Posted on 12/23/2004 11:21:04 AM PST by GLDNGUN
That was Soviet Science Fiction. I read it in high school back in the 50's. The point of the story was to say that believe in God is to approve of the destruction of an entire world just to announce the Christ Child.
"We live for the One, We die for the One. We walk in the dark places that no one else will enter. We stand on the bridge and no one may pass. We live for the One. We die for the One."
Zathros knows.
Also, if it was a miracle, it may have been an "eyes only" miracle for certain people, excluding herod.
I agree. It seems the leftists want to cover all the bases. Even "if" the Star of Bethlehem did occur, it has to be depicted as destructive by the leftists.
That is the only correct answer.
There is never anything earthly behind any miracle. To say so is blasphemy; the acts of a holy God are not brought about by physical events in an accursed world.
You're 6 months off. The Lord was born on the day that had been prepared to foretell his coming: Rosh Hashanna, which was September 29, 4 B.C. which fits in perfectly with all other known facts of the time, both Biblical, and secular history too. Pasover foretold his death.
Exactly my point.
Secondly, nobody is claiming there was anything earthly behind it. Quite the contrary. Having the hosts of heaven play out a once-in-a-lifetime dance to herald the birth of the King of the Jews is no small feat. It could have only been pre-ordained by the creator and conductor of the universe.
It's rather amazing that I posted this information and link to the site, hoping to get feedback on what the site says. So far, NOBODY has commented to me on anything from the site, but they are more than ready to tell me what they already "know" to be the "only correct answer".
Don't be afraid to expand your horizons a little bit and examine something in a new and different way. You just might be pleasantly surprised.
Thanks. I just tossed that out as one idea for the forum to discuss. It really doesn't matter to me one way ot the other. Jesus did exist, and regardless of his Earthly or Divine nature, his ministry has had an impact on the world, and its vestiges will last for many centuries to come.
Merry Christmas!
The word doesn't say that it was a star, it says that they saw his sign, which is the shekinah. Expand your horizon, believe the word, and don't look for "natural" explanations for any manifestation given in the word, because they don't exist.
In other words, you didn't bother to take a look. Wait until you find out the earth isn't flat. You'll have a good laugh that day.
There is nothing in the Word to indicate it was the Shekinah. Are you suggesting that only the magi could see this phenomena? There is nothing to support that. In addition, what about it would let the magi know that the "King of the Jews" had been born?
You've bought the assumption that it was "the Magi," without evidence. God's word would never call ignorant pagan fools 'wise men."
Hmmm. Well, Matthew 2:1 says, "...Magi from the east came to Jerusalem." Silly me, believing the Bible, yes, I "bought" the "assumption" that the Bible is correct.
So, if we are to believe the Bible, who are these magi? The word, 'magi,' is indeed sometimes translated 'wise men.' Some of them were learned men in general, who studied the physical world and were knowledgeable about many things, including the stars. Magi were often court astronomers who were consulted by the rulers of the day for guidance in affairs of state. This was also true in much earlier times. For example, during the Babylonian captivity of the Jews, some 500 years earlier, King Nebuchadnezar kept a stable of court magi. Nebuchadnezer made the Jewish prophet Daniel Chief Magus of his court when Daniel was able to interpret a dream the other magi could not.
There were magi of various schools, and some were more respected than others. We know something of a particularly prestigious school of magi from the writings of Philo. Philo was a Jewish philosopher and contemporary of Jesus who lived in the large Jewish community of Alexandria, Egypt. Philo wrote in praise of an Eastern school of magi and their great learning and understanding of the natural world. This school may have descended from the Babylonian magi of Daniel's day. Matthew does report that the Wise Men were from the East, and Babylon is east of Judea. It was at one time part of the Persian Empire, which ties in with Philo. So it is possible the Wise Men were of this prestigious Eastern school. This would account for Herod giving them an audience, and for his strong reaction to the news they brought.
So, please enlighten me as to where I've gone wrong.
Oh really? Then of course God would never use an 'ignorant pagan fool' harlot to aid the Israelites at Jericho? Certainly he wouldn't have his own son tell a parable with an 'ignorant pagan fool' Samaritan as the hero....
You've bought a corrupted Bible!
Return to the KJV and read God's word, not Wescott's or Hort's.
You're erecting a strawman.
Address my comments honestly. God's word has never called paganism wise. He uses sinners (all of us) to do his will, but never does he depend on our 'wisdom.'
Ping to self to read later.
"Magi", "Wise men", or whatever term you want to use, it's obvious the Bible is referring to educated experts in their field, and that they were consulted by kings and rulers. The KJV makes many, many references to such "wise men", so to be consistent these "wise men" would be similar to those. And another term for those "wise men" is "magi". You can play word games and refuse to do any research beyond your KJV Bible if you want. If you have a better idea of who the "wise men" were, I'm all ears.
The Magi were apparently struck in the eye by a green laser. The FBI is investigating.
Q: Who said "variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures"?
A: The KJV Translators
Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or why not?
Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the "word of God"? Why or why not?
Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God"? Why or why not?
Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God.)
Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambride, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words?
In the context of Matt 5:18, define "jot", "tittle", and "law".
Define "circular argument" and give an example.
When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a "contradiction", why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible?
Suppose you lived in the 10th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position?
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE BIG QUESTION:
The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority" in 1610 and prior? Explain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.