Astrology is often categorized as an occult practice in Christian theology, especially in Protestant and evangelical circles. I’m trying to understand the theological basis for this. Why is astrology — the practice of interpreting celestial bodies for guidance or insight — considered spiritually dangerous or forbidden? Is it primarily because it involves divination or seeking knowledge apart from God? I'm also curious how this view is reconciled with the story of the Magi in Matthew 2:1–12, who followed a star to find the newborn Jesus. The Magi are often described as astrologers or wise men from the East who interpreted celestial signs. If astrology is inherently occult, why would God use something resembling it (a star as a sign) to guide them? Are there biblical or doctrinal distinctions made between the Magi's actions and the kind of astrology that is condemned in Scripture (e.g., Isaiah 47, Deuteronomy 18)? I’m looking for a response grounded in Christian theology, not just personal opinions.

We read at Mtt 2:16 (NRSVCE) : "When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men." No king would want to kill his male subjects since it is they who would form his armed forces in future . Herod ordered the male children to be killed because he feared for his throne, but would definitely minimize the upper age, in order to spare those who were beyond doubt ( of having been born the King of Jews ) . It implies that the Magi had taken nearly two years in travelling to Bethlehem after seeing the star, or in the alternative, it took Herod some two years after the Magi's departure to realize that he had been duped by them. Anyway, they visited Jesus after his presentation in the temple, where Joseph and Mary had been able to offer only the minimum requirement of a pair doves (Lk 2:24), not knowing what the Magi would later offer him . Going by the above, it is evident that Jesus was nearly two years of age when the Magi visited him. My question therefore, is: According to Catholic Church, how old was Jesus when the Magi visited him ?

Where was the Holy Family when the Magi visited them in Bethlehem (Mt. 2:8 )? In a house or manger? Mt. 2:11 says: "entering into the **house** (*domum*, οικίαν), they [the Magi] found the child with Mary his mother". St. Matthew's Gospel doesn't use the word φάτνη (manger, *præsæpe*). Did the Holy Family move into a house in Bethlehem before the Magi appeared to them? However, the Magnificat antiphon for Vespers on Epiphany says: "this day a star led the wise men to the manger (*præsépium*)".

We read in Mtt 2:1-2: > After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”. As per the First Commandment, God alone is to be worshipped. It is not written if the Magi realised that the newborn babe they were searching for was God's Only Son. And it is traditionally believed that the Magi were Gentiles. But why did Herod say that he too wished to worship the newborn King (Mtt 2:8) ? Agreed that he had a hidden agenda, but why Herod, himself raised as a Jew, did not correct the Magi? That leads one to the conclusion that the Magi indeed saw Jesus as the Saviour. The gift of frankincense they offered him (though listed second by Matthew in 2:11), also points to the fact. **My question therefore is**: Why did the Magi want "to worship" Infant Jesus after identifying him as King? PS: Psalm 72:11 (KJV) says that all kings shall "fall down" (prostrate) before him. Prostration is a physical symbol of paying utmost respect or acknowledging submissiveness, and not necessarily of offering worship.

We see in Matthew 2:1-2 (NKJV) how the Wise Men from the East came to visit Infant Jesus, saying that they had seen his star in the east. But, there is a small issue here: if the Wise men had seen the star in the east and followed it, they would have gone further eastward. If Bethlehem is treated as a base, and if the Wise men came from the East, they had moved westward! Now, some versions of Matthew 2:2 quote the Wise Men as saying that they had seen Jesus' star 'in the rising' that is, not specifying the direction east. One is, therefore, inclined to doubt if the term 'east' has wider connotations, other than just indicating the direction of sunrise, in the scriptures. It has been the tradition of the Church to build a place of worship facing the east. The Ad Orientem method of liturgy literally means 'towards the east'. Many orthodox churches as well as some Catholic Liturgical rites use Ad Orientem in their worship. But in congested cities where new churches get limited space for construction, the orientation of the structure to the east has become an exception rather than a rule. And those of the clergy and the faithful who chose to hold fast to the tradition, find things difficult. But then, do we not need to adapt ourselves to the constraints of modern life, in so far as worship is concerned? In other words, is there a special merit if one faces east while making a prayer? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

On 28th December the church commemorates the Sacrifice of the Holy Innocents As per Matthew 2:16 > When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was > furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its > vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time > he had learned from the Magi. However we celebrate the Feast of the 3 Kings on January 6th - which means by the date of Dec 28th Herod would not have known the Magi were not going to return to inform him the location of the baby Jesus. 1. What is the chronology of these two events - is it a fair assumption that the Visit took place prior to the massacre ? 2. Is there an explanation as to why these events are commemorated by the Church in a different order ?

