Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

And most of us know about the zeitgeist story of the 3 kings in orion's belt aligning with sirius and pointing to the point the sun will rise on this day.

Now is our chance to see if it's true.

For some reason I can see no stars tonight. So I'm hoping someone else will be taking pictures or something.

It's not the 25th yet here, jackass. I hate you forever now.

Seems like anybody with knowledge of Astronomy could figure this out without actually needing to see it.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
It's not the 25th yet here, jackass. I hate you forever now.



Seconded.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays everyone.

Some people don't celebrate Christmas, but they celebrate other religious festivals like Hanukkah at the same time.

ok, do what...,what are we looking for?

Merry Christmas to who ever cares.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
ok, do what...,what are we looking for? To see if the three brightest stars in orion's belt align with sirius (big bright star) and point to where the sun will rise.

Basically it's the origin of the three kings story.

Originally posted by lord xyz
To see if the three brightest stars in orion's belt align with sirius (big bright star) and point to where the sun will rise.

Basically it's the origin of the three kings story.

Suuuuuuuure it is...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Suuuuuuuure it is...

It is the truth Gav. I am A Christian but there is so much evidence ,Historical and Scientific, that proves it is the origin. We,me and you, have talked and I know you are knowledgeable on The Church. You must know that Christs Birthday is unknown. There is a reason why Dec. 25 was picked. Its the Astronomical Birth of the New Sun.

Dec 25th was chosen to coincide with an existing holiday.

Why would the story of the three kings, written hundreds of years prior to the designation of Dec 25 as Jesus' birthday, have anything to do with this Zeitgeist theory of orien's belt?

What you seem to suggest is that Dec 25 was chosen because in the Gospel story the Three Wise Men is a reference to an astronomical event and therefore pinpoints Jesus' birth- but how can this be because if the alignment occurs in Winter, why are there lambs in the fields and shepherds sleeping outside?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Dec 25th was chosen to coincide with an existing holiday.

Why would the story of the three kings, written hundreds of years prior to the designation of Dec 25 as Jesus' birthday, have anything to do with this Zeitgeist theory of orien's belt?

What you seem to suggest is that Dec 25 was chosen because in the Gospel story the Three Wise Men is a reference to an astronomical event and therefore pinpoints Jesus' birth- but how can this be because if the alignment occurs in Winter, why are there lambs in the fields and shepherds sleeping outside?

You just proved my point! Why would the Celebration of Christs birth coincide with the birth of the "New Sun" in winter? When Christians know that he wasn't ,according to the Gospel.

The Church was very Astrological in the Beginning. Look at St.Peters Basilica at The Vatican. Its all set up to cast shadows at Different Astrological times on different parts of the Vatican. In the Beginning , The Roman Church amalgamated the Pagan religion with the Christian so as to make it more palatable for the Pagan masses. The Roman Church changed the face of it but its still the same. Instead of a god of this and a god of that The Catholics have a St. for this and a St. for that. They still "Chant" prayer(Very un Christian) and have incense burning as to raise the prayer to the Heavens . These are all Pagan influenced ideas and the Pagans were very Astrologically based.

And You and some people act like Zeitgeist is all BS but do the research.
If you look into the other Religions The stories are very similar because they predate Christianity. Abraham was from Babylon, His Father was a High Priest Enlil . This is Theological fact. The story's that Abraham told about Yah-Wah or GOD was from an Older time. Noah and the flood for example, Utnapishtum(A Mesopotamian story) is Virtual the same but changed to fit the Yahweh belief. Even the story of Mosses, which we no from Archaeological evidence that he existed, But the story is the same as Sargon the 1st of Akkad(A Mesopotamian story predating Moses instead of floating down the Nile in a reed basket Sargon floated down the Euphrates in a reed basket, Look into it, its the same story) So anyway it makes perfect sense for the Church to have adopted the "New Sun" as the Date to celebrate The birth of the Messiah.

None of what you said explained why the three kings in the gospel would actually be the stars of Orion's belt aligning with some other star...and how such an alignment which occurs in winter would be visible in the spring/summer time.

Yes It did explain it. Very Clearly. The predating Religions used the three King concept's. Christians adopted it.

