It's time to ask this question...

[Ark Guy]

Any ideas?

I say it was an Angel.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

LOL

I'm sure you would.

 

[TheBear]

Interesting......



Matthew 2:9

"When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was."

 

[Iddie4him]

I say it was a Bright Star, and it only appeared on that night when Christ was born.

 

[Ark Guy]

Bear, Matthew 2:9 is interesting.

It shows that the star appeared again, then moved, and stopped.
(Remember the Magi showed up later on and not on the birthday of Jesus.)

This rules out any stationary object from the list.

 

[Ark Guy]

I say it was a Bright Star, and it only appeared on that night when Christ was born.

It appeared at least twice.

Once on the night Christ was born, then later on when the Magi arrived.

 

[TheBear]

Bear, Matthew 2:9 is interesting.

It shows that the star appeared again, then moved, and stopped.
(Remember the Magi showed up later on and not on the birthday of Jesus.)

This rules out any stationary object from the list.

Right. There is another facet that is interesting, as well.

 

[Lotar]

I guess we will never really know. On that note, why would one so insistent on the literal interpretation of all scripture believe that it was an angel when the bible clearly states that it was a star?

 

[Sierva_de_Dios]

[updown]Feliz Navidad!![/updown]

 

[Ark Guy]

Lotar,
It has been demonstrated on another thread that angels in the bible have been called "stars" from time to time.

for example...REV 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

Angels can also appear as light or very bright;



LUK 2:9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.ACT 12:7 Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. "Quick, get up!" he said, and the chains fell off Peter's wrists.

The above angel may even have been the star of Bethlehem.

So to assume, or think that the "star" may have been an angel is very logic and does nothing to harm a literal interpretation.

 

[Larry]

Is there any scripture that specifically refers to the Star of Bethlehem as an angel, or are you just making this up too?

 

[Lotar]

Revelations is obviously speaking figuratively. Luke and Acts only says they are bright. Yet in this case they are clearly named stars.

Now, if believing that the star is an angel has no effect on the literal interpretation, why then would believing that the days in Genesis represent periods of time, harm literal interpretation?

 

[Ark Guy]

Is there any scripture that specifically refers to the Star of Bethlehem as an angel, or are you just making this up too?

There is no scripture that claims an angel is the Star of Bethlehem.

That is why I asked the question.

The previous post of mine points out some reasons as to why the star could have been an angel.

One question I have is that if it was a star way out in space, how did it shine much brighter than the other stars, how did it go away then re-appear and finally how did it move and stop over the house? Some theories would be interesting.

 

[Larry]

God did it. That's why.

 

[Ark Guy]

Revelations is obviously speaking figuratively. Luke and Acts only says they are bright. Yet in this case they are clearly named stars.

Now, if believing that the star is an angel has no effect on the literal interpretation, why then would believing that the days in Genesis represent periods of time, harm literal interpretation?

The answer is simple. YOM is bracketed with the terms evening and morning which lets us know it is a literal day. Also, the ten commandments also tell us the days were literal 24 hours long.

For some extra biblical reading, Barnabus who was an important character in the New Testament tells us the days were also 24 hours long. Because Barnabus wrote that it is obvious that the early Christians understood the days as literal 24 hours llong.

But this day topic is off topic.

I hope that helps.

 

[Ark Guy]

God did it. That's why.

Hmmmmm, think about it. For got to make a star move so that it travels across the sky, then stop it over the house where Jesus was meant that God had to push the star many light years across the sky. Which I'm ok with.

The problem is that the Theo-Evos seem to have a problem with God moving stars across the sky during the creation period so why allow it in this instance?

 

[Lotar]

The answer is simple. YOM is bracketed with the terms evening and morning which lets us know it is a literal day. Also, the ten commandments also tell us the days were literal 24 hours long.

For some extra biblical reading, Barnabus who was an important character in the New Testament tells us the days were also 24 hours long. Because Barnabus wrote that it is obvious that the early Christians understood the days as literal 24 hours llong.

But this day topic is off topic.

I hope that helps.

But the text in the NT also states that it was a literal star. If you are to take all language literally, you have to consistently, not just where it suits your beliefs.

 

[Ark Guy]

The text surrounding the six days and the usage of the term in other portions of the bible along with early christian writing show us the days were literal.

On the other hand, I have shown verses that clearly show angels have been referred to as stars and that angels can shine brightly. So the literal star, or object could be a literal angel identified as a star.

Of course it really could be a real star way out in space...see my post 16.

 

[seebs]

The answer is simple. YOM is bracketed with the terms evening and morning which lets us know it is a literal day.

Actually, they are a big portion of how we know it's not a literal day, but a rigid structure adopted to make the story easier to remember. There is no "evening" or "morning" before the sun exists.

Also, the ten commandments also tell us the days were literal 24 hours long.

No, they don't.

For some extra biblical reading, Barnabus who was an important character in the New Testament tells us the days were also 24 hours long. Because Barnabus wrote that it is obvious that the early Christians understood the days as literal 24 hours llong.

It is obvious that many of them believed that, but it is also obvious that, unlike most modern fundamentalists, they thought other aspects of the story were more important.

 

[Ark Guy]

seebs:
Actually, they are a big portion of how we know it's not a literal day, but a rigid structure adopted to make the story easier to remember. There is no "evening" or "morning" before the sun exists

There was light before the sun existed....which would have allowed for an evening and morning...of course you now have to claim that the earth wasn't rotating.