I think we largely agree then 
You’re right, Mathew is not particularly complicated.
Yet you seem to be clinging on to the fact that ‘inspired’ writing means you can’t use metaphors or common literary techniques of the time or even advocate a particular type of theology with the use of your language.
I’m getting a bit lost as to what you have an actual issue with.
Can you explain it in one concise sentence?
(not being snarky I think I’ve lost the thread of this topic)
It stills boils down to one fact in my mind, our beliefs are not in a God but the beliefs in another human’s idea of what God said or inspired. Faith is a big help to many people when used to unite,but not when one person’s faith tries to use their beliefs to harm other’s. To me if a person’s faith is a help to live well with others even if they disagree, is good, if they think everyone should share their personal beliefs then it causes strife. The Golden Rule is a good way to follow if one truly wants peace. That is truly loving one another.
Not at all - in fact, several times in this thread I’ve stated that other verses are clearly metaphorical in context and content -
What I have tried to be clear about is that in this specific case - the ‘star’ in Mathew 2 - is that there is no contextual reason to assume its a metaphor and not mean exactly what he wrote. He had already used angels as messengers - so if he meant that the Magi followed an ‘angel’ - IMHO - he would have used ‘angel’ specifically.
The only reason people cling to the “it can’t really be a star that he meant there” is that they
a) don’t like the implication of God using astrology/astrologers because a different book says astrology bad
b) realize that actual stars don’t behave in the manner that fits the narrative (aka - its a mistake)
and then twist and turn to make the ‘inspired writings’ fit instead of accepting the ‘inspired’ writings as written.
Which then leads us on to all the other twists/turns used all the time (kanicbirds “it has dual meanings you can only get to if you have the right spirit” as a prime example) to make the ‘inspired’ works have some validity today and to handwave all the clearly bad/mistaken/conflicting text that is there.
In your opinion.
But he didn’t.
How many authors slavishly stick to the same description?
My Oxford Bible commentary has this:
“…attempts to identify it with a planetary conjunction, comet or super-nova are futile.
The Protevangelium of James(21:3), Ephrem the Syrian in his commentary on the Diatessaron, and Chrysostom in his commentary on Matthew all rightly recognise that this so-called star does not stay on high but moves as a guide and indeed comes to rest very near the infant Jesus. Matters become clear when we recall that the ancients generally believed stars to be animate beings, and Jews in particular identified them with angels (cf. Job 38:7). The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, 7, and Theophylact must be right in identifying the magi’s star with an angel, and one may compare the angelic guide of the Exodus (Ex 23:20, 23, 32:34)”
So the context of the time and the beliefs of the Jews (and remember Matthew is the gospel for the Jews) point out that the star is an angel.
How about you think of it this way. Star is used to lead the magi as it came down from on high (where it was of course an angel to begin with anyway) - using star reinforces the fact it moved from on high to earth. More poetic?
Angel is used when discussing what was said to Joseph because it just appeared, said it’s message and away it went.
Anyway, you can think about it however you want but I imagine almost all Christians are happy with star=angel and even if you think there’s some contention here it’s not an article of faith so who cares? Moot point.
Comments from a bible commentary - when the first line say “well, we can’t make this fit an actual star, so it must be something else” aren’t much proof of the author’s intent and only further backs up the point that people try to make the text fit what they like. A plain reading of the text should suffice - even if you want to handwave that “we have no idea what star they were following, musta been a miraculous event”.
I already said earlier in this thread that a common “stars == angels” thing was also clear in other texts - still doesn’t abate the point.
Why would Mathew need to be poetic? He’s reporting what the Magi stated - there is no reason for Metaphor or poetic license - we saw “his star” (so jesus gets his own angel?) - why is it required - that this star be an angel?
and I agree that its a trivial point - but it serves as an excellent example of all the twisting and turning folks do - if the bible is inspired - a plain reading of the text shouldn’t take that inspiration away - even if that means you have to say “we have no idea what the author meant here”.
There’s little point in continuing this.
It was a normal description to have.
Only the modern reader that refuses to take on board writing styles of the time would be confused by it. That’s what the commentary is pointing out here “hey modern reader that probably thinks this might mean a comet or something, it doesn’t here’s why…”
Of course it appearing in other texts abates it.
From Right Ho, Jeeves:
“…[he]….was a very different Bertram from the gay and insouciant boulevardier of Bond Street and Piccadilly.”