Can you explain it again, because I cannot see it.

Well it was really MITHRA day. And I celebrated it like a true pagan that I'm not...LOL

Oh dear.

The fact that that's a story associated with that date, and Christians adopted (or rather plagiarised) the story as well as the date, is enough to say "Jesus is Mithra Attis Horus The Sun."

If that's not enough, how about the fact that all these other solar messiahs have this attribute. Surely they came from somewhere. The stellar explanation is the only explanation other than coincidence. Unless you can give another, have a cup of stfu.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Yes It did explain it. Very Clearly. The predating Religions used the three King concept's. Christians adopted it.

You didn't even bother to mention the three kings concept in your post. You just spouted off some more Zeitgeist nonsense and acted like it proved something.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Oh dear.

The fact that that's a story associated with that date, and Christians adopted (or rather plagiarised) the story as well as the date, is enough to say "Jesus is Mithra Attis Horus The Sun."

Saturn you mean. They co-opted a very specific holiday for a very obvious reason, lots of people celebrated it. That holiday probably coincided with the "New Sun" or whatever bullshit you want to talk about intentionally but at that point Christians were playing the religious equivalent of politics. You're inane little conspiracies don't come into play at all.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You didn't even bother to mention the three kings concept in your post. You just spouted off some more Zeitgeist nonsense and acted like it proved something.

.

My post on Abraham being from Babylon and the Stories predating Christendom had nothing to do with Zeitgeist. Further more I stated that The Catholic Church Amalgamated paganism with Christendom in order to pacify the Pagan Populace,again nothing to do with Zeitgeist That I am aware of. Then I went on to explain that Pagan beliefs relied heavily on Astrological concepts Hence the winter solstice comment.
I know you are an intelligent person SC so for you to say That Zeitgeists take on the forming of Religion is nonsense shocks me because it is Fact but ,I know Church History and the correlation with The Roman Church and Paganism is Fact. That being said I did Prove something. Gav admitted that according to scripture The Messiah was not born in the winter, so why celebrate Dec.25 I explained that.
Have you taken the time to research any of the predecessor Religions?

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
My post on Abraham being from Babylon and the Stories predating Christendom had nothing to do with Zeitgeist. Further more I stated that The Catholic Church Amalgamated paganism with Christendom in order to pacify the Pagan Populace,again nothing to do with Zeitgeist That I am aware of. Then I went on to explain that Pagan beliefs relied heavily on Astrological concepts Hence the winter solstice comment.
I know you are an intelligent person SC so for you to say That Zeitgeists take on the forming of Religion is nonsense shocks me because it is Fact but ,I know Church History and the correlation with The Roman Church and Paganism is Fact. That being said I did Prove something. Gav admitted that according to scripture The Messiah was not born in the winter, so why celebrate Dec.25 I explained that.
Have you taken the time to research any of the predecessor Religions?

You've successfully disproved your own claims.

If Christianity ended up with astrological concepts taken from other religions then Christianity cannot be founded on the astrological concepts that it had to stole in the first place. Said concepts are totally unrelated to Christianity itself, they just showed up because they were part of other things it absorbed. The Bible (except Revelation) was written long before Christianity was meaningful enough to co-opt Saturnalia and such for its own use. The three kings are have nothing to do with Saturnalia or the "New Sun" or anything at all, those connections ONLY EXIST AFTER THE FACT.

What? Did you look over what you just posted?

Quoiting SC "If Christianity ended up with astrological concepts taken from other religions then Christianity cannot be founded on the astrological concepts that it had to stole in the first place" ?????

Quoting SC "The Bible (except Revelation) was written long before Christianity was meaningful enough to co-opt Saturnalia and such for its own use" ??????

The Bible was Canonized over centuries. Council of Nicaea and Trent and Every Century The Bishops of the Various Churches would get together and debate what was considered Worthy of Canonization. " The Bible was written long before Christianity" What?

Earliest Manuscripts:
Pentateuch 850 A.D.
Codex Cairensis 895 A.D.
Aleppo Codex 900 A.D.
Tora Finchasiye 1204 A.D.
Bologna Edition of Psalter 1477 A.D.
Soncino edition Old Testament 1488 A.D.
Bromberg Addition 1525 A.D.

