# Three "wise" men find Jesus **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 25, 2014, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126 "2014-12-25T00:37:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/81 "2015-01-06T17:30:04Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > You do have a hinted at relationship in: which fails for the same reason as before - “hinted at” does not == “is” > [@kanicbird](#): > > But yes it is the Bible as a whole where I get this from, interrelated and interconnected acting as one book where I get this from. There is a earthly reason why the bible was put together as we have it, but I believe also a heavenly reason why as well. It is also symbolic of us, not really useful as individuals but all part of the greater whole, all interconnected and part of each other. Which is the same gobbledy gook that people have used for 1000s of years as to why their interpretation is better than someone elses. "you just don’t get this ‘spiritual’ meaning - its super secret, etc - “you can’t just read the words - you have to be in tune with the spirit world to get the real meaning” There is no evidence - at all - to back up your claim that the bible is “all interconnected as one voice” other than the assumption that it must be by those reading it - which is circular logic at its finest. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/82 "2015-01-06T17:36:52Z")
> [@Arch\_Trout](#): > > I see. > It’s an odd thing to argue over as star being synonymous with angel was common for that time and no theologian or historian would bat an eyelid at the claim that the star in Mathew could be interpreted as an angel. > > Is that what we are arguing because you don’t need Revelation to ‘prove’ it. > My Oxford Bible commentary has some cites for star=angel but it’s at home and I’m not - I’ll try and remember to look at it when I’m home if that helps. I actually don’t have a problem with the idea that “at the time, most references to stars == angels” as a statement - but my response would be - Did Mathew have a word for “angel” that he could have used? If he was inspired to write “star” then surely he must have written exactly what he meant. This is more about the assumption of “inspired” and then all of the hoops a person jumps thru to “fix” the inspiration - then using other peoples books (different languages in some cases, certainly different times and audiences) as evidence that Mathew ‘must’ have meant star because what he wrote makes no sensse - does not make it very ‘inspired’ in reasoning or as evidence. So - the "its half metaphor, half spirtiual and half physical’ bullshit that gets spewed about to explain the “mystery” or “conundrums” that these readers face to make ti make sense - well - seems alot of work when a plain reading would be “wise men (magi) who were probably astrologers, read a mysterious sign in the literal stars that led them to jesus” Fits the narrative - fits that God could use lots of methods to promote his son - doesn’t require any hoopla other than allowing that God used astrologers at the time. Its not complicated - its just a book. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/83 "2015-01-06T17:39:11Z")
> [@Arch\_Trout](#): > > I always took the latter to mean that the apostle could speak something he couldn’t understand but the listener would so no interpreter required. > > I concede that your general point could fit this though. > The whole thread is baffling, I’ve never heard anyone before ever argue about the star having to be an actual star (as in the big bits of burning gas in space). > It’s a thelogical dead end anyway. > > I’m not even going to mention that many theologians are happy to ascribe both the nativity stories as pure myth 😉 Just another example of how this works as I see it and view it. In Matt 25:14-30 is the parable of the Talents. To Mathew a ‘talent’ was a unit of money, and this is how he wrote it, and the parable works with a unit of money. However the term has a different meaning today due to the old term being identical to the English word Talent, meaning skilled at a task - which the parable also works with, perhaps better then using money. Again as I see it is it God using one person to speak and (in God’s time) a proper interpretation to be given by the listener that the speaker apparently didn’t grasp at the time of his speaking it. As for the stars being these hydrogen fusion clouds, yes there has always been a physical scientific understandable side (even back then, at least in position in the sky), how it appears in our world and our ability to understand them. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/84 "2015-01-06T17:47:34Z")
> [@simster](#): > > which fails for the same reason as before - “hinted at” does not == “is” > > Which is the same gobbledy gook that people have used for 1000s of years as to why their interpretation is better than someone elses. > > "you just don’t get this ‘spiritual’ meaning - its super secret, etc - > > “you can’t just read the words - you have to be in tune with the spirit world to get the real meaning” > > There is no evidence - at all - to back up your claim that the bible is “all interconnected as one voice” other than the assumption that it must be by those reading it - which is circular logic at its finest. Actually everything is interconnected, not just this book, but that is only one example - and one that I have extensively studied. Any collection, say all the Disney movies could serve a similar purpose. And in that everything connects together as I see it. The key IMHO is how it is put together, or how I like to state it, in what spirit is it interpreted. For me God is Love, and that is the spirit that all works need to be interpreted through, it is the Holy Spirit, and in that everything comes together. Your statement: > [@](#): > > There is no evidence - at all - to back up your claim that the bible is “all interconnected as one voice” other than the assumption that it must be by those reading it - which is circular logic at its finest. Seems to indicate you perhaps are using a different spirit in your interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/85 "2015-01-06T18:02:39Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > . . . Try following an airplane some day: you might zero in on a suburb, but not a given house. Which would be why they had to stop at the palace and ask directions. Duh. