(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.

You are trying to tie one event - existence of a single individual to which the Jesus myth is traceable - for which there is no real evidence, with another event - some transient astronomical phenomenon which can overawe the yokels who not only believe in god, but believe in a man god who is the son of himself - which our best understanding of such events tells us have nothing whatsoever with any reasonable interpretation of the first event, provided the first event occurred at, and claim that this allows us to know all about this event.

(October 21, 2011 at 1:27 pm)CoxRox Wrote: I don't know if I am guilty of confirmation bias. It is corroborative 'evidence' to someone like myself, who DOES believe the gospel accounts.

Two sentences that directly contradict each other. Try again. Or rather, don't. It's kind of embarrassing.

(October 21, 2011 at 1:36 pm)ElDinero Wrote:

(October 21, 2011 at 1:27 pm)CoxRox Wrote: I don't know if I am guilty of confirmation bias. It is corroborative 'evidence' to someone like myself, who DOES believe the gospel accounts.

Two sentences that directly contradict each other. Try again. Or rather, don't. It's kind of embarrassing.

So you don't think it's reasonable or possible even that the gospel accounts that were written 300 odd years after this astonomical alignment, COULD be referring to said alignment? (Did you watch the video or read the web site article?)

---

(October 21, 2011 at 1:32 pm)Chuck Wrote: You are trying to tie one event - existence of a single individual to which the Jesus myth is traceable - for which there is no real evidence, with another event - some transient astronomical phenomenon which can overawe the yokels who not only believe in god, but believe in a man god who is the son of himself - which our best understanding of such events tells us have nothing whatsoever with any reasonable interpretation of the first event, provided the first event occurred at, and claim that this allows us to know all about this event.

Did you watch the video or read the article?

(October 21, 2011 at 1:45 pm)CoxRox Wrote: So you don't think it's reasonable or possible even that the gospel accounts that were written 300 odd years after this astonomical alignment, COULD be referring to said alignment? (Did you watch the video or read the web site article?)

I watched some of the video, until it got too stupid for me. But it doesn't matter. I'm telling you that you are using your own presuppositions to prove a claim, which is not the way you do it. You denied doing this, and then explicitly stated that it was evidence 'for someone who believes the gospels', which is in direct contradiction to the claim that you are not using your own presuppositions. Do you seriously not understand this?

As you should well know, the authorship and time of the gospels is heavily disputed. We do not have solid evidence of Christ even existing, let alone being born under a star in a manger in Bethlehem at that time. As such, you cannot start making claims regarding the star matching up to the story of Christ before you've proved that the story of Christ is true.

I've read this entire thread now. (By the way - my atheist friends are funny as FUCK!)

Anyway, I didn't think it was possible to get a LOWER opinion of GC, but somehow he managed to do it. Your level of brainwashed idiocy in this thread has left me nearly speechless.


One question really:
What the fuck difference does it make if there was or wasn't a bright fucking star in the night sky 2000 fucking years ago?!?

It's a star for christs fucking sake!!! Who cares?!?! Odds are it didn't happen, and even if it did .... well .... whoopty-fuckin-doo! Did I miss some scientific discovery about stars and their relationship to messiahs? Has it been proven and documented that little baby deities ride on the backs of bright stars?? No it hasn't? Than shut the fuck up!! Ancient bright stars have just as much divine significance as they do today... JACK SHIT!

(October 21, 2011 at 1:58 pm)ElDinero Wrote: I watched some of the video, until it got too stupid for me. But it doesn't matter. I'm telling you that you are using your own presuppositions to prove a claim, which is not the way you do it. You denied doing this, and then explicitly stated that it was evidence 'for someone who believes the gospels', which is in direct contradiction to the claim that you are not using your own presuppositions. Do you seriously not understand this?

As you should well know, the authorship and time of the gospels is heavily disputed. We do not have solid evidence of Christ even existing, let alone being born under a star in a manger in Bethlehem at that time. As such, you cannot start making claims regarding the star matching up to the story of Christ before you've proved that the story of Christ is true.

I think we are going round in circles now. Here's how I see it - bias and all:

A 'weird' astronomical event is recorded in the gospels.

Nasa has confirmed that such an astronomical event DID occur, at the time that the gospels say it occurred (when Herod was alive- which can be historically verified).

Hence I conclude that the Nasa event is one and the same biblical event.

You don't have to conclude that the event means what the bible says it means, but I do think you (as a non believer) can consider that the gospels do contain truthful elements e.g Herod (he existed), Pilate (he existed), a bright star appeared in 3/2BC (yes it did according to Nasa).

I'm not sure why it matters though. Let's say for a minute that this astronomical event did happen in that time period. That puts you no closer to proving that Jesus existed and was the son of god. All it proves to you is that the person(s) that wrote the bible looked in the sky at that time period and incorporated it into a story that is still no closer to being proven.

Cox, I beg of you, if this is the kind of evidence that has made you no longer skeptical, reexamine why you believe what you do.

(October 21, 2011 at 2:45 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I'm not sure why it matters though. Let's say for a minute that this astronomical event did happen in that time period. That puts you no closer to proving that Jesus existed and was the son of god. All it proves to you is that the person(s) that wrote the bible looked in the sky at that time period and incorporated it into a story that is still no closer to being proven.

Cox, I beg of you, if this is the kind of evidence that has made you no longer skeptical, reexamine why you believe what you do.

I think it's awesome when people like COXROX tell you that you simply must believe in Jesus and yet spend years researching trying to find some form of evidence.

It's the ultimate hypocrisy: "Believe, just believe. Yeah, I still needed at least a little evidence though."



Sheep are sheep, and the only thing we can do in the end is try to corral them into the same pen so they don't hurt themselves and others.

(October 21, 2011 at 2:45 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I'm not sure why it matters though. Let's say for a minute that this astronomical event did happen in that time period. That puts you no closer to proving that Jesus existed and was the son of god. All it proves to you is that the person(s) that wrote the bible looked in the sky at that time period and incorporated it into a story that is still no closer to being proven.

Cox, I beg of you, if this is the kind of evidence that has made you no longer skeptical, reexamine why you believe what you do.

At the least, I would say this 'star' is proof that the bible contains information that is historically trustworthy. This doesn't mean that the bible is ALL true. I tried to convey this in my previous post. As far as it's claims for God and salvation etc, these matters are ultimately decided on by faith, which unfortunately will not satisfy most people.


Cinjin- please show me one instance where I have said you must simply believe in Jesus? I've studied, doubted, prayed, doubted, studied, prayed a bit more, and even now I still doubt some things, but I have chosen to 'step out in faith' and trust that Jesus is real. Why can you not be somewhat gracious about are differing positions?

(October 21, 2011 at 3:07 pm)CoxRox Wrote: As far as it's claims for God and salvation etc, these matters are ultimately decided on by faith, which unfortunately will not satisfy most people.

This is why I'm confused as to the significance of this bit of info. Anybody will concede there is some, i.e. names of actual cities, historically accurate information in the bible. Unfortunately none of it seems to be of any real significance as far as the validity of the story of Jesus is concerned.