Thank you for the card and study.
When I was a teacher at Oostburg, Wisc, and involved with the
Evangelical Free Church at Sheboygan, we came across an article in
Christianity Today (around 1964?) about the Star. I was very excited
about it for years, thereafter. It pointed out many things that were
just too good to discard. I have since had some serious problems with
the conclusion I had accepted, and had all but abandoned it up till
That conclusion was the belief that the "Star" that caused the magi to
come to Jerusalem was the triple conjunction of Mars, Jupiter, and
Saturn in the constellation Pisces, in 7 BC, at the time of the Feast
of Tabernacles. The view that you well present on the 2nd page of your
study you sent me.
The killer thing that caused me to abandon it was the discovery that
the idea of Herod's death in 4 BC (stated by the commentators as one
of the most certain secular dates to correlate Scripture by!) is
false; Herod died some years later than that --- probably at least as
late as 1 or 2 AD.
I had also always had another problem with the 7 BC date: and that is
the statement in Luke 3:23, that the Lord was about 30 years of age in
what would be 29-30 AD. That would seem to place His birth around 1 -
3 BC, which agrees with most of the ancient authorities, including
Eusebius, and others he cites. =20
However, that word "about," in Luke 3:23 (KJV), is a VERY vague word,
something like "He began to be something like 30 years of age." Alford
and others state that hosei allows for very great latitude, on the
plus side, but not much on the negative side. So Luke 3:23 didn't
bother me too much, even though 7 BC would call for a stretch of 6
years, which did seem a bit much. Besides, the difficulty with Luke
3:23 remains anyway, regardless of when you place the Star, if
Herod's death was as early as 4 BC --- since that inescapably demands,
it appears, that the Lord was at least 36 years old at the time of
Luke 3:23. Moving Herod's death date later ALLOWS the Lord to be
younger, then, but does not demand it, as I was thinking.
But believing the commentators' claim that Herod's death was in 4 BC
DEMANDED that our Lord be born no later than 6 BC at the latest, since
He had to be born 2 years before Herod murdered the Bethlehem boys
(Matthew 2:16). And further, Herod had to have still lived some time
even beyond that, in order to allow for the flight of the Family into
Egypt and return, after Herod's death. If Herod actually died in 4
BC, that would make even 7 BC appear to be somewhat late for the
Which, of course, is additional evidence that Herod DID NOT die as
early as 4 BC! The whole idea that he did was founded on what turned
out to be almost certainly a misreading of Josephus, for which Jack
Finegan gives great evidence in "Handbook of Biblical Chronology."
That error amounted to a 2 year later date. Josephus himself, as well
as the errors in reading him, could very probably be in doubt.
Now, recently, I am returning to the 7 BC notion, since a later death
date for Herod actually helps the view rather than hurts it, as above.
Bumping Herod's death date up the 2 years doesn't help the problem
with Luke 3:23 that much; the Lord would still be born at the latest
about 5 BC, and would thus be 35 years old at Luke 3:23, which was
about 29 AD. =20
And the triple conjunction in Pisces at the Feast of Tabernacles in
that year, as I said above, just has too many great things going for
it to discard it:
1. Summarizing the above, whatever is the date of Herod's death
actually is isn't really pertinent, so long as that date is at least
as late as 1 AD. Because, as above, we don't know how long the Family
had to stay in Egypt, till he died. Most likely it was a matter of
years. (It's strange, that when they returned, the fact that they
"went to Nazareth, a town in Galilee" worded as though they had never
been there before, although of course Nazareth was their original home
--- there is something here, although I don't yet see what it is).
2. A date that IS certain, since it is both Scripturally and
astronomically based (rather than on the fickle writings of the
secular ancients), is that the Lord's Crucifixion was on Friday,=20
April 3 (Nisan 14), AD 33.
Because this date is the result of Exodus 12:3,6, and Leviticus 23:11,
coupled with the "70 Weeks Prophecy" of Daniel 9:25-26, and because
that date is evidenced by Astronomy for the year 33 AD.
3. And another date, following as a consequence of this date, is
that His ministry began before 3 Passovers prior to that, according to
John's Gospel. Therefore, His ministry began most likely in 29 AD, or
at least, before the Passover of 30 AD.
4. Agreeing with #2 and #3 above is the fact that Luke 3:1 tells
us that the Lord's ministry was introduced "in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius Caesar." Every Scripture is profitable! --- 2 Tim. 3:16.