Greek Version:
Septuagint 100 B.C.(Old Testament nothing mentioned about the birth date of the Messiah)
Aquila Version 130 A.D.
Symmachus Version 170 A.D.
Theodotions Version 180A.D.

Aramaic Targums:
Targum of Onkelos 200 A.D.
Targum of Jonathan be Uzziel 300 A.D.

Latin Versions:
Itala Version 200 A.D.
Wurzburg Palimpset Codex 450 A.D.
Lyons Codex 650 A.D.
Jeromes Vulgate 390 A.D.

SO what are you talking about?


"

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
What? Did you look over what you just posted?

Quoiting SC "If Christianity ended up with astrological concepts taken from other religions then Christianity cannot be founded on the astrological concepts that it had to stole in the first place" ?????

If I go out to steal red blocks because I don't have any why would you assume that I had red blocks all along?

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Quoting SC "The Bible (except Revelation) was written long before Christianity was meaningful enough to co-opt Saturnalia and such for its own use" ??????

The Bible was Canonized over centuries. Council of Nicaea and Trent and Every Century The Bishops of the Various Churches would get together and debate what was considered Worthy of Canonization. " The Bible was written long before Christianity" What?

Earliest Manuscripts:
Pentateuch 850 A.D.
Codex Cairensis 895 A.D.
Aleppo Codex 900 A.D.
Tora Finchasiye 1204 A.D.
Bologna Edition of Psalter 1477 A.D.
Soncino edition Old Testament 1488 A.D.
Bromberg Addition 1525 A.D.

Greek Version:
Septuagint 100 B.C.(Old Testament nothing mentioned about the birth date of the Messiah)
Aquila Version 130 A.D.
Symmachus Version 170 A.D.
Theodotions Version 180A.D.

Aramaic Targums:
Targum of Onkelos 200 A.D.
Targum of Jonathan be Uzziel 300 A.D.

Latin Versions:
Itala Version 200 A.D.
Wurzburg Palimpset Codex 450 A.D.
Lyons Codex 650 A.D.
Jeromes Vulgate 390 A.D.

SO what are you talking about?
"

If I meant canonized I would have typed out the word "canonized".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You didn't even bother to mention the three kings concept in your post. You just spouted off some more Zeitgeist nonsense and acted like it proved something.



Saturn you mean. They co-opted a very specific holiday for a very obvious reason, lots of people celebrated it. That holiday probably coincided with the "New Sun" or whatever bullshit you want to talk about intentionally but at that point Christians were playing the religious equivalent of politics. You're inane little conspiracies don't come into play at all.

They adopted the holiday, as well as the story. Are you not following me, or are you deliberately acting stupid? The plagiarised the whole thing to make Jesus look more important or whatever.


It is the origin of the story.

All the stars are moving.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All the stars are moving.

That's what "The Man" wants you to think. You should only believe people who have "done research" and are unpopular with educated people.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All the stars are moving. Ugh, yeah. That's why they align at this date.

In fact, they actually don't, it's just from our perspective.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ugh, yeah. That's why they align at this date.

In fact, they actually don't, it's just from our perspective.

They are not moving that fast. You are talking about us moving, but on top of that all the stars are moving. The alignment did not exist long ago, and will not exist in the far future. So, regardless of who came up with it and who is now using it, there is no true meaning in the random pattern that stars make in the sky from our point of view.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They are not moving that fast. You are talking about us moving, but on top of that all the stars are moving. The alignment did not exist long ago, and will not exist in the far future. So, regardless of who came up with it and who is now using it, there is no true meaning in the random pattern that stars make in the sky from our point of view. Or, it existed long ago and doesn't now.

I'd be surprised if the alignment is precise.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Or, it existed long ago and doesn't now.

I'd be surprised if the alignment is precise.

Me too.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Or, it existed long ago and doesn't now.

I'd be surprised if the alignment is precise.

you are too cool for school u r the fonz..

love your debating

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If I go out to steal red blocks because I don't have any why would you assume that I had red blocks all along?



If I meant canonized I would have typed out the word "canonized".

