[aruanan]

Thus a close examination of the account makes clear who and what these wise men were and who they were serving.

Your lack of exegesis, novel and ad hoc definitions, inability to distinguish between popular and historical accounts, and special pleading pretty much says it all.

“According to the Gospel account, the wise men both worshipped Jesus and obeyed God. Doesn't sound like an agent of Satan.”

They were also astrologers, a practice condemned by God (Deut. 18) and they also obeyed Herod (Matt. 2:8).

You don't know the first. And even if they were "astrologers," this practice was forbidden to the Israelites who had a more certain witness. It doesn't follow that a magi, in the tradition of Daniel, was a worshipper of demons and could not tell the signs in the sky. And the latter is manifestly untrue.

“So they went to the capital of Israel. That's reasonable”

They were led by a “star”, not to the child Jesus but to Jerusalem and Herod. (Matt.2:2) Reasonable? Why, if this “star” was able to lead them from Jerusalem to Bethlehem? (Matt. 2:9).

A point that is pointless. Try a little harder. If, in their system of astronomy, they saw something that told them a new king of the Jews was born (true), their trek to the capital of the Jews was expected.

“So they asked the king (according to Scripture God's chosen civil authority).”

Herod was not chosen by God to be king, being an Edomite, a people condemned by God as wicked, (Mal. 1:4) and not of the line of David or tribe of Judah.

Poor count-your-change. Have you never read, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." Romans 13:1. This included Herod.

“Furthermore, do you really think Satan would need some out of country folks coming from a far distance asking directions to discover out what all the chief scribes and priests already in Jerusalem already knew?”

What Satan needed was not the point. That's akin to asking if Satan needed Herod to do his killing for him.

Another non-point.

The chief priests, etc. knew the where by prophecy (Matt. 2:4-6) but the when Herod learned from the astrologers and the star's appearance. (Matt. 2:7)

Another non-point. The Jews knew from prophecies the general time at which the Messiah would make his appearance and were looking for him.

By this time Jesus was living in a house (Matt. 2:11) so the depictions of wise men visiting a babe in a manger just aren't so. According to Luke 1&2 it was the shepherds who visited Jesus in the manger and it was angels that made the announcements of events connected with Jesus’ birth, no stars involved.

Another non-point. No magi claimed that he saw Jesus as a baby in the manger. And I pointed out that they saw the toddler Jesus.

“A bank robber asked a little old blue-haired woman how to get to First National Bank. He then went there and robbed it. The little old blue-haired woman was an accomplice or agent of the bank robber.”

Your analogy doesn't fit the account. The magi, the astrologers were not little old ladies, they were condemned to death under the Law given by God. (Lev.19 and Deut. 18).

Again, you're making a judgment that is not supported by scripture, either that the Magi were astrologers or that they were objects of the Law given to the Jews. There is no indication they were Jews and, therefore, subject to the Law, assuming they had done anything wrong, which, in the account, isn't at all evident.

And if one puts the very best face on their actions it would be that they were unwitting accomplices and really believed Herod the Thug wanted to worship another king of the Jews, especially one not of his family.

Again, poor, poor count-your-change, holding foreign visitors in an ancient time to a standard that isn't even met in the U.S. of A. They didn't have CNN and Fox news doing specials on Herod's genealogy and his place in the history of the Jewish people. But even in the U.S. with an unprecedented level of information available in a multitude of formats we had a giant load of morons voting a Marxist into office because he sounded like Dan Rather and had an adolescent look and smile like the pygmy from The Gods Must Be Crazy.

Had they not been warned by God not to return to Herod (Matt. 2:12) they would have had been able to give him the exact location of the house where Jesus lived. Herod sent the astrologers to Bethlehem (Matt. 2:8) and the star led them to Jesus. (Matt. 2:9).

Your fourth instance of a non-point and a misstatement of fact. They went to Bethlehem of Judea on the basis of scripture that told them that was their specific destination. The FACT is that they were warned by God, obeyed him, didn't go back through Jerusalem and didn't report to Herod. Against this fact, you posit a conditional and conclude them somehow lacking because they COULD have done such a thing that wasn't actually done. This isn't argument. This is special pleading. You're just too unwilling to give up your defective hypothesis.

Thus a close examination of the account makes clear who and what these wise men were and who they were serving.

Yes, too bad you failed to perform such a close examination.

[count-your-change]

Were the magi astrologers?

A couple of commentaries:

CHAP. IX.—PROFESSIONS OF SOME KINDS ALLIED TO IDOLATRY. OF ASTROLOGY IN PARTICULAR. TERTULLIAN

“But Magi and astrologers came from the east.” We know the mutual alliance of magic and astrology. The interpreters of the stars, then, were the first to announce Christ's birth the first to present Him “gifts.”

And:

Catholic Encyclopedia: Magi
“The philosophy of the Magi, erroneous though it was, led them to the journey by which they were to find Christ. Magian astrology postulated a heavenly counterpart to complement man's earthly self and make up the complete human personality. His “double” (the fravashi of the Parsi) developed together with every good man until death united the two. The sudden appearance of a new and brilliant star suggested to the Magi the birth of an important person. They came to adore him — i.e., to acknowledge the Divinity of this newborn King (vv. 2, 8, 11).”

The wise men were astrologers and this was condemned under God's Law. (Deut.18 and Lev. 19)

“Again, you're making a judgment that is not supported by scripture, either that the Magi were astrologers or that they were objects of the Law given to the Jews. There is no indication they were Jews and, therefore, subject to the Law, assuming they had done anything wrong, which, in the account, isn't at all evident.”

No practicer of magic, etc. was allowed inside the nation, either Jews or anyone else. (try reading the Law at Deut. 18:10-12).

“Poor count-your-change. Have you never read, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” Romans 13:1. This included Herod.”

Paul's words do not contradict what I said about Herod.

Peter had said that when man's orders conflict with God's they would only obey God. (Acts 5:29) and Jesus said the rulers had a sphere of control that belonged to them as in Caesar's things to Caesar so Paul's words must be considered with that in mind.

Romans 13:1 uses the Greek word “TETAGMNETAI” from “tasso”, Strong's 5021, which has the meaning of setting in a paticular order or relative position and NOT of placing in authority as Caesar did Herod.
As J.W. McGarvey said in his “A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles” concerning Romans 13:1 and tetagmentai eisin:

“The word in question is a generic term, having no single word in English to fully represent it. Its generic sense is best represented by our phrase, set in order. In its various specific applications, however, we have single terms which accurately represent it. Thus, when Jesus etaxato set in order a certain mountain in Galilee as a place to meet his disciples, or the Jews in Rome taxamenoi set in order a day to meet Paul,} we best express the idea by appointed. But when Paul[at Romans 13:1]says of civil rulers that “the existing authorities tetagmenai eisin were set in order by God,” he does not intend to affirm that God had appointed those rulers, but merely asserts his general providence in their existence and arrangement. The idea is best expressed in English by using the phrase set in order, or by saying they were arranged by God.”

(See also Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicaon of the New Testament under ‘tasso’)

Thus Paul at Romans 13:1 was affirming that secular rulers like Herod enjoyed their positions by God's allowance, not His approval, for His own purposes.

“Your lack of exegesis, novel and ad hoc definitions, inability to distinguish between popular and historical accounts, and special pleading pretty much says it all.”

When all else fails....... but have good day anyhow.