Shepherds, Manger, Baby - Wisemen, House, Child?

[biblical]

Every year around Christmas there are real or imagined media reports that Christmas is under attack, but as Christians aren't we also hurting ourselves and our credibility, when year after year, we continue to misrepresent the Biblical record of the birth of Jesus Christ?

Luke 2:16 - So, they (the shepherds) hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the Baby(Jesus) who was lying in the manger....

According to the Biblical record, only the shepherds visited Jesus as a baby in the manger. The wisemen never ever visited Jesus as a baby in the manger, and the wisemen and the shepherds never met.

Matthew 2:11 - And on going into the house, they (the wisemen) saw the Child(Jesus) with Mary His mother.....Then opening their treasure bags, they presented to Him gifts - ......

The wisemen visited Jesus as a child at the house, when He was no longer a Baby and had long left the manger.

There is a common tendency to portray or depict the wisemen visiting the manger or to show both the shepherds and the wisemen visiting the manger together , both of which are contrary to the Biblical record.
Some may consider this a minor issue or something of no consequence, but how can we as Christians complain that Christmas is under attack, when we can't even get the Christmas story right?
Happy Christmas!

Salvation

 

[Chuckt]

Every year around Christmas there are real or imagined media reports that Christmas is under attack, but as Christians aren't we also hurting ourselves and our credibility, when year after year, we continue to misrepresent the Biblical record of the birth of Jesus Christ?

Luke 2:16 - So, they (the shepherds) hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the Baby(Jesus) who was lying in the manger....

According to the Biblical record, only the shepherds visited Jesus as a baby in the manger. The wisemen never ever visited Jesus as a baby in the manger, and the wisemen and the shepherds never met.

Matthew 2:11 - And on going into the house, they (the wisemen) saw the Child(Jesus) with Mary His mother.....Then opening their treasure bags, they presented to Him gifts - ......

The wisemen visited Jesus as a child at the house, when He was no longer a Baby and had long left the manger.

There is a common tendency to portray or depict the wisemen visiting the manger or to show both the shepherds and the wisemen visiting the manger together , both of which are contrary to the Biblical record.
Some may consider this a minor issue or something of no consequence, but how can we as Christians complain that Christmas is under attack, when we can't even get the Christmas story right?
Happy Christmas!

Salvation

The Christians are just reading the Bible.
Luke 2 doesn't talk about the wise men. Matthew 2 does but refers to Jesus as a young child.
A young child can refer to an infant.

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

When combining the stories, we don't know for sure how much time has passed but even at six months, He would still be very much an infant. The story is put together for brevity from combining the two passages.

Your point is very minor and your theology may not be more correct than anyone else's because no one knows everything and the only ones who calculated when the star would show up are Daniel's disciples.

 

[Chuckt]

Some may consider this a minor issue or something of no consequence, but how can we as Christians complain that Christmas is under attack, when we can't even get the Christmas story right?
Happy Christmas!

Salvation

(1) We can complain because we are not attacking Christmas.
(2) People don't reject Christmas because of a minor disagreement but because they love darkness and won't come to the light:

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

(3) They are excuses. Unless a man is born again, He will not see the kingdom of God.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

No one rejects Jesus based on a minor point. They reject Jesus because they love darkness rather than light and the excuses come after.

 

[HenryBHough]

Ah, The Magi!

The singular of "magi" is "magus".

Meaning "magician".

Stack that up with the popular "wise men" concept and then try to square that with gender equality.

Enough right there to keep your average liberal pondering until about January 3rd.

 

[biblical]

Every year around Christmas there are real or imagined media reports that Christmas is under attack, but as Christians aren't we also hurting ourselves and our credibility, when year after year, we continue to misrepresent the Biblical record of the birth of Jesus Christ?

Luke 2:16 - So, they (the shepherds) hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the Baby(Jesus) who was lying in the manger....