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > _We Three Kings of Orient are > Not quite sure this thing is a star > Poor of eyesight, walking all night > Gone way too fucking far_ **Golf clap** * * * But to get back to the OP. 1 Corinthians 3:18-19 could be paraphrased. > [@](#): > > . . . If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. For the Dunning Kruger Effect is a bitch . . . ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/86 "2015-01-06T18:52:26Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Actually everything is interconnected, not just this book, but that is only one example - and one that I have extensively studied. Any collection, say all the Disney movies could serve a similar purpose. And in that everything connects together as I see it. > > The key IMHO is how it is put together, or how I like to state it, in what spirit is it interpreted. For me God is Love, and that is the spirit that all works need to be interpreted through, it is the Holy Spirit, and in that everything comes together. > > Your statement: > Seems to indicate you perhaps are using a different spirit in your interpretation. so - if I have the ‘right’ spirit I will agree with you and if not - then clearly I am using a spirti of hate and evil, is that it? what a load. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/87 "2015-01-06T18:56:30Z")
> [@simster](#): > > so - if I have the ‘right’ spirit I will agree with you and if not - then clearly I am using a spirti of hate and evil, is that it? > > what a load. Hey if that’s your take on it, whatever floats your boat man - I’m good with it. (aka strawman) ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/88 "2015-01-06T19:32:44Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Hey if that’s your take on it, whatever floats your boat man - I’m good with it. > > (aka strawman) no - that’s your take on it - and what does ‘strawman’ mean in this case? I asked for clarification on what you were stating - late editing “aka strawman” does not change that. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/89 "2015-01-06T19:48:29Z")
> [@simster](#): > > no - that’s your take on it - and what does ‘strawman’ mean in this case? I asked for clarification on what you were stating - late editing “aka strawman” does not change that. You appeared to me as to defining what I was saying (and got it totally wrong btw) then rebuking what you defined (which I would also rebuke your take on what you seemed to incorrectly attributed to me). I added strawman as to clarify what I said as it is a more acceptable and understood term in hope of making my point clear that you made sh!t up then rebuked your own sh!t. Well to be honest you interpreted my beliefs using yours and restricted them to your definitions. And it is very obvious and a somewhat tiresome false argument you are making. As for your asking for clarification, which I doubt is a real ask, no you got it totally ‘bass ackwards’. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/90 "2015-01-06T20:01:16Z")
> [@simster](#): > > no - that’s your take on it - and what does ‘strawman’ mean in this case? I asked for clarification on what you were stating - late editing “aka strawman” does not change that. Going further, as I timed out. First I apologize saying you made sh!t up, but I do believe as I stated that your beliefs limit your ability to accept others intentions. Secondly, to answer your Q directly, the clarification is this… You don’t have to agree with me, you are totally free in whatever spirit to come up with whatever interpretation you wish on anything. It is my belief if your interpertation is in the Spirit of Love (aka God), that we can still disagree, however there will be a convergence as God is not divisible. Eventually both you and I will be lead to change our views, but that timing is God’s not ours, and in the spirit of love even if our views are not correct, they are because God is above that to correct that and it is where we need to be at this time. So again whatever floats your boat, you do not have to agree with me. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/91 "2015-01-06T20:27:30Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > You appeared to me as to defining what I was saying (and got it totally wrong btw) then rebuking what you defined (which I would also rebuke your take on what you seemed to incorrectly attributed to me). > > I added strawman as to clarify what I said as it is a more acceptable and understood term in hope of making my point clear that you made sh!t up then rebuked your own sh!t. Well to be honest you interpreted my beliefs using yours and restricted them to your definitions. > > And it is very obvious and a somewhat tiresome false argument you are making. > > As for your asking for clarification, which I doubt is a real ask, no you got it totally ‘bass ackwards’. > [@kanicbird](#): > > For me God is Love, and that is the spirit that all works need to be interpreted through, it is the Holy Spirit, and in that everything comes together. > > […] > > Seems to indicate you perhaps are using a different spirit in your interpretation. What other ‘spirit’ is there? how could your comments be interpreted any other way? I’ll leave the rest of your drivel on the wayside - where it belongs. (again with the “your limited understanding bullshit”) ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/92 "2015-01-06T20:58:19Z")