What is a survey of the traditional responses to those who argue that the story of the visiting magi, mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew, is a made up fictional story? For example, an article (sourced here ) explains the magi account in the Gospel of Matthew as fictitious. The article lays out a few arguments for why the story of the magi in the Gospel of Matthew is likely a made up fictional story. A few of the highlights run as follows:

 > From a historical point of view they appear to be highly problematic. > The story abounds with interior contradictions... > > Is it likely that the distrustful Herod would allow the Magi to go > their way without at least a spy to watch their movements?... > > Moreover, if the coming of the Magi upset the whole of Jerusalem, if > their adoration at Bethlehem and the murder of the infants were known > to tradition, why does neither Flavius Josephus, nor Jesus himself, > nor John, Mark, Peter, Paul or any other apostle, nor even Luke in his > infancy narrative, allude to this fact?... > > What was the evangelist's source of information on such hidden matters > as Herod's secret council with the Magi and the angel's apparitions to > them and to Joseph? What would be some of the traditional counter arguments to the above, that support the view that Mathew was writing true history and not making up fictional stories? For a parallel discussion see here .

Around 66 A.D, the Armenian King Tiridates I, who was also a Zoroastrian priest and magus, traveled from the east to Rome accompanied by other magi (Mάγος) to pay homage to Nero and vow fidelity to him. The emperor Nero even held a coronation ceremony for him. Tiridates I addressed the emperor: > My Lord, I am a descendant of Arsakes and the brother of the Kings > Vologases and Pacorus. I have come to you who are my god; I have > worshipped you as the [sun];I shall be whatever you would order me > to be, because you are my destiny and fortune. (See here .) A Wikipedia article states a skeptical viewpoint: > It has been suggested that the visit of Tiridates I, an event that > greatly impressed contemporaries, was adapted by Christians to become > the story of the adoration of the Christ Child by the Three Magi. (See here ) The late bishop John Shelby Spong, argued a few years back about how to understand the account of the magi of Matthew's Gospel. In his book, *Born of a Woman*, he writes how the universal assumption of people he knows, associated with New Testament study, is that the magi were not actual people. He states: "Matthew was clearly writing Christian midrash." (*Born of a Woman*, pages 89-90) Of course, Spong is not clear on whether the concept of Matthew using forms of midrash necessarily implies the use of fictional stories to illustrate spiritual truths. The definition of *midrash* (midˊ-rash) is that of noun, from a root meaning “to study,” “to seek out” or “to investigate.” Midrash stories elaborate on incidents to derive a principle or provide a moral lesson. So, in theory, one could write non fictional midrash. It is unlikely that Matthew's Gospel contains made up fictional stories to convey spiritual truths, as this was clearly addressed by the apostle Peter. He writes in 2 Peter 1:16 that: > ...we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to > you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were > eyewitnesses of His majesty. Daniel Wallace gives a good defense for attributing 2 Peter as an authentic letter of Peter. It can be found here . In the early church, Tertullian (215 A.D.) writes about a church leader who wrote fictional accounts and attributed them to the apostle Paul. He writes about the dim view that the early church had in regards to those making up stories and wrongly attributing them to the apostles: > ...let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that > writing, as if he were augmenting Paul's fame from his own store, > after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of > Paul, was removed from his office. (On Baptism, 17) With the above in mind, could a late editing of Matthew's Gospel include a non fictional midrash story of the Magi specifically because of the events in 66 A.D.? Charles Hill believes he’s found another fragment of Papias in one of Origen’s Homilies on Luke, which would suggest John had reviewed the other gospels in their final form as part of the final canonization process: > There is a report noted down in writing that John collected the > written gospels in his own lifetime in the reign of Nero, and approved > of and recognized those of which the deceit of the devil had not taken > possession; but refused and rejected those of which he perceived were > not truthful. (Charles E. Hill, “What Papias Said About John (and > Luke): A “New” Papian Fragment,” Journal of Theological Studies NS 49 > (1998), p. 585) Matthew's original "oracles of Jesus" were written in the Hebrew dialect. See Papias in Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16. So, the Papian