Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    That we are all sparks of the same Light.
    
    Christ came to reflect our inner light back to us so that we 
    wake up and realize who we really are - children of God.
    
    When we realize, then we can turn to another still in darkness 
    help them to realize too...through the power of unconditional
    love.
    
    Cindy

    
    	ON THE CONTRARY! 
    
    	HE is the light 'we' are (if we are following Him) the reflection
    of His light to the world.  NOT the other way around.  The only light
    we can shine in the darkness is His light.  
    
    	The only place that 'we' are referred to as light is in connection
    with taking the message of Christ to the world.
    
    	_ed- 

    
    I like being preached at.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Matthew 5 says "Let your light so shine before men that they may see
    your good works" ... So what is our light? Jesus is the light of the
    world! Thats not just the Christian world either. Modern christians
    would doubtless call the Magi New Agers, but they were guided to the
    infant Jesus where the privileged Jews were left in darkness.
    
    john

re:  .4  John

   >would doubtless call the Magi New Agers, but they were guided to the
   >infant Jesus where the privileged Jews were left in darkness.

The Magi were actually astrologers from the east.  Astrology is strongly 
disapproved of in the Bible (see Deut 18:10-12, Isa 47:13-15).  Matthew
2:1-16 shows that the star led the Magi to King Herod first and then to
Jesus.  Nowhere does the account say that anybody else saw the star.  When
the Magi left after seeing Jesus, Jehovah's angel warned Joseph to flee to
Egypt to safegard the child.  How old was Jesus at the time?  When the Magi
arrived, Jesus and his parents were living in a house.  The account does 
not say that the Magi found him in a manger.  Consider that based on what
Herod had learned from the Magi, he ordered that all boys two years of age
and under were to be destroyed.

Would you like to guess who was behind the star leading the Magi to Jesus?


Steve    

    The Magi were not merely astrologers. Their name is the root of our
    word magic. They could more correctly be compared to Sufis or other
    Mystics who maintain broad philosophical and scientific interests.
    Certainly, astrology is condemned in the Bible, but astronomy was not a
    separate discipline at that time. IMHO the magi were not idolaters.
    	As to the nature of the star of Bethlehem, we can only speculate.
    Various people have attempted to match it with comets or a conjunction
    of planets. Perhaps it was some Angels piloting a UFO. We can hardly
    expect the Magi to say we've followed this UFO from the east!  ;-)
    
    john

Note 319.5

>Would you like to guess who was behind the star leading the Magi to Jesus?

Well, I have to confess, this question never occured to me.  I take it from
your reference to "Dark" star that you postulate that it was some being of
darkness.  How far off am I?

Richard

re:  .6  John

   >The Magi were not merely astrologers. Their name is the root of our
   >word magic. They could more correctly be compared to Sufis or other
   >Mystics who maintain broad philosophical and scientific interests.
   >Certainly, astrology is condemned in the Bible, but astronomy was not a
   >separate discipline at that time. IMHO the magi were not idolaters.

OK, we'll say they weren't idolaters, and they were interested in the science 
of astronomy.  The fact remains that they *were* astrologers, which *is* some-
thing that Jehovah disapproves.



re:  .7  Richard

>Well, I have to confess, this question never occured to me.  I take it from
>your reference to "Dark" star that you postulate that it was some being of
>darkness.  How far off am I?

Well, let's go over this again.  Three men who are practicing something that
Jehovah condemns, are led to Jerusalem and inquire as to the location of the
one called King of the Jews.  Now, if they're doing something that Jehovah 
condemns, they're siding with Satan. The king becomes agitated and he sends
the men to find the child and report back to him.  They find Messiah, but are 
divinely warned to take a different route back to their country.  The father
of the child is warned by Jehovah's angel to flee to Egypt.  The king, not 
knowing where the child is, orders all boys two years old and younger to be
killed, hoping that the child will be one of them.  Does this scenario fit
the workings of Jehovah?  Of course not.  Who else but Satan would want the
Son of God killed before he could complete the work that Jehovah had assigned
him to do?


Steve   

Steve,

So you think the wise men were instruments of Satan?  Then why did they fall
down and worship Jesus?

	When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy;
	and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother,
	and they fell down and worshipped him.  Then, opening their
	treasures, they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense and myrrh.
	And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed
	to their own country by another way.
						Matthew 2:10-12 (RSV)

Who warned them in the dream?  Satan?