Tiberius' reign began in 14 AD, which again places the beginning of
the Lord's 3 =BD year ministry at probably 29 AD.
5. Your section entitled "Johannes Kepler and Planetary
Conjunctions" is excellent, and includes many of the points I am
listing here, from the Christianity Today article. It even answers
some of the questions I had had on it (see below). But like you, I
became cold toward it, as per your last paragraph in that section. Are
we not "throwing the baby out with the wash" as the saying goes?
(I have a problem with one of your statements, however, to the effect
that Dionysius Exiguus had caused an exactly 7 year error. How can
Dionysius' error affect the 7 BC date, without affecting all the other
dates likewise, thus leaving us right back where we started?? Or can
it? IOW, what that "error" does to all the above dates under
discussion: 14 AD, 4 BC, 33 AD, etc. For example, if that error moves
the 7 BC date up to 1 AD, what does it then do the 14 AD date of
Tiberius' reign? Dionysius' error can't affect dates we calculate by
the Gregorian calendar, or Julian, whichever is used. I'd like to
have a deeper study on this if you can point me to it. At the moment,
I tend to distrust the statement about Dionysius' "exactly 7 year
error." Interested in the source of that. But if true, I LOVE it in
one way --- it totally eliminates the Luke 3:23 problem!!! And maybe
THAT fact means it IS true!)
(You did a GREAT work on Custer, etc. How much more valuable is work
on THIS subject!)
6. One of the questions your discussion helped me with was
regarding one of the objections I had read about the conjunction, from
Jack Finegan's "Handbook of Biblical Chronlolgy." He stated that
Saturn would have been a no-no for the magi's acceptance of the event.
You directly contradict him, to my joy, with your statement about
Saturn being, to the ancients, the "protecting power of Israel." So
the question left there is "which of you (you or Finegan) can I
7. Matthew 2:9 would seem to be a problem with the conjunction
interpretation, but only if we are thinking atheistically! (as we too
often commonly do). Matthew 2:9 is without question an outright
miracle, with no natural explanation whatsoever. AND, Matthew 2:9 was
NOT A STAR, as we know a star, today. Can God not make a replica
for an occasion, as He specially made a sea monster to swallow Jonah?
The "Star" of Matthew 2:9 certainly seems to be an absolute miracle
(that is, specially done by God, as was the "fish" of Jonah). But
does that prove the "star" which the magi first saw was also? Is the
star of Matthew 2:9 an identity with the "star" 2 years before? It
hardly could be, IMO. How could the magi refer to a specially made
creation of God for the occasion as "His Star?" I think the star of
Matt. 2:9 was a supernatural replica of the star of His birth. (Ever
notice how "far away" a rainbow is? That is, until you notice that
you can see the bottom of it between you and a bush 25 feet away! That
reminds me of the star of Matthew 2:9) Scripture most often presents
things AS THEY APPEAR TO OBSERVATION, just as we do today ("the sun
rises," etc). The Bible authors knew as well as we do, that a star 4
light years away doesn't guide anyone to a particular house. But the
star that God makes in Matt. 2:9 does.
Begging your pardon, here, but there is are several gross errors of
presumption, here, which Dr. Morris, and the vast majority of the
commentators make, and you follow also, even after you yourself
refuted them! In Dr. Morris' words, for example, "However, as they
left Herod to go to Bethlehem [please see Endnote 1 --- they almost
certainly DID NOT GO TO BETHLEHEM!], they suddenly saw at again, and
rejoiced, for it was standing directly over Bethlehem" (Defenders'
Study Bible, at Mt. 2:10), and your words, quoting Richard Niessen,
"The star changed directions when it reappeared [totally unfounded
statement, as is all the rest of the quote]. Previously it had led the
magi [it MOST EMPHATICALLY HAD NOT! it was not even in the sky while
they were traveling --- Matthew 2:16, eg] west [but they had seen it
in the East --- lit, "toward the rising"] to Jerusalem.
8. The talk about their being equivalent to Persian kings I also
regard as weak, to say the least, and completely misleading, and
beside the whole point of the story. Their origin and faith was first
and foremost from the event of Daniel 2, in Babylon. Why not simply
accept the explanation God gives, in Daniel 2? Instead of bringing in
all the extra unnecessary, meaningless, and distracting "scholarship?"