No you said THE BIBLE well there was no "Bible" Until it was canonized.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've successfully disproved your own claims.
.
The Bible (except Revelation) was written long before Christianity was meaningful enough to co-opt Saturnalia and such for its own use. The three kings are have nothing to do with Saturnalia or the "New Sun" or anything at all, those connections ONLY EXIST AFTER THE FACT.

Backing my statement that you said "Bible" and its not after the fact if Abraham was talking about it 2000 years before Christ. Thats the whole point it has been a part of it from the beginning. Taking it from OLDER Mesopotamian lore.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
No you said THE BIBLE well there was no "Bible" Until it was canonized.

The scripture still existed though.

Am I the only one who thinks its more likely that a kid was born and three wise men did visit him- later recounted by the Gospel Writers rather than the writers getting together, studying the texts of ancient religions and incorporating a winter astronomical event into a story that took place in spring/summer time?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
you are too cool for school u r the fonz..

love your debating Aha, yeah.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The scripture still existed though.

Am I the only one who thinks its more likely that a kid was born and three wise men did visit him- later recounted by the Gospel Writers rather than the writers getting together, studying the texts of ancient religions and incorporating a winter astronomical event into a story that took place in spring/summer time?

Gav, You cant deny the Ecumenical councils nor,Being Catholic yourself, can you deny Jeromes translation the "Vulgate 390 A.D." so yes it is very possible ,and likely probable,that it was put in after the fact.

Oh and scripture existed but only in Greek form ,The Septaugint and that was about 100 B.C. and it was the Torah.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Gav, You cant deny the Ecumenical councils nor,Being Catholic yourself, can you deny Jeromes translation the "Vulgate 390 A.D." so yes it is very possible ,and likely probable,that it was put in after the fact.

For what reason?

and at the meeting surely someone said: "Umm, what about the shepherds and lambs?"

I really dont know Gav, for what reason? You tell me. Your comments about it being a warm climate is scriptural, I cant argue that but, never the less His Birth date was correlated to the "New Sun" rising in the winter Solstice. Maybe it was because it was a very recognizable theme to the Pagans that The Roman Church wanted to convert. Just a Theory.

And there were many "UMM ,what about this" during the councils. This is why The Church broke apart and Orthodox came to be and Catholicism came to be in 1054.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I really dont know Gav, for what reason? You tell me. Your comments about it being a warm climate is scriptural, I cant argue that but, never the less His Birth date was correlated to the "New Sun" rising in the winter Solstice. Maybe it was because it was a very recognizable theme to the Pagans that The Roman Church wanted to convert. Just a Theory.

And there were many "UMM ,what about this" during the councils. This is why The Church broke apart and Orthodox came to be and Catholicism came to be in 1054.

So you don't believe three wise men visited Jesus? You believe the Church inserted that story for no reason what so ever? Or better still, to make pagans feel more at home...though I don't think that the three kings would have achieved that.

Also, those UMM moments where usually over theological quandaries and are thus totally different from the UMM moment that would have arisen when someone suggested they should pretend Jesus was born in winter even though the story also suggests its set in spring- your talking nonsense.

Yeah I think I have proved enough that I know what Im talking about when it comes to Church History. I have nothing to prove to you. But the "Talking nonsense" comment seems like a cop out coming from a Scholar of Theology such as yourself.

And ,do I believe that There were actually 3 wise men or that it was a symbolic reference? I dont know but I dont really care because it does not make or break my Faith. Its not a "Hill to die on" for me. Just a subject of debate.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Also, those UMM moments where usually over theological quandaries and are thus totally different from the UMM moment that would have arisen when someone suggested they should pretend Jesus was born in winter even though the story also suggests its set in spring- your talking nonsense.

I would think any discussion or "UMM what about this" If it shows a contradiction or inconsistency in the Bible would be Paramount because that would tear at the fabric of the critical thinking Christian on weather the Bible is truth.

But you are talking nonsense on this specific point.

What you propose makes no sense, why would they include that reference in a story that takes place in springtime?

Also, they chose to celebrate Christmas on 25th because this was already the time of a major festival- its simple culture adoption. However, for them to include the three kings into this story...no one noticed? No one ever took a record that it happened?