				-- Bob

re:  .9  Bob


>So you think the wise men were instruments of Satan?  Then why did they fall
>down and worship Jesus?

The astrologers were men who practiced something unacceptable to Jehovah.  In
doing so, they played right into Satan's hands and he obviously took advantage
of it.  They were *unwitting* instruments of Satan.  

>Who warned them in the dream?  Satan?

They were warned not to return to Herod.  Satan wanted them to return to Herod,
because Herod would then know where to find Jesus and kill him.  Since Herod
didn't know the exact location, he ordered all boys two years old and younger
in the area of Bethlehem to be killed, hoping Jesus would be one of them.

       >When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy;

Yes, they rejoiced because they had found the one called King of the Jews.

       >and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother,
       >and they fell down and worshipped him. 
                               ^^^^^^^^^^
The NWT more accurately translates this as "they did obeisance".  Even Jesus
himself said that only Jehovah is to be worshiped (see Matt 4:10).  By doing
obeisance, they showed thier submission to the intended King of God's Kingdom.
Of course, trinitarians are going to jump in here and say that Jesus is God,
and that it's proper to worship him.  Jesus properly identified himself as the
*Son* of God (see Matt 26:63,64).  

       >                                        Then, opening their
       >treasures, they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense and myrrh.

This was in accord with what was then customary when visiting notable persons.

       >And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed
       >to their own country by another way.
       > 			        	Matthew 2:10-12 (RSV)

The dream was of devine origin.  The Maji then had all the details concerning
Jesus (exact location, who his parents were, physical descriptions, etc.) that
they didn't have prior to their arrival.  That information could not be allowed
to reach Herod.


Steve

Well, Steve, I think you're stretching in saying that the Magi were unwitting
tools of Satan.  Most of your argument hinges on astrology being an abomination
to God.  It seems to me, though, that the story of the Magi was included in
Matthew to add weight to Jesus's claim to greatness, i.e. even the stars
pointed the way to his birth.  This is certainly the traditional
interpretation.  Your version smacks of latter-day revisionism.

				-- Bob

re Note 319.11 by DECWIN::MESSENGER:

> Most of your argument hinges on astrology being an abomination
> to God.  

        To add to your point, Bob, Scripture also points out that ALL
        have sinned -- ALL have practiced one or more abominations to
        God.  This would be true for the shepherds who came to Jesus
        as well.

        Bob

 Re. Last Few

     I have been reading "Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism"
   by John Shelby Spong and in one of the Chapters he points out
   that that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke tell very different
   stories of the nativity. Luke never mentions any wise men.
   Matthew never mentions any shepherds. 
      The massacre carried out by Herod is only found in Matthew's
   version of the nativity. It is mentioned in no other Gospel, nor
   is it mentioned in any records of Herod's reign. In fact there
   is no other place this is mentioned in either Biblical or 
   non-Biblical sources period. 
      Luke has Jesus being circumcised on the eighth day after he
   was born and being presented in the temple on the fortieth 
   according to custom. While Matthew has Mary and Joseph fleeing
   to Egypt at this time and not returning until after the death
   of Herod.
      Anyone care to try and reconcile this two apparently contradictory
   versions of events for me.

                                                      Mike

Mike S. (.13)

	I commend you for reading Spong's book.  I've not read the book, but
I imagine it wouldn't hold much interest for a non-Christian.  I hope you'll
give us an insightful review of the book upon completion.

	Spong, for those who are unfamiliar with the name, is a Bishop
within the Episcopal Church.

Richard

re:  .11  Bob

>Well, Steve, I think you're stretching in saying that the Magi were unwitting
>tools of Satan.  Most of your argument hinges on astrology being an abomination
>to God.

I don't think you're looking at the whole line of reasoning.  Let's try Q & A.
Would God have led to Jesus persons whose practices He condemned?  Of course
not.  Where did the star lead the Magi first?  To Herod who wanted to kill 
Jesus.  Who would want to see Jesus destroyed before he could accomplish what
God had sent him to do?  Satan.  Would God direct a plan to kill His son before
His purposes were accomplished?  No.  Why were the Magi given divine warning in
a dream to not return to Herod?  So Herod wouldn't be given the information that
he needed to be able to locate Jesus and kill him.  Is the picture coming in a
little clearer now?

