1
Just Chat! / Re: Did the Star of Bethlehem/ Jesus' Birthdate occur on April 17, 6 BC?
« on: 08/12/2016 23:53:42 »
There's a few problems with your post that I feel need to be addressed.
1. You can't take the bible (Old or New Testament) as a historical account of anything. It has been shown to be blatantly wrong about events that have, or should have been verified in other contemporary accounts. For instance, and this is only one point of many, there are no records of Jewish slaves being used in Egypt during the time that the bible states (or after, as a matter of fact).
2. Your arguments, and those in the book you reference, rely heavily on horoscopes and astrology. Given you're posting on a science forum you should be aware that there is *absolutely* zero scientific basis for this sort of thing. I'm not saying that people didn't believe in it, but that doesn't make it real.
3. There are no contemporary accounts of unusual celestial movements during the period you're talking about. As a somewhat humourous aside, the "What If" portion of xkcd has an excellent take on the three wise men of the bible: what-if.xkcd.com/25/ and provides some comment on this.
To discuss the points you raised in the original post:
- "A serendipitous discovery..." Astrology is not real.
- "The Magi were..." Astrology is not real.
- "Ancient stargazers described..." Astrology is not real.
- "The star was..." Correct! Within the context of the wider discussion, it's not really meaningful though.
- "The people of..." So if you didn't understand Greek astrology you don't see stars? Or celestial movements? I'm not too sure that this can be considered as anything but a self-supporting argument.
- "As stated in..." The bible is not a historical account. You need to use independent sources to back this stuff up, and to reiterate point 1 above, there are no such contemporary records of unusual celestial activity.
- "The Magi rejoiced..." Astrology is not real.
- "December 25th was..." This is an outcome of the "evidence" (ahem) that is presented in the book. It is not evidence in itself.
- "A Christian Roman..." A biased source as the first reason to disregard this point, and using astrology for the second.
- "The ancient documents..." Astrology is not real.
- "The Magi's star..." Another circular reference: the author of this book is using "the Magi's star" as if it were real, to support his argument of "the Magi's star". Also, there is no historical record of such a purge of children.
- "The account of..." The bible is not a historical account. Linking a bible story to coins is speculative at best. However, in the interests of giving the author some credit (and I cannot comment on the coins themselves) let's give him this one.
- "Emperor Nero was..." Astrology is not real.
The book is simply a way to support its own message; that Jesus was real and that he was the son of god. I'm not seeing anything that even approaches actual evidence in the discussion. Sorry, Brad.
1. You can't take the bible (Old or New Testament) as a historical account of anything. It has been shown to be blatantly wrong about events that have, or should have been verified in other contemporary accounts. For instance, and this is only one point of many, there are no records of Jewish slaves being used in Egypt during the time that the bible states (or after, as a matter of fact).
2. Your arguments, and those in the book you reference, rely heavily on horoscopes and astrology. Given you're posting on a science forum you should be aware that there is *absolutely* zero scientific basis for this sort of thing. I'm not saying that people didn't believe in it, but that doesn't make it real.
3. There are no contemporary accounts of unusual celestial movements during the period you're talking about. As a somewhat humourous aside, the "What If" portion of xkcd has an excellent take on the three wise men of the bible: what-if.xkcd.com/25/ and provides some comment on this.
To discuss the points you raised in the original post:
- "A serendipitous discovery..." Astrology is not real.
- "The Magi were..." Astrology is not real.
- "Ancient stargazers described..." Astrology is not real.
- "The star was..." Correct! Within the context of the wider discussion, it's not really meaningful though.
- "The people of..." So if you didn't understand Greek astrology you don't see stars? Or celestial movements? I'm not too sure that this can be considered as anything but a self-supporting argument.
- "As stated in..." The bible is not a historical account. You need to use independent sources to back this stuff up, and to reiterate point 1 above, there are no such contemporary records of unusual celestial activity.
- "The Magi rejoiced..." Astrology is not real.
- "December 25th was..." This is an outcome of the "evidence" (ahem) that is presented in the book. It is not evidence in itself.
- "A Christian Roman..." A biased source as the first reason to disregard this point, and using astrology for the second.
- "The ancient documents..." Astrology is not real.
- "The Magi's star..." Another circular reference: the author of this book is using "the Magi's star" as if it were real, to support his argument of "the Magi's star". Also, there is no historical record of such a purge of children.
- "The account of..." The bible is not a historical account. Linking a bible story to coins is speculative at best. However, in the interests of giving the author some credit (and I cannot comment on the coins themselves) let's give him this one.
- "Emperor Nero was..." Astrology is not real.
The book is simply a way to support its own message; that Jesus was real and that he was the son of god. I'm not seeing anything that even approaches actual evidence in the discussion. Sorry, Brad.