We could read the word gay here as homosexual. In fact some younger readers unaware of its alternative meaning may very well do that.
However when we look at the meaning of that word when the text was written and see it used in other texts of the time to obviously not mean homosexual then maybe we can read the sentence again in a new light.
You want a plain reading but the bible requires close reading, myself and others have explicitly told you what close reading of that passage means but you refuse to accept it because you want everything to be nice and easy because………………???
If you think a plain reading of the text should suffice then you’re looking at the wrong canon. The bible is hard to read because it’s man trying to explain God so in many ways it is like talking to Wittgenstein’s lion (IMHO).
Scripturally we all do. Using only Mathew:
That’s potentially general, rather than specific, though. I have a political representative to my country’s government, but that doesn’t mean I have a specific one just for me, nor does it imply (that quote alone) that they need be looking after my interests even generally.
Agreed it is unclear from this if it is general or specific.
Staying with Mathew:
[QUOTE= Matt 4]
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”
[/QUOTE]
Here Mathew records quotes from Ps 91, so it is apparent that Mathew had some knowledge of the Psalm which states:
It appears that this sort of angelic protection is not just for Jesus alone but it also given to everyone who says" “The Lord is my refuge,”and they make the Most High their dwelling.
So I put forth what Jesus gets is something that we all get (as children of God). If Jesus has a personal angel we all get them.
I was going to respond to that that a major difference between the two is that Jesus gets protection during his life, while the angels for the general believer won’t, but on reading up that particular Psalm actually we too also won’t “strike [our] foot against a stone”.
Of course while that supports your point (for the general believer, at least; the Psalm suggests that active belief is required for this sort of intervention, though not necessarily whether we non-believers have angels who just won’t intervene), the problem with that is that believers should be protected from quite literally all evil, as well as natural disaster. Which they aren’t, more’s the pity. The only way we can read that psalm is metaphorically, so we can’t use it to bolster a literal argument.
Just as an observer, I’m wondering much like as the star did, until it stopped and pointed to Bethlehem. I’m new to your site, but I do wonder after the wise, whether 3 or more; and I’m happy if I could just find one wise man, or baby; provided that I can even be apt in recognizing wisdom. Since this site claims to fight ignorance, and wisdom is its opponent, I stopped here then, to see what the point was and the possible outcome to the OP thread. But after all the posts debating and voting their preferences and opinions, I do not see a resolution. Honestly, I do not even see the point in question. As we all know nowadays, I’m certain that if one searches on the internet, we are sure to find some very interesting and detailed accounts, both pro and con. Now, I’m posting this with reservations, and as the old proverb goes, “do not stone the messenger.” Taking in consideration the source from which one must obtain the “facts” in order to assess the wisdom of these particular wise men in question, I’m apt to “prophesy” a “draw” on this debate of yours; in which way can these men be considered wise? And therefore, in a nutshell, judging by all the “wisecracks” posted, I doubt that the “kernel” will ever come out of the “shell.” It seems to me that the best route to obtain a decision is the one that cannot be found. Because this route, the one that will lead to the proof of whether or not the wise 3, more or less, were really wise, and how so, is the same route that leads to God. And we know how far down that road anyone alive has reached; not speaking for the dead, though. But I do approve and want to share in your kind of entertainment, if such is the scope of all these debates. But let us all remind ourselves that any opinions expressed by anyone of us, at best, will be an assumption made on an assumption, upon others’ assumptions. I don’t think it’s very easy to explain this. However, my guess, if it’s permitted and welcomed on this particular thread, is that the possession of wisdom is very much a divine gift and that men become wise as the divine prophets and oracle-mongers do. For these men become what they are neither by nature, nor by skill: It’s through the inspiration of God that they become what they are. “I’m chasing clouds away, too.” Indeed, if we had “facts” and not “ghosts” to go on, holy or not, then there would be something to debate upon, rationally. And this is what I wanted to point out, just in case one or more of you are really taking the debate seriously; so why let anyone of us get angry? Are we not all friends? Friends are not enemies, and any and all “wisecracks, whether obvious or camouflaged, are an enemy to friendship…… I have a couple of free tickets to paradise; just follow that star; that’s my wise crack at getting at the kernel.
You want wisdom? Cut back on the quotation marks.