>         It seems to me, though, that the story of the Magi was included in
>Matthew to add weight to Jesus's claim to greatness, i.e. even the stars
>pointed the way to his birth.

Show me in Scripture where Jesus went around making claims about his greatness.
And why would a star be used in one circumstance when God clearly used angels in
announcing Jesus (to Mary, Joseph, the shepherds)?  Could it be that a star was 
used to attract astrologers who would do Herod's bidding?  Who would do that?

These events happened in fulfillment of prophecy.  That's why they're included
in Scripture.  See Matt 2:17, 18 which points out the fulfillment of Jeremiah
31:15.  The killing of the male children was the issue of the prophecy.  Herod
and the Magi simply became the means of fulfillment.  In fact, the inclusion of
the details of Jesus' birth are written in the Greek Scriptures (NT) to show the
fulfillment of prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures (OT).

>                               This is certainly the traditional
>interpretation.

Just because it's traditional doesn't mean it's correct.  Look at what is said
of tradition at Matt 15:3, Mark 7:13, Gal 1:14, and Col 2:8.

>                 Your version smacks of latter-day revisionism.

No, it's just that as time goes on, greater understanding of the Truth is gained
through careful study, extensive research, thoughtful meditation, and perserver-
ing prayer.  See Prov 4:18.



re:  .12  Bob F.

       >           -< the maji weren't alone in abomination >-  

Does that somehow justify thier practices?  

       >To add to your point, Bob, Scripture also points out that ALL
       >have sinned -- ALL have practiced one or more abominations to
       >God.  This would be true for the shepherds who came to Jesus
       >as well.

One difference is that angels announced the birth of "a Savior, who is Christ
the Lord" to the shepherds.  It isn't recorded how the Maji got their informa-
tion, but it was some time after the shepherds were told, and the word they got
was that the boy was the King of the Jews, not Christ or Savior.  Did angels
continue to make appearances all over the area to announce the birth of Jesus?
Not likely, or it would have been recorded.  Plus if that had been the case,
Jesus would have been more widely accepted than he was.  It would have been
common knowledge that Jesus was the one that the angels announced all around
the land.  No, the shepherds were told in that manner because they were common,
humble people, who weren't making a willful practice of things that are unac-
ceptable to God.                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        

re:  .13  Mike

  >   Anyone care to try and reconcile this two apparently contradictory
  >versions of events for me.

Actually, all four Gospels appear that way.  Each one brings out different 
features of the story of Jesus, and they all intermesh to give the complete
picture.  If each one said the same thing, there wouldn't be four of them,
but only one.  They actually compliment each other, and tell the story from
four viewpoints.


Steve

re Note 319.15 by COMET::HAYESJ:

> Would God have led to Jesus persons whose practices He condemned?  Of course
> not.  

        Steve,

        Perhaps you don't realize what you just wrote here!

        Bob

    re:  .16  Bob
    
    Yes, that *is* rather poorly worded, isn't it.  I assumed you knew that
    I was talking about Jesus when the Magi visited him.  How's this:
    
    Would God have led to a very young Jesus persons whose practices He
    condemned.            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Steve

Yeah, but even a very young Jesus is a very eternal God.

    
    
    Steve,
    
    I would think that if Herod's and the Magi's actions were prophesied,
    then they were fulfilling God's plan.  Perhaps there was a purpose
    to all of this that is far greater than you realize.  It sounds like
    you don't have full trust in God.
    
    Carole

Re: .15 Steve

>Would God have led to Jesus persons whose practices He condemned?  Of course
>not.

I think the Bible shows that God used people for his purposes even if those
people weren't perfect (e.g. Moses, David, Peter, Paul...).

>  Where did the star lead the Magi first?  To Herod who wanted to kill 
>Jesus.

The Bible doesn't say that the star led the magi to Herod.  It lead them to
Judea, so they went to Jerusalem, the chief city of Judea, and started
asking around.

>  Who would want to see Jesus destroyed before he could accomplish what
>God had sent him to do?  Satan.  Would God direct a plan to kill His son before
>His purposes were accomplished?  No.

Is that the only reason why the magi would come to Judea, so that Jesus would
be killed?

>  Why were the Magi given divine warning in
>a dream to not return to Herod?  So Herod wouldn't be given the information that
>he needed to be able to locate Jesus and kill him.