quote from Hill could be taken in a general sense for how the apostle John selected Matthew's longer Greek version for the final canon that he authorized. A longer version that contained the account of the magi visiting Jesus at his birth would have been very helpful in Matthew's mission journeys later in life. According to Hippolytus (170-235 A.D), Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew and published it at Jerusalem, and died at Hierees, a town of Parthia (Hierees is near modern day Tehran in Iran). That the writing of multiple editions of books in other languages was a practice in the first century can be demonstrated by reference to Josephus’ first work, *Bellum Judaicum* (History of the Jewish War). He wrote seven books between AD 75 and 79, toward the end of Vespasian’s reign. The original Aramaic has been lost, but the extant Greek version was prepared under Josephus’ personal direction. See here . Josephus writes in his *Jewish Wars* (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1): > I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the > government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek > tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and > sent to the Upper Barbarians. Would a longer edition of Matthew contain this story after 66 A.D., as the Persians were then seen in a more favorable light at least by Rome? Or, would the longer version of Matthew's Gospel be more likely written prior to 66 A.D.? Perhaps a little after Artabanus III, king of Parthia died in 38 A.D., and before the next war with the Parthians in 58 A.D. - as the coming of the Magi to worship Jesus would be less controversial at the time? It has been suggested that one of the reasons why Luke's Gospel does not include the story of the wisemen (magi from Parthia) is that it would have been distractive to include it at the time of its composition, as there was a Roman conflict with the Parthians going on. Lucian of Samosata, the 2nd century Greek rhetorician, drew up a set of rules for the budding historian in his book *How to Write History*. In it he writes (emphasis added): > Rapidity is always useful, especially if there is a lot of material. > It is secured not so much by words and phrases as by the treatment of > the subject. That is, **you should pass quickly over the trivial and > unnecessary,** and develop the significant points at adequate length. > **Much must be omitted.** After all, if you are giving a dinner to your friends and everything is ready, you don't put salt fish and > porridge on the table in the midst of the cakes, poultry, entrees, > wild boar, hare, and choice cuts of fish, **simply because they are > ready too!** You forget the cheaper articles altogether. (56) The dates of the various conflicts with Rome and Persia run as follows: > The decision of the Parthian King Artabanus III to place his son on > the vacant Armenian throne triggered a war with Rome in 36 AD, which > ended when Artabanus III abandoned claims to a Parthian sphere of > influence in Armenia. War erupted in 58 AD, after the Parthian > King Vologases I forcibly installed his brother Tiridates on the > Armenian throne. Roman forces overthrew Tiridates and replaced him > with a Cappadocian prince, triggering an inconclusive war. This came > to an end in 63 AD after the Romans agreed to allow Tiridates and his > descendants to rule Armenia on condition that they receive the > kingship from the Roman emperor. (See here ) I have a final thought that I picked up from Louis Sweet. He points out that the use of the phrase “Herod the King” by Matthew suggest an earlier dating, as the later signification “Herod the Great” was not yet in use.

At Matthew 2:16 (RSVCE), we read about the visit of the Wise Men to Infant Jesus, and the massacre of children by Herod : > "Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, 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 which he had ascertained from the wise men." That implies that Child Jesus was nearly two years of age when the Wise Men reached Him. Surely, they should have come from a far away place. The book "Travel in the Mogul Empire AD 1656- 1668" by Francois Bernier, with an English translation published in 1891 (available online on Rarebooks online State Central Library, Kerala), cites the presence of settlement of Jews in Kashmir, India in ancient times. Of course, other parts of the world could also have had Jewish settlements at the time of Jesus' birth. My question, therefore, is: **Were the Wise Men from the East, in fact, Jews who had settled in a far away place, say India? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say about such a prospect?**

In Matt 2, the men from east who came to visit Baby Jesus are referred to as wise men. However, now they are also known as three kings. When did they become known as "kings" rather than "wise men" and what is the basis for the description? Additionally, they are often referred to as the 3 magi. What is the basis for each of these descriptors?

