(October 19, 2011 at 11:48 pm)Godschild Wrote: He explains it with no problems using the same computer program that NASA does, we've been over this before and all you have are excuses, if you want to see truth check into it or shut up.

I notice that G-C completely ignored the inconsistencies of the birthday in his bible, and jumps right up using NASA

OMG.,.they used NASA computers?

Well, that settles it..Jesus was not only born, he was the son of god!

Thankyou G-C...I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior.

(October 19, 2011 at 6:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:So this guy is able to show that Jupiter retrogaded in Dec 2BC

Um, even if this were true all it would do is further complicate the already existing contradiction between Luke and Matthew about your alleged godboy's birth. Matthew places it while Herod the Great was still alive, IOW before 4 BC. Luke places it when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was named governor of Syria in 6 AD. There is no way to reconcile this contradiction and now this bozo wants to introduce a 3d choice which matches none of the texts which xtian nuts swear are both true!

By the way, there is a secondary problem with this bullshit - which only appears in "Matthew."

Yes, good point, however regardless of which interpretation, the fact remains is that Jupiter has been doing retrograde motion since the beginning of the solar system was formed, that is, it did that over earth sky a million times over. So Christians would need to explain why the specific one that occurred 2,000 years ago announced the birth of the son of God while all the others are insignificant... a tall order to explain.

"A year on either side" is not an accurate representation of the problem of Jesus' birth (option 5 is never), nor is "a year on either side" anywhere near as precise as it would have to be to have anything to do with astronomy. The sky moves like clockwork from our vantage point. Further, proof of the existence of a star (and lets be honest you could just pick any star if you wanted to believe, there are a lot of them), is proof of the birth of a demi-god how?

Astrologers follow stars too, they must "speak the truth" to you? The whole star of beth business is a joke. As it was said in genesis, god made the stars for signs (gen1:14), guess that proves it, and astrology......are we off to check our lucky numbers and horoscopes yet?

(October 19, 2011 at 11:55 pm)Godschild Wrote: The reason that God has everything to do with the Star of Bethlehem, He knew when to send His Son into the world so that it could be documented by the heavens, He knew exactly were the stars and planets would be to give witness to the birth of His Son. God being creator and omniscient this was no problem for Him.

You haven't answered my question. Also don't say you'll "ignore my post" and open-mindedness but then proceed to address them anyway with a complete non sequitur.

Quote:Also thanks for proving what I said.

For proving what exactly? I was not trying to make you out to be an ignorant buffoon, but if that's the impression you're under, then sure, you're welcome I guess.

I think he's an ignorant buffoon. All jesus freaks are.

(October 19, 2011 at 11:55 pm)Godschild Wrote: The reason that God has everything to do with the Star of Bethlehem, He knew when to send His Son into the world so that it could be documented by the heavens, He knew exactly were the stars and planets would be to give witness to the birth of His Son. God being creator and omniscient this was no problem for Him. Also thanks for proving what I said.

Why would your god - in fact, any god - need to resort to using natural phenomena to work its miracles? Are we talking about the same god that parted the Sea of Reeds and made pillars of fire? That turned rivers to blood? The same one that wished the heavens and earth into being in the first place? Why is it now reduced to simply pulling the strings of what is already existant, causing a natural event that is so ambiguous and mundane as to be completely meaningless? See, if (for example) Barack Obama was suddenly to turn into a pillar of salt in the blink of an eye, live on the White House lawn and especially in answer to prayer, it'd almost certainly be convincing evidence of a miracle (or at the very least, an unusual event beyond human knowledge). It may even prove to be evidence for a god or gods; though which one/s would still be up for grabs. Personally, my money's on Ceiling Cat. However, if the best that can be achieved is a commonplace natural event, understood by scientists and indistinguishable from any other natural event, then you have nothing in your corner except stubborn faith.

(October 19, 2011 at 11:55 pm)Godschild Wrote: NASA uses the Starry Night program to pinpoint where planets will be so they can have spacecraft to be at the correct place at the correct time.

I too have the Starry Night program, along with Stellarium, Celestia and a few others. Predicting planetary positions, future as well as historical ones, isn't that big of a deal, provided you have correct data - which isn't kept secret by any means; it's all freely available online. (In fact I often challenge myself with planning my own planetary missions using the spaceflight simulator "Orbiter", which uses that same orbital data to go with with the rest of its real-world physics... truly I say unto you: with the proper tools and the knowledge to use them, it ain't rocket science. Although intercepting the orbit of Mars without actually hitting the damn thing can be annoying).

