest.
Message edited by author 2007-02-02 13:45:23.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 01:50:18 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by kiwinick:
And just as you have considered and explained that, how about this.
The bishop of auckland, the right reverend Richard Randerson has come out of the closet and declared himself an athiest. |
He apparently said "much of the language of the Bible is to be read in categories of poetry and image, not as a scientific textbook". "In terms of the existence of such a being, an atheist is construed as a non-believer, an agnostic as one who feels it cannot be proved one way or another. By that measure, I regard myself as an agnostic," which is quite a bit different, though equally interesting from someone in his position.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2007 01:58:24 PM · #150 |
That's an interesting statement from the bishop. I wonder if he means it in a slightly different way.
The true, strong meaning of "agnostic" in a theological sense is that God is "unknownable". There is no information to support or deny his existence be it scientific, philosophical, or revelation. I speculate (and this is pure speculation) that he may have meant it only in the scientific realm. That is, he may feel there is philosophical or revelation evidence to be had which allows him to believe in God, but agrees that science is not the realm to prove His existence. If he truly believes there is no avenue for learning about God, then I'd think he is quite the wrong man for his position.
Message edited by author 2007-02-02 13:58:46. |
|
