Featured The Star of Bethlehem

The star could well have been a supernova. Remember, the magi were actually astrologers who observed the sky nightly & were quick to notice anything new in it.. They had seen the star 2 years earlier.

Jesus mighta been 2 years old when the magi saw Him, as we don't know if the star first appeared when Jesus was born, or before. And we must remember that the magi almost certainly traveled by camel, & they're not the speediest big animal around. And even camels that are ridden, not to mention those transporting burdens, must be rested every few days, & require water every 3 days or so, contrary to popular belief. So their journer could easily have taken 2 years.

 

Then Matthew 2:9, ". . . , the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. . . ," simply would not be true as stated. Astronmcal stars do not move like that.

 

Stars appear to move constantly, same as the sun & moon do. And, as the men headed toward where it appears when first seen in the evening, it'll slowly appear to be more-overhead as they kept going toward it. And we must also account for the earth's orbiting the sun. God caused the star to sit directly over Jesus' home at the time the men drew closer to where He was. (The only stars that appear not to move except when the observers move are Polaris & Sigma Octani, the pole stars.)

 

Not they don't. They would not look like they were stoping over someone's property.

 

These were not dumb cavemen. They understood the start and planets and their patterns.

You're also forgetting the word star in the Bible simply means luminary, which describes any light in the sky. It was an angel, or some other supernatural light. Stars and planets never look like they're leading and then stoping, then leading again.

 

The ancient astrologers knew stars & planets apart, though they didn't know exactly what planets are. And the ones who saw Jesus had an ancient prophecy about a star that'd point out the way to a great king. They knew which lights moved & which didn't. remember, they lived in a land where they could see the sky almost every night. And they knew comets, meteors, etc.were separate objects.

 

I agree that it was a supernatural phenomenon, and I'm not sure if scripture notes anyone seeing it other than the Magi. One might infer that others saw it by the fact that "all Jerusalem" was troubled, but that was from what was "heard" not what was seen.

As noted in above posts, the Magi could have seen the star before the birth of Christ (or after, or at the same time.) "Young child" in Matt 2 can mean toddler, or infant, and the "house" where the Magi saw Christ might have been mere yards from a manger. There's lots of farmhouses in New England that are attached to the barn. However, I think the Magi did arrive some time later than when the shepherds visited. It would've been quite odd for Luke's sources to not have noted the Magi's presence had they been there.

 

Which is why a natural explanation like a planet doesn't work. Has to be a luminary in the low atmosphere, has to be supernatural.

 

This is an equivocation fallacy. Following with a telescope is not that same as what the Magi were doing, following on foot to a particular geographic location. This can only be done with something hovering in the low atmosphere, perhaps 500-1000 feet off the ground.

This is getting silly.

 

Celestial navigation is different than a star leading you to a specific location. Again, equivocation of terms.

And Yes, a small light 1000 feet in the sky would look no different than a large star millions of light years away. The sun is 400 times further away than the moon and looks the same size as the moon is 400 times smaller.