According to the Biblical record, only the shepherds visited Jesus as a baby in the manger. The wisemen never ever visited Jesus as a baby in the manger, and the wisemen and the shepherds never met.

Matthew 2:11 - And on going into the house, they (the wisemen) saw the Child(Jesus) with Mary His mother.....Then opening their treasure bags, they presented to Him gifts - ......

The wisemen visited Jesus as a child at the house, when He was no longer a Baby and had long left the manger.

There is a common tendency to portray or depict the wisemen visiting the manger or to show both the shepherds and the wisemen visiting the manger together , both of which are contrary to the Biblical record.
Some may consider this a minor issue or something of no consequence, but how can we as Christians complain that Christmas is under attack, when we can't even get the Christmas story right?
Happy Christmas!

Salvation

The Christians are just reading the Bible.
Luke 2 doesn't talk about the wise men. Matthew 2 does but refers to Jesus as a young child.
A young child can refer to an infant.

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

When combining the stories, we don't know for sure how much time has passed but even at six months, He would still be very much an infant. The story is put together for brevity from combining the two passages.

Your point is very minor and your theology may not be more correct than anyone else's because no one knows everything and the only ones who calculated when the star would show up are Daniel's disciples.

Matthew 2:7 - Then Herod sent for the wise men secretly, and accurately to the last point, determined from them, the time of the appearing of the star....

After finding out from the wise men, when the star appeared and adding the time it took the wise men to travel from the East to Bethlehem, after seeing the star, Herod was able to determine the proximate age of Jesus.

Matthew 2:16 - Then Herod, when he realized that He had been outwitted by the wise men, was furiously enraged, and he sent and put to death all the male children in Bethlehem and all that territory, who were two years old and under, reckoning according to the date, which he had investigated diligently and had learned exactly from the wise men.

After the wise men failed to report back to Herod, he used the information, that he gathered from the wise men and concluded that Jesus had to be at the most two years, and that is why he ordered the killing of every two years and under, male child in his territory, believing Jesus will be among the children killed.
It is debatable whether a child that is almost two years old is still a baby? Herod knew almost exactly, how much time had passed from the time the Star appeared in the East and the time it took the wise men to travel on camels or horses or whatever to Bethlehem. Travel in those days was extremely slow and from Herod's calculations, it seems the wise men traveled for months.

 

[HenryBHough]

Recent archaeological vevidence suggests Herod died two years before the star appeared. If it appeared.

 

[Chuckt]

After finding out from the wise men, when the star appeared and adding the time it took the wise men to travel from the East to Bethlehem, after seeing the star, Herod was able to determine the proximate age of Jesus.

Matthew 2:16 - Then Herod, when he realized that He had been outwitted by the wise men, was furiously enraged, and he sent and put to death all the male children in Bethlehem and all that territory, who were two years old and under, reckoning according to the date, which he had investigated diligently and had learned exactly from the wise men.

After the wise men failed to report back to Herod, he used the information, that he gathered from the wise men and concluded that Jesus had to be at the most two years, and that is why he ordered the killing of every two years and under, male child in his territory, believing Jesus will be among the children killed.
It is debatable whether a child that is almost two years old is still a baby? Herod knew almost exactly, how much time had passed from the time the Star appeared in the East and the time it took the wise men to travel on camels or horses or whatever to Bethlehem. Travel in those days was extremely slow and from Herod's calculations, it seems the wise men traveled for months.

No. The star may have been in the sky for a while and who knows how long it took the Magi to travel on foot from where they came (might have been Babylon) to Bethlehem.

Herod didn't know so he set a range to hedge his bets because it had been a while that the wise men didn't report back to him.