("Occam's Rasor") The "Star" they knew of was not a Prophecy of the OT
Scriptures; they certainly didn't learn anything of the sort from "the
Jews," or from Mordecai and Esther [Please see Endnote 2], nor was it
any part of their own religion. What the magi learned about the Star
they learned SOLELY DIRECTLY FROM Daniel, and from Daniel ALONE, as
far as we know. Thus what we know of Zoroastrianism, or anything of
the like, becomes more or less irrelevant also. All we NEED to know
of those magi is what God tells us of them; and that is MORE than all
we need! (I made the same mistake myself, when I bought into Finegan's
statement that Saturn's presence in the conjunction would have turned
the magi off. That is a total unknown, like all the rest of the added
"scholarship" on the matter!)
9. I would be very cautious about "Biblical Numerology." I think
people such as Panin and Dr. Bullinger and Dr. Missler go too far with
it. But on the other hand, there is much to it that is unmistakeable.
The sixes (man's works, incompleteness), sevens (God's works,
completeness), eights (Christ and resurrection), threes (unity),
fours, twelves, etc, occur with obvious meanings. =20
In particular is the number forty. It always points to testing of man,
or of the world. Thus the flood rains were forty days and forty
nights, the Lord (the Son of Man) was tested 40 days in the
wilderness, the Israelites were tested 40 years in the wilderness,
etc. If Christ was born in 7 BC (on the Feast of Tabernacles, about
September 29), and He WAS "cut off" on Passover, AD 33, then He was
"cut off" (Daniel 9:26) just short of His expected 40 year testing as
Son of Man.
ENDNOTE 1 ---> The first presumption is that the magi "left
Jerusalem." That is not stated anywhere, nor is it in any way known,
except that there is some likelihood that Jerusalem could be where
they found Him, as we'll see shortly. This was, of course, TWO YEARS
AFTER CHRIST WAS BORN, IN BETHLEHEM (see the next discussion about
Bethlehem). Naturally speaking, there are two likely places the
Family (Joseph wasn't with the Family, when they found Him --- Matt.
2:11; although he was yet living, Luke 2:48) would have been when the
magi found them, and Bethlehem is definitely not one of those places.
Luke 2:41 tells us that each year the Family travelled the 80 miles to
Jerusalem for the Passover celebration. If the magi visit fell on one
of those occasions, then they would have found Him at or near
Even though Bethlehem was very near Jerusalem, it is evident that they
would NOT be there. This is evident from facts about the Nativity
story, 2 years earlier. Why were they in Bethlehem, then? Well, of
course, that's because Bethlehem was where they HAD to go: it was to
fufill their obligation for the census that Caesar Augustus' decree
demanded. Joseph, being of the family of David, was required to
register in Bethlehem, David's city. There was only one other reason
they would have been in Bethlehem then, which they also had no control
over. (Why was that? --- you can find the answer in Matthew 2:5! But
be careful; there is a trick or two here!)
Now why would Bethlehem NOT be where the Family would be when the magi
came (or ever again, for that matter!)? It is evident that they had
no relatives or place to stay in Bethlehem. When they came to
Bethlehem when the Lord was born, that is why we read, "they found no
room for them in the inn." And why they ended up spending the night
in the stable. The inn was the first and only place they looked, to
find lodging. In those days, if you had relatives, they were the
first place you would go to stay. (not stay away from, as today!).
Likewise, they also didn't even have any friends or acquaintances in
Bethlehem. They had nothing whatsoever, and no reason to go there.
But the magi found Him IN A HOUSE, when they came.
The only other likely place they would find them would be in their
home town of Nazareth. Nazareth was in Galilee; and the Family would
be subject to danger from Herod there, as well as in Jerusalem. =20
ENDNOTE 2 ---> In fact, one of the main things the Book of Esther is
about is that the Jews in Persia had completely forgotten God,
including even its heroes Mordecai and Esther. They lived completely
in an attitude of effective atheism, including Mordecai and Esther!
Not only is God never named in the Book, He is never once even
considered, relative to their problems. Notice ch. 4:14-17. Where do
you find any prayer, faith, or thanksgiving toward Him? You should be
able to count the number of occurrences on one of your fingers.