Fair enough.

>  Is the picture coming in a little clearer now?

No.

>>         It seems to me, though, that the story of the Magi was included in
>>Matthew to add weight to Jesus's claim to greatness, i.e. even the stars
>>pointed the way to his birth.
>
>Show me in Scripture where Jesus went around making claims about his greatness.

I didn't say that Jesus was making that claim.  Matthew was making that claim.

>And why would a star be used in one circumstance when God clearly used angels in
>announcing Jesus (to Mary, Joseph, the shepherds)?

Why not?  Why was a rainbow used as a sign of God's covenant after the flood
in Genesis?  Maybe to show that the heavens reflected the glory of God.

>>                               This is certainly the traditional
>>interpretation.
>
>Just because it's traditional doesn't mean it's correct.

True, but the fact that it's the traditional interpretation means that the
burden of proof is on you to show that the traditional interpretation is
wrong.  So far you haven't done this.

				-- Bob

    Re.15


            I am afraid that I don't agree that we are dealing
        with different versions of the same story. 
            The family could not have been fleeing to Egypt while
        also presenting the child at the Temple. These are mutually
        exclusive events and not slightly different versions of
        similar events.

                                                   Mike 
             

    re:  .18  Bob
    
    When Jesus was on the earth, he was a perfect man, the "last Adam".  As
    such, he could be (and was) killed.  
    
    Steve

re:  .21  Mike


       >    The family could not have been fleeing to Egypt while
       >also presenting the child at the Temple. These are mutually
       >exclusive events and not slightly different versions of
       >similar events.

The reason they fled into Egypt is because Herod was searching for Jesus to 
kill him.  Look at Matt 2:16 and you'll see that based on what he had learned
from the Magi, Herod ordered all boys age two and under were to be destroyed.
He did that because the Magi didn't return to him with the details of Jesus'
location.  So you can reason that Jesus could have been as much as two years
old when the family fled to Egypt.  


Steve

re:  .19  Carole

    
   >I would think that if Herod's and the Magi's actions were prophesied,
   >then they were fulfilling God's plan.

The prophecy didn't say who would kill the children, or how it would be accom-
plished.  Obviously, it turned out that Herod and the Magi were the ones that
were instrumental in the fulfillment of the prophecy.

   >                                       Perhaps there was a purpose
   >to all of this that is far greater than you realize.

I can see that the fulfillment of this prophecy, and many others in connection
with Jesus, serves to prove that he was the promised Messiah.  Whether there
are other greater purposes, I don't know at this point.  If I wanted to find 
out, I would research it.  If I couldn't find anything on it, I wouldn't lose
any sleep trying to guess or speculate.  I'm sure Jehovah would reveal it if
we were supposed to know.

   >                                                      It sounds like
   >you don't have full trust in God.
    
If that's what it sounds like to you, then maybe you should get your hearing
checked.  ;^)


Steve

Re:  .20  Bob


>I think the Bible shows that God used people for his purposes even if those
>people weren't perfect (e.g. Moses, David, Peter, Paul...).

Moses, David, and Peter were not wilfully practicing things which were condemned
by Jehovah.  Paul was part of the lawless Pharisees, but he was specifically
selected by the resurrected Jesus to become an apostle, and when that happened,
he repented and followed Christ faithfully.  There's the difference between the
four men you named and the Magi.

>The Bible doesn't say that the star led the magi to Herod.  It lead them to
>Judea, so they went to Jerusalem, the chief city of Judea, and started
>asking around.

You're right, it didn't lead the Magi right up to Herod's door, but that's where
they wound up, isn't it?  And that certainly put the wheels in motion for Herod
to try to kill Jesus, didn't it?

>Is that the only reason why the magi would come to Judea, so that Jesus would
>be killed?

They went to Judea to find the one called King of the Jews.  They didn't go 
there with the intention of harming him.  However, somebody manipulated events
so that would be the result.  

>I didn't say that Jesus was making that claim.  Matthew was making that claim.

Then I misunderstood what you were saying, and I apologize.

>Why not?  Why was a rainbow used as a sign of God's covenant after the flood
>in Genesis?  Maybe to show that the heavens reflected the glory of God.