If Herod knew, he would have followed the wise men and had Jesus killed there.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Little strange too magicians would have visited Yeshua:

10. There shall not be found among you anyone who passes his son or daughter through fire, a soothsayer, a diviner of [auspicious] times, one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,
11. or a charmer, a pithom sorcerer, a yido'a sorcerer, or a necromancer.
12. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the [L-rd], and because of these abominations, the [L-rd], your [G-d] is driving them out from before you.
- Deuteronomy 18

 

[Chuckt]

Little strange too magicians would have visited Yeshua:

10. There shall not be found among you anyone who passes his son or daughter through fire, a soothsayer, a diviner of [auspicious] times, one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,
11. or a charmer, a pithom sorcerer, a yido'a sorcerer, or a necromancer.
12. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the [L-rd], and because of these abominations, the [L-rd], your [G-d] is driving them out from before you.
- Leviticus 18

Except they were after the manner of Daniel's friends and Daniel heard directly from God.

Daniel 1:17 ¶ As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.

Daniel 5:11 There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers;

Daniel 5:12 Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew the interpretation.

Daniel 10:18 ¶ Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me,

Daniel 10:19 And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me.

Daniel 10:20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.

Daniel 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

 

[biblical]

After finding out from the wise men, when the star appeared and adding the time it took the wise men to travel from the East to Bethlehem, after seeing the star, Herod was able to determine the proximate age of Jesus.

Matthew 2:16 - Then Herod, when he realized that He had been outwitted by the wise men, was furiously enraged, and he sent and put to death all the male children in Bethlehem and all that territory, who were two years old and under, reckoning according to the date, which he had investigated diligently and had learned exactly from the wise men.

After the wise men failed to report back to Herod, he used the information, that he gathered from the wise men and concluded that Jesus had to be at the most two years, and that is why he ordered the killing of every two years and under, male child in his territory, believing Jesus will be among the children killed.
It is debatable whether a child that is almost two years old is still a baby? Herod knew almost exactly, how much time had passed from the time the Star appeared in the East and the time it took the wise men to travel on camels or horses or whatever to Bethlehem. Travel in those days was extremely slow and from Herod's calculations, it seems the wise men traveled for months.

No. The star may have been in the sky for a while and who knows how long it took the Magi to travel on foot from where they came (might have been Babylon) to Bethlehem.

Herod didn't know so he set a range to hedge his bets because it had been a while that the wise men didn't report back to him.

If Herod knew, he would have followed the wise men and had Jesus killed there.

The star could not have been in the sky for a while, because the wise men or astrologers, always watched the sky for any unique signs, as part of their profession, and they easily noticed the unique star immediately? This star wasn't just any star out of the many in the sky, it stood out.
True, Herod didn't know where Jesus was, but according to the scriptures I cited earlier, he had a good idea of what age group Jesus would belong, and that is why he targeted that age group in a bid to get Jesus?

 

[Chuckt]

After finding out from the wise men, when the star appeared and adding the time it took the wise men to travel from the East to Bethlehem, after seeing the star, Herod was able to determine the proximate age of Jesus.

Matthew 2:16 - Then Herod, when he realized that He had been outwitted by the wise men, was furiously enraged, and he sent and put to death all the male children in Bethlehem and all that territory, who were two years old and under, reckoning according to the date, which he had investigated diligently and had learned exactly from the wise men.

After the wise men failed to report back to Herod, he used the information, that he gathered from the wise men and concluded that Jesus had to be at the most two years, and that is why he ordered the killing of every two years and under, male child in his territory, believing Jesus will be among the children killed.
It is debatable whether a child that is almost two years old is still a baby? Herod knew almost exactly, how much time had passed from the time the Star appeared in the East and the time it took the wise men to travel on camels or horses or whatever to Bethlehem. Travel in those days was extremely slow and from Herod's calculations, it seems the wise men traveled for months.

No. The star may have been in the sky for a while and who knows how long it took the Magi to travel on foot from where they came (might have been Babylon) to Bethlehem.

Herod didn't know so he set a range to hedge his bets because it had been a while that the wise men didn't report back to him.

If Herod knew, he would have followed the wise men and had Jesus killed there.