"These things were written for our instruction." What kind of a trail
of faith have WE left, in our path through this world, to which Christ
has sent us as His ambassadors? But HE is faithful, regardless, as we
can see His hand everywhere through the Book of Esther (eg, why the
king couldn't sleep that particular night . . . In other Books, we
would find, instead, "Now, God caused the king's sleep to go from him
A Seminary course could be developed around this point.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
...a lot of food for thought! At this point I have only a few things
to comment on:
> Dear Tommy and Sue
> Thank you for the card and study.
> That conclusion was the belief that the "Star" that caused the magi to
> come to Jerusalem was the triple conjunction of Mars, Jupiter, and
> Saturn in the constellation Pisces, in 7 BC, at the time of the Feast
> of Tabernacles. The view that you well present on the 2nd page of your
> study you sent me.
> The killer thing that caused me to abandon it was the discovery that
> the idea of Herod's death in 4 BC (stated by the commentators as one
> of the most certain secular dates to correlate Scripture by!) is
> false; Herod died some years later than that --- probably at least as
> late as 1 or 2 AD.
What's the basis for this statement?
> =A0If =A0Herod actually died in 4
> BC, that would make even 7 BC appear to be somewhat late for the
> Nativity date.
> Which, of course, is additional evidence that Herod DID NOT die as
> early as 4 BC! =A0The whole idea that he did was founded on what turned
> out to be almost certainly a misreading of Josephus, for which Jack
> Finegan gives great evidence in "Handbook of Biblical Chronology."
> That error amounted to a 2 year later date.
I once attended a planetarium show that said that an eclipse of 2 BC
had been overlooked and Herod's death may have been erroneously
associated with an eclipse two years earlier. Is that what Finegan
> Now, recently, I am returning to the 7 BC notion, since a later death
> date for Herod actually helps the view rather than hurts it, as above.
> Bumping Herod's death date up the 2 years doesn't help the problem
> with Luke 3:23 that much; the Lord would still be born at the latest
> about 5 BC,
Why three years in Egypt? Why not just one?...
>=A0Because, as above, we don't know how long the Family
> had to stay in Egypt, till he died. =A0Most likely it was a matter of
> 2. =A0 =A0 =A0A date that IS certain, since it is both Scripturally and
> astronomically based (rather than on the fickle writings of the
> secular ancients), is that the Lord's Crucifixion was on Friday,=3D20
> April 3 (Nisan 14), AD 33.
> Because this date is the result of Exodus 12:3,6, and Leviticus 23:11,
> coupled with the "70 Weeks Prophecy" of Daniel 9:25-26,
I'm skeptical about this being a scriptural basis for such a firm
conclusion as "AD 33". What's the reasoning behind it?
> and because
> that date is evidenced by Astronomy for the year 33 AD.
To what astronomical event does this refer?
>Why three years in Egypt? Why not just one?...
No proof, of course. But, "Why not three years in Egypt? Why just
One thing that strikes me as strange, and it may bear on this issue,
is the statement of Scripture that the Family on their return, came to
"Nazareth, a city in Galilee," there they made their (new) home.
It is very clear that Nazareth is exactly where they were living
before, when they had to respond to Caesar Augustus' decree to visit
Bethlehem in Judaea.
So why would God use the above wording, sounding strangely as if they
had never been there before?
One answer seems to be that God is hinting a very long time had
(And likely, as I posted, Nazareth is exactly where the Magi found the
Christ Died to Save You
>> Because this date is the result of Exodus 12:3,6, and Leviticus 23:11,
>> coupled with the "70 Weeks Prophecy" of Daniel 9:25-26,
>I'm skeptical about this being a scriptural basis for such a firm
>conclusion as "AD 33". What's the reasoning behind it?
I believe that the Feasts and other ceremonies God instituted
constituted Prophecies focussed on actual dates regarding Christ. For
example, Exodus 12 was Prophetic of "Christ our Passover" (1 Cor.
15:23). The Passover thus was so important that God initiated a whole
new calendar for it. Similarly, regarding the Feast of Tabernacles, I
find it very difficult to abandon the very evident idea that it was
Prophetic of either Christ's Birth ("and the Word became flesh, and
tabernacled among us" --- John 1:14, and other similar passages)
around September 29, or His Conception.