Recently I have a doubt related to the Three Magi Kings. Although, we all know that there are "denominations"that celebrate a special day in honor of them, there are others that do not. ***In Matthew 2: 1-8 it says:*** > And, having gathered together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, He began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born. They said to him: "In Bethlehem of Judea; because thus it has been written through the prophet: > > 'And you, O Bethlehem from the land of Judah, you are by no means the most insignificant [city] among the governors of Judah; for out of you will come one who rules, who will shepherd my people, Israel. '" Then Herod secretly summoned the magicians and carefully ascertained from them the time when the star had appeared;and, when he sent them to Bethlehem, he said: "Go and make a careful search of the little boy, and when you have found him, come back and inform me, so that I may also go and pay him homage". ***Also in Matthew 2:11 he mentions:*** > And when they entered the house they saw the little child with Mary his mother, and, falling down, they paid him homage. They also opened their reasures and presented gifts: gold, frankincense and myrrh. From what I understand, what Matthew 2:11 says is the reason why some "denominations" celebrate a special day of "Magi Kings", giving gifts to children. However, if I do not misunderstand the scriptures, they clearly condemn any kind of magic, as well as the Babylonian practice of trying to obtain information from the stars. ***Deuteronomy 18: 10-12 says:*** > No one should be found in you to let your son or daughter pass through the fire, no one who uses divination, a magic practitioner or anyone looking for omens or a sorcerer, nor one who binds others with curses or anyone who consults a spiritualist medium or a professional event forecaster or anyone who asks the dead. For everyone who does these things is something detestable to God, and because of these detestable things your God is going to drive them out from before you. ***Isaiah 47:13 mentions:*** > You have grown weary with the multitude of your counselors. Let them stand, now, and save you, the worshipers of heaven, the contemplators of the stars, those who spread knowledge in the new moons about the things that will come upon you. The revelation that those men received did not have good consequences. Aroused the jealous anger of the evil King Herod, which, in turn, led to the flight of Joseph, Mary and Jesus to Egypt and resulted in the murder of all male children of Bethlehem "from two years of age to below" **Is this the reason why some "denominations" do **not** celebrate the day of the "Three Magi Kings"?**

I looked up information about the Star of Bethlehem on Jehovah's Witnesses website and it looks like their point on it was that it was actually created by Satan in an attempt to kill Jesus. Now of course as is known, this star and the story of the wise men has been a staple of Christmas celebrations for centuries. **So the question I would like to ask is:** are there other Christian denominations that hold that the star was sent by Satan? Here are the Jehovah's Witnesses arguments on it, from this article : > First, who were those men? In the original Greek, the Bible calls them > neither kings nor wise men. They were magi, or astrologers. They were > evidently practicers of the pagan art of divination based on the > stars. The Bible record reveals neither the names nor the number of > those visitors. > > Second, when did those men visit? Not when Jesus was a baby in a > manger. How do we know that? The Gospel writer Matthew says: “When > they went into the house they saw the young child with Mary its > mother.” (Matthew 2:11) Note that Jesus was no longer a newborn baby, > but a “young child.” Mary and Joseph were no longer spending nights in > a stable; rather, they were by then living in a house. > > Third, who sent that “star” to lead the astrologers? Religious leaders > commonly teach that God sent the “star.” Did he really? Remember, the > “star” did not first lead those astrologers to Bethlehem. Rather, it > led them to King Herod in Jerusalem. They revealed Jesus’ existence to > that jealous and powerful murderer and even gave him strong reason for > hating the child who was to become “king of the Jews.” (Matthew 2:2) > Craftily, Herod told them to report back to him on the precise > location of this child, claiming that he wanted to honor it as well. > The “star” then led the astrologers to Joseph and Mary. So the > astrologers were on a course that would have doomed the young child > had God not intervened. Happily, he did intervene. So enraged was > Herod when the astrologers did not report back to him that he ordered > all the male children two years of age and younger in and around > Bethlehem to be killed.—Matthew 2:16. > > Jehovah later referred to Jesus as “my Son, the beloved, whom I have > approved.” (Matthew 3:17) Consider: Would that loving, righteous > Father select pagan astrologers—practicers of an occult art forbidden > in his Law—as his messengers? (Deuteronomy 18:10) Would he use a star > to lead them to the most dangerous and powerful murderer in the land, > bearing a message sure to inflame Herod’s jealous hatred? Would God > then use the same star and astrologers to reveal the spot where his > helpless son lay? > > To illustrate: A good military commander sends his best soldier on a > dangerous mission into enemy territory. Would he reveal to the enemy > where to find that soldier? Of course not! Likewise, Jehovah sent his > Son to this dangerous world. Would He reveal to wicked King Herod > where His Son lay as a defenseless child? Never! > > **Who, then, sent the “star,” or starlike object? Well, who had the greatest interest in seeing the child Jesus put to death, preventing > him from growing up and fulfilling his mission on earth? Who seeks to > mislead people and promotes lies, violence, and slaughter? Jesus > himself identified the “liar and the father of the lie,” the one who > “was a manslayer when he began”—Satan the Devil.—John 8:44.** (emphasis added)