The star could not have been in the sky for a while, because the wise men or astrologers, always watched the sky for any unique signs, as part of their profession, and they easily noticed the unique star immediately? This star wasn't just any star out of the many in the sky, it stood out.
True, Herod didn't know where Jesus was, but according to the scriptures I cited earlier, he had a good idea of what age group Jesus would belong, and that is why he targeted that age group in a bid to get Jesus?

And subtract half of the round trip from the age two and you probably get a one year old or earlier. Maybe six months?

 

[biblical]

No. The star may have been in the sky for a while and who knows how long it took the Magi to travel on foot from where they came (might have been Babylon) to Bethlehem.

Herod didn't know so he set a range to hedge his bets because it had been a while that the wise men didn't report back to him.

If Herod knew, he would have followed the wise men and had Jesus killed there.

The star could not have been in the sky for a while, because the wise men or astrologers, always watched the sky for any unique signs, as part of their profession, and they easily noticed the unique star immediately? This star wasn't just any star out of the many in the sky, it stood out.
True, Herod didn't know where Jesus was, but according to the scriptures I cited earlier, he had a good idea of what age group Jesus would belong, and that is why he targeted that age group in a bid to get Jesus?

And subtract half of the round trip from the age two and you probably get a one year old or earlier. Maybe six months?

In Biblical Christianity, no one can make a credible or convincing case without presenting Biblical scripture?
Every opinion, argument, debate or case in Biblical Christianity stands or falls based on whether it is supported by Biblical scripture or not?
Anyone can say and think anything, but unless and until it is supported by Biblical scripture it is just another opinion?
You have repeatedly given your personal opinions regarding the birth of Christ, without ever presenting a single shred of Biblical scriptural evidence that supports your claims? Why should any serious and rational people take your opinions on Biblical Christianity seriously without any Biblical scriptural evidence to back it up?
On the other hand, I have presented Biblical scriptural evidence from 'Matthew 2:7 and Matthew 2:16', which clearly supports my opinions and conclusions?
Should intelligent people believe you, without any Biblical scriptural evidence or should they believe me with Biblical scriptural evidence?
If you and I went to a court of law, and you presented your case based on just your opinions, without any Biblical scriptural evidence and I presented my case, with Biblical scriptural evidence, who will the court decide in favor of?
This is a friendly debate and I have no hard feelings against you and wish you well, but next time you give your opinions on any issue in Biblical Christianity try to provide scriptures that support your case.
Have a blessed life!

 

[biblical]

Little strange too magicians would have visited Yeshua:

10. There shall not be found among you anyone who passes his son or daughter through fire, a soothsayer, a diviner of [auspicious] times, one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,
11. or a charmer, a pithom sorcerer, a yido'a sorcerer, or a necromancer.
12. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the [L-rd], and because of these abominations, the [L-rd], your [G-d] is driving them out from before you.
- Deuteronomy 18

When Jesus Christ was born the only people in the whole world, that knew what God had forbidden and permitted or the Law of Moses were the Jews.
And according to spiritual law and fairness God could only penalize the Jews for violating, what he had forbidden because they knew about it.
The wise men may have indulged in astrology, which God had forbidden the Jews, but the wise men from the East and weren't aware of this, and God who is just, considered the wise men and everyone else, except the Jews, innocent and not guilty of anything He had forbidden the Jews.
Similarly, but not exactly the same, in the natural world you cannot be penalized or charged with a crime that was not a crime when you committed it. In other words you cannot be penalized for something that wasn't known as a crime, when you committed it.
At the time of the birth of Jesus, the only people to whom what God had forbidden applied were the Jews and the Jews only.
The rest of the world could not be judged by a standard they were totally ignorant of, therefore the wise men were completely innocent of astrology as far as God was concerned.
And a very good example is Abraham, who had sexual relations with his maid, which would be considered adultery, nevertheless God overlooked all that and worked with Abraham, because at that point in time, Abraham did not know any better and God had not yet give laws or rules for proper or holy living, therefore God could not penalize Abraham for what God hadn't forbidden him yet.