> [@simster](#): > > What other ‘spirit’ is there? how could your comments be interpreted any other way? > > I’ll leave the rest of your drivel on the wayside - where it belongs. > > (again with the “your limited understanding bullshit”) Read post #90 before you post #91 I am not perfect, (again it looks like you want to assume I think I am, but again not true - another strawman from what I assume you wish to believe) ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/93 "2015-01-06T21:07:12Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Read post #90 before you post #91 > > I am not perfect, (again it looks like you want to assume I think I am, but again not true - another strawman from what I assume you wish to believe) post #90 is the drivel to which I refer. you keep using ‘strawman’ - its clear you have no idea what it actually means. and quit assuming what I think of you - you keep getting that wrong as well. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/94 "2015-01-06T21:20:19Z")
> [@simster](#): > > post #90 is the drivel to which I refer. > > you keep using ‘strawman’ - its clear you have no idea what it actually means. and quit assuming what I think of you - you keep getting that wrong as well. Ok go ahead explain what you mean, clean slate and all. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/95 "2015-01-06T21:47:35Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I actually don’t have a problem with the idea that “at the time, most references to stars == angels” as a statement - but my response would be - > > Did Mathew have a word for “angel” that he could have used? If he was inspired to write “star” then surely he must have written exactly what he meant. I feel like you’re assuming that “inspired” somehow equates to “literal.” Why is it out of the question that God-breathed writing could include metaphor? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/96 "2015-01-06T22:04:50Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Ok go ahead explain what you mean, clean slate and all. no - as we have already hijacked this thread enough. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/97 "2015-01-06T22:09:06Z")
> [@andros](#): > > I feel like you’re assuming that “inspired” somehow equates to “literal.” Why is it out of the question that God-breathed writing could include metaphor? not at all - there are other verses where its pretty clear the author intends metaphors or parables, etc - In this case- where its laying out a historical ‘proof’ - as to why Jesus is Jesus - then it doesn’t lend itself to metaphorical, since its meant to be a literal telling (to the audience) as evidence. which goes back to the original question posed - if you can’t tell which is literal and which is metaphor - or that definition changes on a whim (sometimes it is, sometimes it isnt, sometimes its both depending on what you want it to be ) - then its useless. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/98 "2015-01-06T22:14:55Z")
> [@simster](#): > > no - as we have already hijacked this thread enough. Ok and thank you ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/99 "2015-01-06T23:39:37Z")
> [@simster](#): > > so - if I have the ‘right’ spirit I will agree with you and if not - then clearly I am using a spirti of hate and evil, is that it? This does not follow in any way. A different spirit than the “spirit of love” could be a spirit of inquiry, a spirit of challenge, a spirit of encouragement, a spirit of apathy, or any number of other things. Assuming that “different” meant “direct opposite to the point of hatred” may not be a straw man, but it is certainly an interpretation that is not actually found in kanicbird’s post. I don’t find kanicbird’s beliefs to be in any way persuasive, but I do not see him setting up a binary scenario in which there is his way that is love and any other way that is hatred. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2015, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126/100 "2015-01-07T00:28:41Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This does not follow in any way. A different spirit than the “spirit of love” could be a spirit of inquiry, a spirit of challenge, a spirit of encouragement, a spirit of apathy, or any number of other things. Assuming that “different” meant “direct opposite to the point of hatred” may not be a straw man, but it is certainly an interpretation that is not actually found in kanicbird’s post. > > I don’t find kanicbird’s beliefs to be in any way persuasive, but I do not see him setting up a binary scenario in which there is his way that is love and any other way that is hatred. WHile it may not be binary - you give him far too much credit here. “mine is spirit of love - you follow some other spirit” - clearly, that spirit is “not love” - He had the chance to correct for it - and clarify that he meant any of the other potential spirits, which do not preclude having love in them (except maybe apathy), - and he instead went with “if thats the way you see it”. We’ll agree to disagree and drop it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-wise-men-find-jesus/708126.md?page=6)