Where is the evidence that the three kings/wisemen existed in earlier religions?

this has just made me think, as a supporter of Papal Infallibility etc...if the Pope sanction the changed as Bishop of Rome...would God have rewritten history...HAHA!

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
But you are talking nonsense on this specific point.

What you propose makes no sense, why would they include that reference in a story that takes place in springtime?

Also, they chose to celebrate Christmas on 25th because this was already the time of a major festival- its simple culture adoption. However, for them to include the three kings into this story...no one noticed? No one ever took a record that it happened?

Where is the evidence that the three kings/wisemen existed in earlier religions?

this has just made me think, as a supporter of Papal Infallibility etc...if the Pope sanction the changed as Bishop of Rome...would God have rewritten history...HAHA!

You crack me up. Do some more research and we can talk.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
You crack me up. Do some more research and we can talk.

cop out

Answer the questions: Why would they include that reference in a story set in spring? Why not some other point in time? Why did noone write down that the Church made an addition to the story?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
cop out

Answer the questions: Why would they include that reference in a story set in spring? Why not some other point in time? Why did noone write down that the Church made an addition to the story?

Listen to what you are saying.
They did make an addition. The Scripture says Spring ,yet Christians believe he was born on Dec.25?

THE Scripture says Spring!!! Yet His Birth is Celebrated on Dec.25
I think this is an example of an Addition to the story.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Listen to what you are saying.
They did make an addition. The Scripture says Spring ,yet Christians believe he was born on Dec.25?

THE Scripture says Spring!!! Yet His Birth is Celebrated on Dec.25
I think this is an example of an Addition to the story.

Holy Sweet Holy.

The Bible NEVER says he is born in winter, the church does not believe he was born on Dec. 25...only the misinformed do. They just chose that day to celebrate his birth to accommodate Pagan Converts. NO addition to the story was made and nothing was taken away. The just chose a day to celebrate his birth. They didn't change scripture, which is what you believe they did with the three wise men.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Holy Sweet Holy.

The Bible NEVER says he is born in winter, the church does not believe he was born on Dec. 25...only the misinformed do. They just chose that day to celebrate his birth to accommodate Pagan Converts. NO addition to the story was made and nothing was taken away. The just chose a day to celebrate his birth. They didn't change scripture, which is what you believe they did with the three wise men.

This is getting very convoluted. I was the one saying they used the day to appease the Pagan converts in the first place. And All I ever said was that it was possible that the 3 wise men was placed in the bible in reference to astrological account. The Bible is "Figurative" and sometimes "Literal" How can one distinguish???. I have already made a list of the different translations and canonizations showing that there was plenty of opportunity to modify the Bible in many ways. THATS MY ONLY POINT!!!!!

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
This is getting very convoluted. I was the one saying they used the day to appease the Pagan converts in the first place. And All I ever said was that it was possible that the 3 wise men was placed in the bible in reference to astrological account. The Bible is "Figurative" and sometimes "Literal" How can one distinguish???. I have already made a list of the different translations and canonizations showing that there was plenty of opportunity to modify the Bible in many ways. THATS MY ONLY POINT!!!!!

But why would they insert a reference to an astronomical even which takes place in winter in a story set in spring? Why would they insert it anywhere at all? What sense would it make?

Unless Jesus isn't real, and they just stole an earlier religions story about the birth of the planets saviour...but then again, that seems terribly short sighted.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav


Unless Jesus isn't real, and they just stole an earlier religions story about the birth of the planets saviour...but then again, that seems terribly short sighted.

But yet a Possibility.

I have a confession Monsignor Gav. or is it Bishop now? JK
I am a Christian. Just not a closed minded one that takes everything for face value, or Gets my only instruction form an institutional Dogmatic point of view.

Your Brother in Christ, not Dogma

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Unless Jesus isn't real, and they just stole an earlier religions story about the birth of the planets saviour...but then again, that seems terribly short sighted. How the **** does that seem short sighted?

That's like saying not believing in unicorns is short sighted. Or believing elvis is dead is short sighted.

It's not short sighted, it's looking at the evidence and coming to logical conclusions. Sure the two are very similar and I can see how one could get confused.