Luke 12:48 - From everyone, who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one, who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

 

[Chuckt]

The star could not have been in the sky for a while, because the wise men or astrologers, always watched the sky for any unique signs, as part of their profession, and they easily noticed the unique star immediately? This star wasn't just any star out of the many in the sky, it stood out.
True, Herod didn't know where Jesus was, but according to the scriptures I cited earlier, he had a good idea of what age group Jesus would belong, and that is why he targeted that age group in a bid to get Jesus?

And subtract half of the round trip from the age two and you probably get a one year old or earlier. Maybe six months?

In Biblical Christianity, no one can make a credible or convincing case without presenting Biblical scripture?
Every opinion, argument, debate or case in Biblical Christianity stands or falls based on whether it is supported by Biblical scripture or not?
Anyone can say and think anything, but unless and until it is supported by Biblical scripture it is just another opinion?
You have repeatedly given your personal opinions regarding the birth of Christ, without ever presenting a single shred of Biblical scriptural evidence that supports your claims? Why should any serious and rational people take your opinions on Biblical Christianity seriously without any Biblical scriptural evidence to back it up?
On the other hand, I have presented Biblical scriptural evidence from 'Matthew 2:7 and Matthew 2:16', which clearly supports my opinions and conclusions?
Should intelligent people believe you, without any Biblical scriptural evidence or should they believe me with Biblical scriptural evidence?
If you and I went to a court of law, and you presented your case based on just your opinions, without any Biblical scriptural evidence and I presented my case, with Biblical scriptural evidence, who will the court decide in favor of?
This is a friendly debate and I have no hard feelings against you and wish you well, but next time you give your opinions on any issue in Biblical Christianity try to provide scriptures that support your case.
Have a blessed life!

Are you really Biblical?

But verse 11 is one of the verses that people use to say that this meeting took place awhile after the birth of Jesus, because the Child is at a house, as opposed to the common understanding that the birth took place in a stable. When I was a student at a Bible College, I had a professor who has been to Israel several times. He has studied the culture and the history of Israel. He told us that it was not uncommon, for the "stable" to be under the house, with an entryway going up into the living quarters of the house. So it is possible that Jesus and Mary had simply moved into the house. Everyone was in town for the census (see Luke 2). If it has been a week or so after the census, the town may be slightly less full, and so, there may be room for them now.

The next thing, that most people mention in verse 11 is that the word used to refer to Jesus is "child" and not "babe" or "baby" If you go back to the Greek, the word for child, is used for "infants" "child" or "older children" It is the same word here, as later when Jesus picks up a little child and sets the child among the group and tells his followers to have the faith of a child. So basically, Jesus at this point, is anywhere between the ages of 0-12 before his Bar Mitzvah at 13. The word child, does not give us an indication of age. I am the child of my parents, and a new born baby is the child of his or her parents, so child here in the Greek is a range of ages just like it means for us in English.

One thing I do want to point out is in the birth account of Luke 2:4, Joseph takes Mary up from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the census, which means Joseph at least was living in Nazareth before they went to Bethlehem. Why are Jesus and Mary still there in Bethlehem if it has been awhile after his birth? Joseph and Mary went to register for the census and stayed 2 years? I doubt it. It is more likely, that it is a short time after the birth of Jesus, then it is to assume they had a kid and stayed two years.

Matthew 2:16 states, "Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men."

Now Herod, finding out that the wise men have not returned, is rather upset. He, among other things, is afraid for his job, his source of income, and possibly his head. He is going to play it safe, and orders the execution for all children 2 years and under. Some people say that this proves that the visit of the wise men was 2 years after the birth of Jesus.
There are issues with this assumption:

1. We do not know if God prearranged the star ahead of time so they could travel from the East and arrive around the birth of Jesus.