The point is, any astronomy program worth its pixels will show you phenomena such as outer planet retrograde motion, lunar and solar eclipses and planetary libration; also an effect known as an analemma, which probably shouldn't be Googled with safesearch off. So what's your point, beyond a faint whiff of argumentum ad verecundiam? We already agree that such phenomena exist in nature, we know enough about them to understand what causes them and predict them.

(October 19, 2011 at 11:55 pm)Godschild Wrote: I see also that you do not completely understand that the position a person is at on Earth will determine what is seen, you have to remember the Magi were east of Bethlehem and in close proximity to Babylon.

No, I understand perfectly well, thank you anyway. For example, did you know that an observer in the northern hemisphere sees an almost totally different night sky (apart from a degree of overlap at the horizon over the course of a year) to one in the southern? Thus I repeat: what is your point? So the Magi were close to Bedlam (to use a shortened form of Bethlehem); they had a shorter trip than most. Surely they were not the only astrologers on the planet, even in relatively nearby locations. Add to that the impressive number of proper astronomers around the world, notably Mesopotamia, Greece and China. Where is the mention of this stellar event in other sources?

(October 20, 2011 at 8:37 am)Rhythm Wrote: "A year on either side" is not an accurate representation of the problem of Jesus' birth (option 5 is never), nor is "a year on either side" anywhere near as precise as it would have to be to have anything to do with astronomy. The sky moves like clockwork from our vantage point. Further, proof of the existence of a star (and lets be honest you could just pick any star if you wanted to believe, there are a lot of them), is proof of the birth of a demi-god how?

Astrologers follow stars too, they must "speak the truth" to you? The whole star of beth business is a joke. As it was said in genesis, god made the stars for signs (gen1:14), guess that proves it, and astrology......are we off to check our lucky numbers and horoscopes yet?

I don't believe that 'a year either side' is a big deal. We knew that Jesus was born around 3 BCE, so now that we know the exact year of the 'star', we now can be sure of the EXACT year of His birth.

The 'star' was just a sign. Stars or constellations don't exert influence over us, as astrology claims, so mentioning astrology in connection with this is just unneccessary as I'm sure you know.

The 'star' was real. Thank you Nasa for confirming it.

*sigh* No. Explain how proving that the 'star' existed proves that we now know the year of Christ's birth, without reference to the Bible.

Here's an equivalent of your statement, so you can see how stupid it is.

1. I know I was born in 1987 somewhen, on a rainy day.
2. Our records show that it rained on April 4th, 1987.
3. I must have been born on April 4th, 1987.

You are using confirmation bias and your own presuppositions to 'prove' this point. That won't wash. Tell me that you understand why.

(October 21, 2011 at 4:49 am)CoxRox Wrote: I don't believe that 'a year either side' is a big deal. We knew that Jesus was born around 3 BCE, so now that we know the exact year of the 'star', we now can be sure of the EXACT year of His birth.

So you admit your bible was wrong about the date of your savior's birth? I wonder what else the bible got wrong...

(October 21, 2011 at 6:24 am)ElDinero Wrote: *sigh* No. Explain how proving that the 'star' existed proves that we now know the year of Christ's birth, without reference to the Bible.

Here's an equivalent of your statement, so you can see how stupid it is.

1. I know I was born in 1987 somewhen, on a rainy day.
2. Our records show that it rained on April 4th, 1987.
3. I must have been born on April 4th, 1987.

You are using confirmation bias and your own presuppositions to 'prove' this point. That won't wash. Tell me that you understand why.

Did you watch the film or read the web site account? I don't know if I am guilty of confirmation bias. A rainy day is very common. The specific features of this astonomical alignment CORRESPOND EXACTLY with the 'star' mentioned in the gospels . That doesn't mean that magi really did 'follow' it, or that it really did mean a 'king' had been born. Maybe the writers mixed some truth with fiction. It is corroborative 'evidence' to someone like myself, who DOES believe the gospel accounts. When you couple the star's timing of 3 BC, to the prophecy in the book of Daniel (which was written 400 odd years before Christ) which dated the Messiah's birth to 3 BC ALSO, then you've got some powerful 'evidence' that the Messiah was born right on time as predicted and as signposted in the skies of 3/2 BC.