Originally posted by lord xyz
How the **** does that seem short sighted?

That's like saying not believing in unicorns is short sighted. Or believing elvis is dead is short sighted.

It's not short sighted, it's looking at the evidence and coming to logical conclusions. Sure the two are very similar and I can see how one could get confused.

It's short-sighted because if I want to start a religion and just copy an earlier one...sooner or later someone will notice and it'll be exposed that my religion is just a copy and therefore not true.

Epic fail to be clever from you there.

Besides the wise men were astrologist occultists and I don't believe the Bible ever said there were 3. the bible never said Jesus was a baby, infant.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Besides the wise men were astrologist occultists and I don't believe the Bible ever said there were 3. the bible never said Jesus was a baby, infant.

The bible explicitly states that Jesus was a child/baby when the Magi found hims. It never says that there were three of them but there were three gifts given.

Not a new born as stated in the stories...And not under the star as told as a new born.

We celebrate on the 6th of January.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Not a new born as stated in the stories...And not under the star as told as a new born.

Probably a few weeks after his birth at minimum. It's just shown as a newborn in stories for simplicities sake. Matthew does explicitly state that the star "stopped over the place where the child was" so I'm not sure where you got the idea otherwise.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It's short-sighted because if I want to start a religion and just copy an earlier one...sooner or later someone will notice and it'll be exposed that my religion is just a copy and therefore not true.

Epic fail to be clever from you there. Doesn't seem short sighted, more a very bad idea.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Doesn't seem short sighted, more a very bad idea.

It is short sighted- if you base a religion on an older one and just copy the myths, eventually you will be found out.

Surely that is the very definition of short sighted?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It is short sighted- if you base a religion on an older one and just copy the myths, eventually you will be found out.

Surely that is the very definition of short sighted? I wouldn't say so. I see what you mean, but short sighted itself means not seeing the whole picture.

Anyway, yeah, as blasphemous as it may sound your religion is short sighted.

Most people wouldn't've believed it if it weren't for the swords and laws etc.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Probably a few weeks after his birth at minimum. It's just shown as a newborn in stories for simplicities sake. Matthew does explicitly state that the star "stopped over the place where the child was" so I'm not sure where you got the idea otherwise. I believe he was more of a toddler age.

Actually, the Scriptures teach this:

"When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he flew into a rage and ordered the execution of all the male children in Bethlehem and all its neighboring regions who were two years old and younger, according to the time that he had determined from the wise men." - Matthew 2:16

Christ was not an infant when the Magi came to visit (they knew it was time when they journeyed), he was nearer two years, a toddler.

Again, the Scriptures do not teach that the star of Bethlehem occured when Christ was born, rather when the Magi visited Him, around age two:

"After listening to the king, they set out, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it came and stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were ecstatic with joy. After they went into the house and saw the child with his mother Mary, they fell down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasure sacks and offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they left for their own country by a different road." - Matthew 2:9-12

Also note that toddler Jesus was in the house, not the manger, as commonly depicted.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I believe he was more of a toddler age.

Actually, the Scriptures teach this:

"When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he flew into a rage and ordered the execution of all the male children in Bethlehem and all its neighboring regions who were two years old and younger, according to the time that he had determined from the wise men." - Matthew 2:16

Christ was not an infant when the Magi came to visit (they knew it was time when they journeyed), he was nearer two years, a toddler.

No, that's just Herod covering all his bases. He didn't know how old the child was but obviously assumed he was less than two years old. Remember Herod never saw the child and the Magi didn't come back to tell him anything about Jesus.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Again, the Scriptures do not teach that the star of Bethlehem occured when Christ was born, rather when the Magi visited Him, around age two:

"After listening to the king, they set out, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it came and stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were ecstatic with joy. After they went into the house and saw the child with his mother Mary, they fell down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasure sacks and offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they left for their own country by a different road." - Matthew 2:9-12

Also note that toddler Jesus was in the house, not the manger, as commonly depicted.

That just proves that they did not visit him while he was in the manger. It says absolutely nothing about his age.

I thought it was settled that the birth of the man known as Jesus, should he have actually been born at all, happened some time in the month we know as April.