The rainbow was the sign of the covenant, but Scripture says that God spoke to
Noah.  How did He speak to Noah?  Likely, through one of His messengers, an  
angel.  Where was the angel in connection with the star?  Would God simply pro-
vide a star, without explaining anything, to men who were practicing something
He condemns, in order that they could be led into what would be an attempt to
kill His son?

>True, but the fact that it's the traditional interpretation means that the
>burden of proof is on you to show that the traditional interpretation is
>wrong.  So far you haven't done this.

You forgot to add IMO (In My Opinion), since that's what it is.

"Traditional" interpretation of these Scriptures is not a reasonable or logical
conclusion.  IMO.


Steve

    King David's murder of Uriah was a willfull practice of something that
    Yahweh condemned.  Yet both before and after that incident the Bible
    presents him as serving God's purposes.
    
    -- Mike

 RE: .24 Steve
    
   >I would think that if Herod's and the Magi's actions were prophesied,
   >then they were fulfilling God's plan.

>The prophecy didn't say who would kill the children, or how it would be accom-
>plished.  Obviously, it turned out that Herod and the Magi were the ones that
>were instrumental in the fulfillment of the prophecy.

    Right, I said the 'actions' were prophesied.  These people simply
    fulfilled the phophesy, hence fulfilling God's plan.
    
   >                                       Perhaps there was a purpose
   >to all of this that is far greater than you realize.

>I can see that the fulfillment of this prophecy, and many others in connection
>with Jesus, serves to prove that he was the promised Messiah.  
    
    Well, this seems like an important purpose.  So  the Magi played an
    important part in this 'proof'.  I can't see how you can justify
    your statement that they were being influenced by Satan if they were
    fulfilling God's prophesy.

    
  > >                                                      It sounds like
  > >you don't have full trust in God.
    
>If that's what it sounds like to you, then maybe you should get your hearing
>checked.  ;^)

  What you have shared so far is contradictory.  You have stated that you
    feel the Magi were doing Satan's will, where I just pointed out that
    they were fulfilling prophesy and God's purpose, and you seem to agree
    with that.  So, which belief do you hold about the Magi?  If you
    believe that they were doing Satan's will, then my observation still
    stands that you may not be giving God enough credit for setting this
    plan into motion exactly the way it needed to be.  If you believe that
    the Magi *were* fulfilling God's plan, then your statements about
    Satan are contradictory.  Just looking for clarification here, Steve
    about exactly what you are saying about these events.
    

    Carole

Re: .25 Steve

>You forgot to add IMO (In My Opinion), since that's what it is.

You mean the same way you forgot to add IMO when you wrote .5? :-)

				-- Bob

    re:  .28  Bob
    
    Touche'!
    
    Double :-)
    
    Steve

re:  .27  Carole


   >Right, I said the 'actions' were prophesied.  These people simply
   >fulfilled the phophesy, hence fulfilling God's plan.
    
Their specific actions were not prophesied, only the result of their actions.

   >Well, this seems like an important purpose.

Positive identification of the Messiah is extremely important, don't you agree?
Jehovah certainly thought it was, or He wouldn't have given us so many different
prophecies to enable us to do so.

   >                                             So  the Magi played an
   >important part in this 'proof'.  I can't see how you can justify
   >your statement that they were being influenced by Satan if they were
   >fulfilling God's prophesy.

The prophecy said that children would be killed after Jesus' birth.  It didn't
say that Jehovah *purposed* or *wanted* those children to die, it just fore-
told that they would.
    
 >What you have shared so far is contradictory.

No it isn't.  It just seems that way because you're looking at a small part of 
a big picture.  Don't you realize who has opposed God and has tried to thwart
His purposes from the beginning of mankind?  Don't you know who caused mankind
to rebel against Jehovah in the first place?  Why do you point to Jehovah as 
the cause of bad things that happen?  That's exactly what you're saying when 
you point to the killing of innocent children as part of God's plan.  Now 
*that's* contradictory.

   >                                             You have stated that you
   >feel the Magi were doing Satan's will,

Correct.  Because they were practicing something they weren't supposed to be
practicing (see Deut. 18:10-12, and Isa. 47:13-15), they became unwitting pawns
of Satan.  As astrologers, they were looking for signs in the stars, so Satan
supplied them with one.  They took it as a sign of the promised King of the
Jews they had heard about.  Would God supply the kind of sign that astrologers
would look for?  No.  For by doing so He would be taking part in something He
condemns.  The source of the star is obvious, especially in light of subsequent
events in connection with it.