If so, then why were the Magi still labelled that way? Why call a believer a member of the pagan Zoroastrian religion? Or am I missing something here? And by believers, I meant how the Magi believed in Yahweh BEFORE they saw the star of Bethlehem and arrived to baby Jesus's house. > "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel."-**Matthew 2:1-6.**

We read at Isiah 60:6 : " The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Madian and Epha: all they from Saba shall come, bringing gold and frankincense: and shewing forth praise to the Lord."" At Mtt 2:10-11, we read an account of the homage paid by the Magi to Infant Jesus: "" When they saw that the star had stopped,they were overwhelmed with joy. On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. "" Given the specific reference to gold and frankincense mentioned in both Isiah and Matthew, one is inclined to believe that the Wise Men were in fact from Seba , also known as Sheba. Now, the Wikipedia has a write-up on Sabeans, quoting inter alia a statement that ancient Sabeans practised Islam, and were good at the trade of frankincense and myrrh. My question therefore is: were the Wise Men from the East followers of Islamic religion ? Do the teachings of Catholic Church tell us of such a prospect ?

The stories of the wise men from the East giving gifts to the baby Jesus seem remarkably similar to the way a new Dalai Lama is found. For example... Magi, or astrologers, look in the stars to guess who would be the next reincarnation of Buddha. Perhaps some astrologers from Tibet, or somewhere, read the stars and deduced that the next Dalai Lama would be born in Bethlehem. So, "following the stars", they set out on their camels to where they predict the baby was and they found Jesus in a stable. They offered gifts (which were the possessions of the previous Dali Lama) to see if the baby would recognize them. Then they took the baby back to Tibet, where Jesus trained as the Dalai Lama until he was 30. Whereby perhaps for some reason he had to leave so he went back to Nazareth. There he began to preach what he learned. His stories inspired by Buddhist teachings. "Do unto others..." etc. Then the Jews said "You must be the new Messiah" as foretold. And Jesus said, "Well you said that, not me." Well there it kind of breaks down because Jesus was teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven and not reincarnation or enlightenment. Is this a common belief that Jesus could have been chosen as a Dalai Lama type person by Eastern astrologers?

I heard an idea that the Magi that followed the star, came and brought gifts to Jesus, came from Japan. However, the one saying this didn't mention the source. He mentioned the fact that Japanese people are really smart and even in those days they knew how to interpret the astronomy. While the Bible doesn't specify the origin country of the magi, I'm wondering if there is any source we can trust mentioning where they came from. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi#Country_of_origin_and_journey) says: > The phrase from the east (ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν), more literally from the rising [of the sun],[citation needed] is the only information Matthew provides about the region from which they came. Traditionally the view developed that they were Babylonians, Persians, or Jews from Yemen as the kings of Yemen then were Jews, a view held for example by John Chrysostom.[citation needed] There is an Armenian tradition identifying the "Magi of Bethlehem" as Balthasar of Arabia, Melchior of Persia, and Gaspar of India. Bible historian Chuck Missler has also written about this tradition. Historian John of Hildesheim relates a tradition in the ancient silk road city of Taxila (near Islamabad in Pakistan) that one of the Magi passed through the city on the way to Bethlehem. Are there any other sources?

Scriptures tell us that the magi gave Mary and Joseph gold, frankincense and myrrh as presents. Although we do not know the amount given to them, it might not have been just a symbolic amount (e.g. 100 grams), as the magi were, apparently, representative of kings, if not kings themselves. As such, they were wealthy (and are traditionally represented as wealthy). Is there any Christian tradition or author (e.g. Church Fathers) arguing that Mary and Joseph became rich with these gifts? Perhaps arguing what they did with these gifts? For example, maybe donated to the Temple?