2. Herod is afraid; he isn't going to take any chances in the baby making it out alive. So, he is going to add in travel time from Jerusalem to Bethlehem- any time it took for the wise men to come from wherever they came from to Jerusalem. So he plays it safe and executes anyone that fits within the age range.

We also have issues with ages when it comes from people from the Middle East. My parents have managed apartment complexes in L.A. and grew up with a few Jewish friends. There are two methods of accounting that the Jews they know used, depending on how long those Jews lived in America: inclusive and exclusive counting. Allow me to explain.

Say you have a child that is born on January 5th 3 A.D. On January 5th 4 A.D, how old is the child? We would say the child is 1 year old, right? Not true with that culture. They would say the child is 2, because he is starting his second year of life. They do not have an age of 0. So basically, the child is born at age 1.

So when the Bible says that Herod killed all children 2 years of age and under, which method of age counting is being used here? Which method did the wise men use when they told Herod how long ago they saw the star? Did Herod know which method they were using? If Herod understood or assumed that there might be the slightest point of confusion as to the timeline, he, in his fear, is going to hedge his bets and kill them all.

Source:
Xanga 2.0 is Here!

 

[The Irish Ram]

The Magi weren't magicians. They were the upper echelon of Persia. They were the government officials, (where we get the term magistrate) the high priests, and the best of the astronomers of the day. Their expertise in astrology was what sent them on their journey. They saw a conjunction of planets, and those planets had meanings. The unusual planets that aligned signified Jews, priests and death.

The gifts they brought were appropriate for the signs they interpreted in the planets. The customary gifts were:
gold for a king, frankincense for a priest to use in a temple, and myrrh for a suffering death. Myrrh was used in preparing a body.
Shepherds who slept in the fields and looked at the sky nightly would also be able to recognize the anomaly. Because of the curve of the earth, Herod couldn't see the alignment.

It takes a while to travel by camel, and although Mary gave birth in a stable, I doubt they remained in the stable for long. The Magi had accomplished their goal before Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Egypt, so Jesus was two years old or under.

 

[The Professor]

This is what the Bible says about the mysterious star of Bethlehem:

“Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy” (Matthew 2:7:10, KJV)

According to the cited verses, the star stood over where the young child was thus enabling the wise men to find Jesus. Now I don’t know about anyone else, but when I look at Venus or any other star I can’t tell which house it is standing over; in fact, I can’t tell which city it is standing over! It is impossible for any conventional star to identify a single house from its position in the sky. Besides, stars do not move to lead men and then stand still to point out a particular location.

Sometime ago, someone actually calculated how tiny and how close a light (star) would have to be to stand over a particular house. I cannot recall specifically how close the light would have to be but I do remember that anything defined as a star would certainly not qualify. The star of Bethlehem could not have been a common star, but had to have been a special light source which appeared at that time and for that purpose and had not been seen before nor since.

There is another possibility when the word “star” is carefully examined in light of Biblical interpretation rather than traditional definitions. Some Christian theologians and commentators believe that the word “star” did not always mean the massive, glowing remote body that we call stars today; rather they contend the word "star" as used in Matthew meant “angel.” If you have Ronald Weinland’s free books, you will find that he agrees that the word “star” as used in Matthew should be interpreted to mean "angel". This is what Mr. Weinland says:

“In prophecy, stars are symbolic of angels. One simple example of a star that is misinterpreted by the world of traditional Christianity is the one the led the wise men to Bethlehem, where the Messiah was born. Traditional Christianity pictures this as a literal star over the little town of Bethlehem. Yet, most people do not know that it wasn’t a literal star in the heavens, but an angel that directed them where to go” (2008 Gods Final Witness, Page 122).

There is at least some scriptural basis for Weinland's assertion that the purported Star of Bethlehem was a heavenly being (angel):

“And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit” (Revelation 9:1-2, KJV).

 

[The Irish Ram]

If there was a star that we depict on Christmas cards, Herod and his astrologers would have seen it. Instead, he had no idea what the wise men were talking about.