In Exodus 12:3 is the selection of the Passover lamb that was to be
slain for the salvation of Believers, to be selected on Abib (Nisan)
10. The "Seventy Weeks Prophecy" (the first 69 weeks of Daniel 9:25)
points to Monday, March 30 (Nisan 10), AD 33 as the day "Messiah the
Prince" would arrive in Jerusalem that final week, four days before He
was "cut off" (crucified) on Friday (Nisan 14).
The latter date, Nisan 14, is of course the date the Passover lamb was
to be slain, according to Exodus 12:6 --- and further, it was to be
done in the evening of that day. It was in evening that Christ died,
and thus was slain --- at the ninth hour, with the lifting of the
>> and because
>> that date is evidenced by Astronomy for the year 33 AD.
>To what astronomical event does this refer?
This is not an astronomical "event," but rather from the following
astronomical calculations of on what day of the week Nisan 14 would
fall, in the spectrum of reasonable years for the Crucifixion, (from a
chart given in Finegan's "Handbook of Biblical Chronology.":
AD 27 Nisan 14 fell on Thur. Apr 10
28 Tue Mar 31
29 Mon Apr 19
30 Fri Apr 7
31 Tue Mar 27
32 Mon Apr 14
33 **** Fri Apr 3 *******
34 Wed Mar 25
In Sir Robert Anderson's "The Coming Prince," he calculated the 32 AD
date, which I followed for many years, as do many commentators today.
Dr. Harold Hoehner, in "Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ"
corrects a fundamental error Anderson had made "because of information
Anderson could not have known at the time," about the key date of the
reckoning of the ascension of Artaxerxes Longimanus. This resulted in
the date for the start of the Seventy Weeks as 444 BC, instead of 445
BC, with the consequent completion of Daniel 9:25 in 33 AD instead of
Anderson's 32 BC. Dr. Hoehner also remarks, "Anderson had to do some
mathematical gymnastics to arrive at a Friday Crucifixion" (see above
chart). With Dr. Hoehner's correction everything works out precisely
to the exact date, day of the week, and answers every problem.
Let me briefly give a simplification of the calculations:
Daniel 9:25 states the Prophecy begins with "the command to restore
and rebuild Jerusalem." There is only one event that fits this
condition, and it is NOT any decree of Cyrus, but the event in
Nehemiah 2:1-8, which occurred just a bit less than 100 years after
Daniel's Prophecy was given.
Nehemiah 2:1 "In the 20th year of Artaxerxes the king . . ." As
above, as Dr. Hoehner at length concludes, Artaxerxes ascended in BC
424, making this passage 444 BC.
The verse further gives, "in the month Nisan." The day of the month
in Nisan is not stated; but Dr. Hohner gives some reasons why this
would mean Nisan 1, which would mean our Julian (? --- I have some
question about "Julian," but it is not significant to this, really in
the slightest) March 5, 444 BC.
The Nehemiah chapter goes on to give Artaxerxes' approval, along with
supporting letters, for Nehemiah to depart for the task of rebuilding
the wall and Jerusalem. Date as above.
Now, Daniel (or rather the Angel) stated that from this date, there
would be "69 sevens" unto Messiah the Prince (KJV, which there's no
good reason to contradict, here, other than unbelief).
"sevens of what?" This is debated, and many thoughtlessly assume
sevens of years. For now, I haven't time to go into all the proof,
but it is that they are time blocks of 360 days. "Years" are close to
this, but no cigar! We are talking absolute precision here, to come
out to the exact day, over a period of more than 450 years. (There is
evidence that before the Flood, a solar year WAS exactly 360 days, in
fact --- one such evidence is from Genesis 7, where we learn that a
period of five months was 150 days, exaclty! --- Apparently something
caused the earth's orbit speed to slow down slightly, with the Flood)
So, the angel stated that from the commandment in Nehemiah 2, given
March 5, 444 BC, there would be 69X7X360 days (or 173,880 days) until
Messiah Prince would arrive in Jerusalem (which would also be the same
day in which the Lamb prophesied in Exodus 12:3 would be selected, a
Now with our Windows calculator, let's bring in the fact that a mean
solar year is about 365.242198 days. We will use this to see just
where that 173,880 days actually comes out, Julian (?) date-wise.
So, dividing 173,880 days by 365.242198 days per mean solar year,
we get that the time span the Angel Prophesied is 476.068 years.
So what is the date resulting 476.068 years after March 5, BC 444?
>From March 5, BC 444 to March 5, AD 1 is 444 msy.