   >                                       where I just pointed out that
   >they were fulfilling prophesy and God's purpose, and you seem to agree
   >with that.

I agree that they wound up being part of the fulfillment of prophecy.  I don't
agree that the killing of innocent children is God's purpose.

                So, which belief do you hold about the Magi?  If you
   >believe that they were doing Satan's will, then my observation still
   >stands that you may not be giving God enough credit for setting this
   >plan into motion exactly the way it needed to be.  If you believe that
   >the Magi *were* fulfilling God's plan, then your statements about
   >Satan are contradictory.  Just looking for clarification here, Steve
   >about exactly what you are saying about these events.

God declared His purpose for the earth at Genesis 1:28.  Humans were created
perfect, and they were to spread the Edenic paradise over the whole earth.  The
result would certainly glorify Jehovah.  Satan decided that he wanted that for
himself, and that's where all the trouble began.  He accused Jehovah of lying
to man, and told man that he didn't need God to rule him.  Jehovah is allowing
sufficient time for these issues to be settled.  He told Satan what would happen
when He gave the first prophecy listed in the Bible at Gen 3:15, which says:

          "And I shall put enmity between you and the woman
           and between your seed and her seed.  He will bruise
           you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel."

The death of the children after Jesus' birth was a direct result of an attempt
by Satan to "bruise him in the heel."  Jehovah simply foretold what Satan's
actions would cause, which also gives us one of the ways that we can use to
identify the Messiah.  After Satan is "bruised in the head" (destroyed), *then*
God's original purpose and plan for mankind will come to reach accomplishment.
All this trouble in the interim has it's source in Satan, and as a result of
that, part of Jehovah's plan now is to give mankind a way back to where we're
supposed to be.

Steve

    
    RE: .30 Steve
    
    I'll be replying in more detail to your note in a few days.  I'm
    at home today and using EDT over TSN takes forever.  Just want you
    to know 'I will be back'! ;^)
    
    Carole

   RE: .30 Steve
    

   >Right, I said the 'actions' were prophesied.  These people simply
   >fulfilled the phophesy, hence fulfilling God's plan.
    
>Their specific actions were not prophesied, only the result of their actions.

    Now I think you are playing with words.  The events were prophesied.
    Certain actions were taken by certain individuals to fulfill prophecy.
    Whose prophecy was it?  Was it from God?  If so, then Herod and the
    Magi fulfilled prophecy.  They were just 'doing their job', so to
    speak.
    
   >Well, this seems like an important purpose.

>Positive identification of the Messiah is extremely important, don't you agree?
>Jehovah certainly thought it was, or He wouldn't have given us so many different
>prophecies to enable us to do so.

    Here you answer my question above....the prophecies come from Jehovah.
    And again you confirm my statements - the fulfillment of the prophecy
    was important in God's plan.
    
   >                                             So  the Magi played an
   >important part in this 'proof'.  I can't see how you can justify
   >your statement that they were being influenced by Satan if they were
   >fulfilling God's prophesy.

>The prophecy said that children would be killed after Jesus' birth.  It didn't
>say that Jehovah *purposed* or *wanted* those children to die, it just fore-
>told that they would.
 
    Well, if the prophecy came from Jehovah and it was integral to the plan
    than the children were meant to die.   
 
    >What you have shared so far is contradictory.

>No it isn't.  
    
    Yes it is ;^) (imo)
    
    >It just seems that way because you're looking at a small part of 
>a big picture.  Don't you realize who has opposed God and has tried to thwart
>His purposes from the beginning of mankind?  Don't you know who caused mankind
>to rebel against Jehovah in the first place?  Why do you point to Jehovah as 
>the cause of bad things that happen?  That's exactly what you're saying when 
>you point to the killing of innocent children as part of God's plan.  Now 
>*that's* contradictory.

    Well, maybe I'm not looking at the picture the way *you* are.  I'm
    just asking questions based on what you have shared here and what
    seems to make common sense to me.  If the plan is Jehovah's and the
    prophecy came from Jehovah than the results must be Jehovah's.  
    Jehovah asked for equally distasteful things to be done at other
    times, which many Christians will say were valid (i.e. the destruction
    of whole cities and the killing of all occupants, including children).
    Why is this one so different?
    
