(March 6, 2012 at 10:15 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(March 6, 2012 at 4:33 am)Undeceived Wrote: You'd like me to propose new evidence. Let's start with science. Rick Larson used a professional astronomy program to determine the stars' formation at the time of Jesus' birth. It included one star (Jupiter) coming into conjunction with several others, touching the Leo and Virgin constellations, and creating what was probably the brightest star in the history of human civilization. What's more, it would have appeared to be in the west at Jesus' birth (to Magi from Persia) and then appeared to be slightly south from Herod's palace where the Magi stopped first. There was also a blood moon (lunar eclipse) on the afternoon Jesus died, visible from Israel (Joel 2:31 and Acts 2:20).
http://www.bethlehemstar.net/dance/dance.htm
http://www.bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm
Since star patterns are predictable, it's easy to go back in time and see what the sky looked like when. No rebuttals have been attempted.

Indeed. Here's one of those no rebuttals:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-9105-pos...#pid196272

And here's part 2:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-9105-pos...#pid196486

You're welcome.

Your first link seems to say that, yes, this series of events did happen in 2-3 BC but required "dedicated nightly observation by persons who must have known ahead of time what to look for." Well, astronomers and the constellations go back thousands of years. Persia (we'll suppose that is the 'East') was probably the most scientifically advanced region in the world. They did have astronomers who would track and record the patterns of the stars. They could even predict some of the paths. Old Testament prophecies spoke of a virgin and the Messiah from the line of Judah (lion or 'Leo'). Larson suggests the Magii were probably remnants of Jews from their captivity in Persia 400 years ago. Jews would have seen the significance of the lion and virgin, particularly when they are crowned by kingly Regulus. In any case, the whole point of the Star apologetically is that it may have formed on Jesus' date of birth while representing everything the prophesied Messiah was and Jesus was recorded to have been--born of a virgin, of the tribe of Judah, and "King of the Jews." Luke wrote the star event into his Gospel, so obviously it was a big enough to remember. If he made up the event, then you have an incredible coincidence. Either it was large enough to draw astronomers (rendering at least part of the story true) or Luke lucked out big time.

In your second link, you say "There was a series of interesting planetary motion during this period - but so what?" basically admitting it was interesting and symbolic, but not improbable to be a coincidence either. So I found no evidence against the bethlehem star, which is what I expected when you said "rebuttal." When one sees a pattern they usually jump to a conclusion. By that logic, the combination of old testament prophecy, description in the Gospel, and only recent discovery of a confirmation of that Gospel's description means more than coincidence. Why is there a virgin next to a lion in the sky at all, and the two just happen to signify Mary and Jesus' tribe? One answer is that God created the universe with Jesus in mind and designed the heavens to declare his glory (Psalm 19:1).

You still have to account for all the planetary conjunctions and similar events that happened prior to this particular period and all the ones that have happened since, including the ones yet to happen. These things are happening all the time, night after night, none of them have any relevance beyond coincidence due to our subjective point of view as inhabitants of an orbiting world in a system of orbiting worlds. Orbital mechanics is indeed a fascinating subject and we have the maths down pretty well. The question is why should anyone seize on this one particular period of history as opposed to any other? Basically what we have is the observations of about eight months in one specific year that can be shoehorned into service as evidence in support of one particular myth, as long as we disregard the thousands of years before and since then that, inconveniently for the believer, don't fit.

Then again Jesus never existed anyway, so the exercise is purely an academic one.

YOu probably should have kept reading that thread.

Quote:What is crystal clear is that whoever the hell wrote "Matthew" it was some primitive schmuck who thought that stars were "lights" in the sky that could "travel" along the earth and illuminate a specific spot.

Childish.

(March 7, 2012 at 2:27 am)Undeceived Wrote: Why is there a virgin next to a lion in the sky at all, and the two just happen to signify Mary and Jesus' tribe? One answer is that God created the universe with Jesus in mind and designed the heavens to declare his glory (Psalm 19:1).

Sure, lol, that's one answer...but it isn't the correct answer. The correct answer would be that there isn't a virgin in the sky, nor is there a lion, and that since neither of these things are there to begin with, they have never been, nor will ever be next to each other. There is only a collection of stars as viewed in 2d from our vantage point given some description by human beings with plenty of time on their hands to invent fanciful stories. Claims to herald stars are common, in myths. Descriptions of constellations have changed considerably over the years, and whatever you see when you look up is likely to be the product of your cultural background (ask the chinese about virgins and lions). Be less gullible in the future.

Let's just for a moment entertain the thought that Leo and Virgo actually do represent Mary and Jesus and all that other stuff. How about the other eighty-six officially recognised constellations, forty-six of which were drawn up by Ptolemy in 1400 CE? What or who do they represent in this tortuous symbolism? There is a virgin and a lion in the sky in exactly the same way that there is a telescope (Telescopium), various components of a ship (poop deck (Puppis), keel (Carina) and sails (Vela), all part of the now-obsolete Argo Navis), a chisel (Caelum), an arrow (Sagitta), a compass (Circinus), a hairstyle (Coma Berenices), a hunter (Orion of course), big and little dogs (Canis Major and Minor), a clock (Horologium), a fly (Musca) - I could go on. My personal favourite has got to be Camelopardalis, the Giraffe.

Even if we limit it to just the Zodiacal family, within which the Sun and planets appear to be 'housed' throughout the course of a year (and bear in mind the boundaries of all constellations were not fixed until 1930) we're still left with such unBiblical oddities as Libra the scales, Cancer the crab, Sagittarius the Archer - depicted as a centaur - Aquarius the Water Carrier, Ophiucus the Serpent Bearer and so on. I'm not even going to complicate the picture further with such details as the observed habits of the planets occasionally to 'visit' signs outside the Zodiac.

What you are engaged in is known as the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: you've painted your target around the data points that you want to fit your picture, then claimed a bullseye.

(February 24, 2012 at 2:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill.

-- H L Mencken

Faith = Trust, Mencken is confused

Trust=trust, you are confused.

(March 9, 2012 at 10:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Trust=trust, you are confused.

There's a difference between a reasonable faith (trust) and an irrational faith (trust). No?

(March 9, 2012 at 10:45 pm)black36 Wrote: There's a difference between a reasonable faith (trust) and an irrational faith (trust). No?

While I agree, be advised that many of the participants consider religion unreasonable by definition.

(March 9, 2012 at 10:57 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 9, 2012 at 10:45 pm)black36 Wrote: There's a difference between a reasonable faith (trust) and an irrational faith (trust). No?

While I agree, be advised that many of the participants consider religion unreasonable by definition.

That's fine, but let's be clear. "Faith" is not unreasonable by default. A "blind faith" or "blind trust" is unreasonable, but only because the adjective "blind" labels it as such. Without the adjective, it is not reasonable to presume that the faith in question is unreasonable. Atheism may be the correct view of reality, however, a blind adherence to it is not rational.