That leaves 476.068 - 444 = 32.068 msy beyond yet to go.
32 years after March 5, AD 1 brings us to March 5, AD 33, with
..068 years to go.
..068 mean solar years X 365.242198 days per year = 25 days.
25 days after March 5, AD 33 brings us to --- TA-DA!!!
*March 30, AD 33 as the date of the arrival of Messiah.*
This turned out to be Monday, and Nisan 10, as shown above.
And the Prophecy turned out to be exact-day precision, out of a span
of over 476 mean solar years.
Just another interesting point that well agrees with this, from Luke
3:1. There it is implied that the Lord's ministry began in the
fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. Since Tiberius ascended the throne
(Roman reckoning) in 14 AD, that would mean that the Lord's ministry
began in 29-30 AD.
Now John's Gospel apparently indicates that the Lord's ministry
included 4 Passovers, the last of which, of course, He WAS the
Passover for us. These 4 Passovers would occupy somewhat over 3
years, depending on how long His ministry had begun before the first
of these Passovers. That means, totally independent of the Seventy
Weeks calculations above, that He was crucified in 33 AD, agreeing
with the Seventy Weeks Prophecy. And by Astronomy, as above, it
results to the precise day, again, of Friday, Nisan 14, AD 33.
One last interesting point: the otherwise inexplicable behavior of
Pilate during the trial further verifies the above.
Pilate, as is well known, was strongly anti-semite. So was his
political mentor, a man named Sejanus. They were more or less
partners in antisemitism. That is, until shortly after 30 AD.
There is no way in Tartarus that Pilate would have cow-towed to the
Jews as he did for the crucifixion much before 33 AD, as he did do
then. Letting the Jews get him out of bed for a kangaroo murder court
at 6 am?? And going along with them to murder a man with Whom he
could find no fault? IMO, Pilate DID have some "scruples," in his own
way, and believed at least in some kind of justice.
But something happened to change all that just prior to 33 AD.
Tiberius deposed, and executed Pilate's mentor, Sejanus. That left
Pilate suddenly out on a creaky limb over political hell.
Anti-semitism was perhaps an issue with Tiberius, at the moment.
And Pilate wasn't about to dare the Jews to tell Tiberius that he was
no friend of his, as they threatened to do.
Christ Died to Save You
>I once attended a planetarium show that said that an eclipse of 2 BC
>had been overlooked and Herod's death may have been erroneously
>associated with an eclipse two years earlier. Is that what Finegan
Finegan does refer to that, at quite length in other places.
But the argument that impressed me was the discovery that Josephus, on
whom the accepted 4 BC date had been based, had almost certainly been
mis-read. And this mis-reading (something like 22 in place of 20 --- I
don't remember; again that wasn't important) resulted in the 4 BC date
being at least 2 years too early --- maybe more.
Also, all the ancient authorities, some cited by Eusebius, seem to
place the Lord's birth 1-3 BC, which, again, must place Herod's death
correspondingly later than those dates by two or three more years, at
But the strength of those "authorities," and Josephus too, can be very
Christ Died to Save You
>Artaxerxes ascended in BC
>424, making this passage 444 BC.
Sorry; this should read 464 BC instead of 424 BC, of course.
I think that the important thing about Jesus' star, was that it was in
the east. That means that it was a rising star. Indicating that his
leadership was on the rise (increasing in power).
>I think that the important thing about Jesus' star, was that it was in
>the east. That means that it was a rising star. Indicating that his
>leadership was on the rise (increasing in power).
AT Robertson says "This does not mean that they saw the star which was
in the east. That would make them go east to follow it instead of west
from the east.
AT Robertson may be "the Greek Authority," but he's a bit short here
as a thinker. You are right on this point (where the star was when
they saw it (some variations have as "to the rising," for "in the
east"), and he is wrong. (However, your following conclusion seems to
me to be based on air. He came to die: be "cut off," and the time
when He will reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords awaits the close
of the present Mystery, and the end of the Great Tribulation shortly
to follow that.)
Because he is assuming, contrary to the Scripturally stated other
facts, that they were "following the star." Which of course they were
not in view of the fact that they went to Jerusalem to inquire, and
because Herod had to carefully ask when they had seen the star, which
the context shows the answer was about two years ago: it was not even
in the sky while they were travelling to Jerusalem.
Christ Died to Save You
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))