   >                                             You have stated that you
   >feel the Magi were doing Satan's will,

>Correct.  Because they were practicing something they weren't supposed to be
>practicing (see Deut. 18:10-12, and Isa. 47:13-15), they became unwitting pawns
>of Satan.  As astrologers, they were looking for signs in the stars, so Satan
>supplied them with one.  They took it as a sign of the promised King of the
>Jews they had heard about.  Would God supply the kind of sign that astrologers
>would look for?  No.  For by doing so He would be taking part in something He
>condemns.  The source of the star is obvious, especially in light of subsequent
>events in connection with it.

    But this is an integral part of the plan.  Didn't the star lead them to
    where they needed to be so that the plan would unfold as it needed to?
    
   >                                       where I just pointed out that
   >they were fulfilling prophesy and God's purpose, and you seem to agree
   >with that.

>I agree that they wound up being part of the fulfillment of prophecy.  I don't
>agree that the killing of innocent children is God's purpose.

    As I mention above, there are other places in the Bible where this
    is done under God's command.
               

    Carole
    

re:  .32  Carole
    
   >Now I think you are playing with words.  The events were prophesied.

What I think is that you're not using the Bible to come to your conclusions.
Read Jeremiah 31:15 and tell me what events were prophesied.  Then compare that
to Matthew 2:17, 18.  

   >Certain actions were taken by certain individuals to fulfill prophecy.
   >Whose prophecy was it?  Was it from God?  If so, then Herod and the
   >Magi fulfilled prophecy.  They were just 'doing their job', so to
   >speak.
    
The prophecy simply *predicted* the result.  The question is, who *caused* the
result?   

   >Well, if the prophecy came from Jehovah and it was integral to the plan
   >than the children were meant to die.   

Just because Jehovah knew it would happen that way, doesn't mean that He would
be the cause of it.  He just knew that circumstances would lead to its happen-
ing.  Let me use an example.  A meteorologist can predict the formation of a
hurricane by looking for certain weather conditions.  That doesn't mean he 
causes the hurricane, or even wants it to happen.  

   >Well, maybe I'm not looking at the picture the way *you* are.  I'm
   >just asking questions based on what you have shared here and what
   >seems to make common sense to me.  If the plan is Jehovah's and the
   >prophecy came from Jehovah than the results must be Jehovah's.  

Here's where the problem is.  You think that Jehovah has planned every event
down to the smallest detail.  From Satan's first lie, mankind's fall from per-
fection, Cain's murder of Abel, etc., all of it is God's plan; everything is
predetermined, foreordained, carved in stone.  That's called fate, and fatalism
is not a Bible teaching.  You seem to forget that Jehovah gave spirit beings
and humans free will, and that the exercising of free will shapes a lot of the
events that occur.

   >Jehovah asked for equally distasteful things to be done at other
   >times, which many Christians will say were valid (i.e. the destruction
   >of whole cities and the killing of all occupants, including children).
   >Why is this one so different?

Totally different circumstances.  You have to look at the situation that caused
Jehovah to pass those judgements on those cities and peoples.  Usually, they
were involved in things that were gross abominations, and they were unrepentant.

   >But this is an integral part of the plan.  Didn't the star lead them to
   >where they needed to be so that the plan would unfold as it needed to?
    
You're just bound and determined to try to show that Jehovah would use astrology
and fate to accomplish His purposes.  Why would you want to show astrology in
such a favorable light?  Are you an astrologer or something similar?


Steve

    
  RE: .33 Steve
        
   >>Now I think you are playing with words.  The events were prophesied.

>What I think is that you're not using the Bible to come to your conclusions.
    
    You are right.  I don't use the Bible to come to my conclusions.  I am
    only dealing with what you are writing here and what other Christians
    have shared.
    
    If the events were prophesied, they were prophesied.  I'm taking your
    word for this here.  What I am attempting to do is to get a larger
    picture of what we have been discussing here.  I am trying to get to
    the context, but we are getting stuck in the content.
    
   >>Certain actions were taken by certain individuals to fulfill prophecy.
   >>Whose prophecy was it?  Was it from God?  If so, then Herod and the
   >>Magi fulfilled prophecy.  They were just 'doing their job', so to
   >>speak.
    
>The prophecy simply *predicted* the result.  The question is, who *caused* the
>result?   

    And what I keep raising is....wasn't the result necessary to fulfill
    God's plan?
   
    >>Well, if the prophecy came from Jehovah and it was integral to the plan
   >>than the children were meant to die.   

>Just because Jehovah knew it would happen that way, doesn't mean that He would
>be the cause of it.  He just knew that circumstances would lead to its happen-
>ing.  Let me use an example.  A meteorologist can predict the formation of a
>hurricane by looking for certain weather conditions.  That doesn't mean he 
>causes the hurricane, or even wants it to happen.  

    Jehovah didn't just know it would happen that way....it *had* to happen
    that way to fulfill the plan.  At least that's the way it looks to me
    based on what has been written in this note string.
    
    Is a meteorologist equal to Jehovah/God?  Now, if it were Jehovah/God
    doing the hurricane prediction, I would say that Jehovah/God could very
    well be cause, too.
    
   >>Well, maybe I'm not looking at the picture the way *you* are.  I'm
   >>just asking questions based on what you have shared here and what
   >>seems to make common sense to me.  If the plan is Jehovah's and the
   >>prophecy came from Jehovah than the results must be Jehovah's.  

>Here's where the problem is.  You think that Jehovah has planned every event
>down to the smallest detail.  From Satan's first lie, mankind's fall from per-
>fection, Cain's murder of Abel, etc., all of it is God's plan; everything is
>predetermined, foreordained, carved in stone.  That's called fate, and fatalism
>is not a Bible teaching.  You seem to forget that Jehovah gave spirit beings
>and humans free will, and that the exercising of free will shapes a lot of the
>events that occur.

    Steve, I'm just asking questions based on what *you* have said.  I
    don't really read the Bible, and I don't *believe* that God plans
    things down to the smallest detail.  You are the one who has brought
    up God's plan and Jehovah's prophecy.
    
   >>Jehovah asked for equally distasteful things to be done at other
   >>times, which many Christians will say were valid (i.e. the destruction
   >>of whole cities and the killing of all occupants, including children).
   >>Why is this one so different?

>Totally different circumstances.  You have to look at the situation that caused
>Jehovah to pass those judgements on those cities and peoples.  Usually, they
>were involved in things that were gross abominations, and they were 
    >unrepentant.

    Hmmm....this is where I see contradiction.  Why would babies be
    innocent in one scenario and not innocent in another?
    
   >>But this is an integral part of the plan.  Didn't the star lead them to
   >>where they needed to be so that the plan would unfold as it needed to?
    
>You're just bound and determined to try to show that Jehovah would use astrology
>and fate to accomplish His purposes.  Why would you want to show astrology in
>such a favorable light?  Are you an astrologer or something similar?

    And you are just bound and determined to show that Jehovah didn't! ;^)
    
    What I have been trying to do in this exchange is to point out how
    inconsistent some of these interpretations and beliefs are.  I don't
    necessarily buy the Biblical story in the first place.  I just trying
    to point out certain inconsistencies that come across glaringly to me
    in what you have shared in this note string.
    
    I hold very different interpretations of some Biblical passages than
    you do.  I hold astrology in a much different light than you do, and
    do so very comfortably.  However, I am not addressing astrology 
    specifically in this exchange.  This is where I see you getting caught
    up in the detail and missing the context.  The tool used could have been 
    anything, and I would still be asking these same questions of you.

    This exchange has been very interesting Steve, and I appreciate the
    time you've taken to share your views.  If you would like to continue,
    I will also as time permits.  However, it doesn't seem like we are
    getting much closer to clarity, does it?
    
    Carole
    

re:  .34  Carole    
    
   >You are right.  I don't use the Bible to come to my conclusions.

   >I
   >don't really read the Bible, 
    
   >I hold very different interpretations of some Biblical passages than
   >you do.

I'm wondering how you can interpret something you don't read. 

   >         I hold astrology in a much different light than you do, and
   >do so very comfortably. 

Yes, I know, and I'm sorry to hear it.  You would benefit much more by study-
ing the Bible, rather than astrology.

   >                                        If you would like to continue,
   >I will also as time permits.  However, it doesn't seem like we are
   >getting much closer to clarity, does it?

Sometimes it's difficult to achieve understanding in this medium (notes).


Steve
    

    
    Ok Steve, then we can just let this exchange fall into the "notes
    purgatory" until it raises it's head again....which most unfinished
    things do! ;^)
    
    Carole