Morality or Obedience?

[carpedm9587]

It was a comet that was actually recorded in ancient Chinese records. It fit all of the details recorded in the birth narrative including the Magi and them setting out to visit Jesus. Interestingly, the Chinese recorded that the comet was signifying that a new king / ruler was being born or something to that effect (I forget the exact wording).

I think you would like the scientific approach to verifying the historical accuracy.

A comet would make a great deal of sense. It fits the narrative of the birth stories and would be visibly moving over time, and it's tail would give it a "pointing" feel. Of course, the question remains, "was their really a comet, or was this merely a literary device used to convey the message, "a king is being born?"

I have not seen the science about whether or not there would have been a comet seen at about that time and in the correct part of the sky.

[element771]

A comet would make a great deal of sense. It fits the narrative of the birth stories and would be visibly moving over time, and it's tail would give it a "pointing" feel. Of course, the question remains, "was their really a comet, or was this merely a literary device used to convey the message, "a king is being born?"

It was an actual comet that was recorded in Chinese astronomical records. The Chinese interpreted this type of comet to mean that a king being born or something to that effect. It was completely independent of anything to do with the birth narrative in the Bible.

And you are correct...the Chinese recorded 3 different types of comets. The one that matches the criteria for the birth narrative did indeed have a tail.

I have not seen the science about whether or not there would have been a comet seen at about that time and in the correct part of the sky.

Right, that is why I am telling you about it.

Humphreys also published a paper in Nature about the date of the crucifixion.

[carpedm9587]

It was an actual comet that was recorded in Chinese astronomical records. The Chinese interpreted this type of comet to mean that a king being born or something to that effect. It was completely independent of anything to do with the birth narrative in the Bible.

And you are correct...the Chinese recorded 3 different types of comets. The one that matches the criteria for the birth narrative did indeed have a tail.

Right, that is why I am telling you about it.

Humphreys also published a paper in Nature about the date of the crucifixion.

Presumably looking for an eclipse that corresponded to the crucifixion?

[element771]

Presumably looking for an eclipse that corresponded to the crucifixion?

There was no solar eclipse...I think most think it was a dust storm of some kind.

In brief, he used the Bible's accounts of Jesus last week to figure out the exact date given the restrictions of who was in power and such. I forget how he actually narrowed down the date to a single possibility (it has been a while since I read the paper). The Bible said that the night Jesus was crucified the moon turned to blood (or something to that effect) signifying a lunar ecclipse. He then used astronomical software to determine if there were any lunar eclipses during that period. He found that there was one and it independent confirmed the exact date he obtained using only the Biblical record.

[carpedm9587]

There was no solar eclipse...I think most think it was a dust storm of some kind.

In brief, he used the Bible's accounts of Jesus last week to figure out the exact date given the restrictions of who was in power and such. I forget how he actually narrowed down the date to a single possibility (it has been a while since I read the paper). The Bible said that the night Jesus was crucified the moon turned to blood (or something to that effect) signifying a lunar ecclipse. He then used astronomical software to determine if there were any lunar eclipses during that period. He found that there was one and it independent confirmed the exact date he obtained using only the Biblical record.

Of course, the moon can also "turn to blood" as a consequence of a dust storm, among other things...

It seems odd to think of a lunar eclipse - which causes the moon to disappear entirely.

[element771]

Of course, the moon can also "turn to blood" as a consequence of a dust storm, among other things...

Right...

They speculated that IF there was a dust storm earlier that day...it could of enhanced the red color caused by the lunar eclipse even more.

[carpedm9587]

Right...

They speculated that IF there was a dust storm earlier that day...it could of enhanced the red color caused by the lunar eclipse even more.

But doesn't it seem odd to you that the stories would emphasize the color of the moon, rather than the fact that it disappeared entirely? A lunar eclipse just seems somewhat unlikely to me for that reason. But - who knows -

And I'm not sure the exact date is all that important - though it IS interesting.

[element771]

But doesn't it seem odd to you that the stories would emphasize the color of the moon, rather than the fact that it disappeared entirely? A lunar eclipse just seems somewhat unlikely to me for that reason. But - who knows -

And I'm not sure the exact date is all that important - though it IS interesting.

Well it wasn't a total eclipse according to the paper so that fits the description.

[carpedm9587]

Well it wasn't a total eclipse according to the paper so that fits the description.

Do you have a link to this paper? Did I miss it?

[element771]

And I'm not sure the exact date is all that important - though it IS interesting.

I agree that the exact date doesn't matter but I think that supporting the historicity of the New Testament is important. It is a necessary but not sufficient part in assessing the truth claims for Christianity. In other words, I recognize that everything could have happened as indicated in the text historically WITH the exception of the resurrection. However, if there were no historical elements in the New Testament that could be verified...then that would be a big blow to Christianity.

Do you have a link to this paper? Did I miss it?

It is an old paper...

https://www.nature.com/articles/306743a0

There were some responses that challenged the ability to see the eclipse from the near east by another group. But it was rebutted pretty convincingly.

Huh...

I was looking for the paper and found this

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47555983/n.../#.WqwBASPMxBw

Pretty cool stuff.

[carpedm9587]

I agree that the exact date doesn't matter but I think that supporting the historicity of the New Testament is important. It is a necessary but not sufficient part in assessing the truth claims for Christianity. In other words, I recognize that everything could have happened as indicated in the text historically WITH the exception of the resurrection. However, if there were no historical elements in the New Testament that could be verified...then that would be a big blow to Christianity.



It is an old paper...

https://www.nature.com/articles/306743a0

There were some responses that challenged the ability to see the eclipse from the near east by another group. But it was rebutted pretty convincingly.

Huh...

I was looking for the paper and found this

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47555983/n.../#.WqwBASPMxBw

Pretty cool stuff.

Thanks. Unfortunately, the nature paper is for $...

[element771]

Thanks. Unfortunately, the nature paper is for $...

I can get it for you if my university has access that far back. We should.

I just don't know how to get it to you.

[JimL]

You are right. Just going off of what you have posted, I can infer the following possibilities...

1. You have read a lot of material but don't understand it.

2. You have read a lot of material and understand it but like to pretend you don't (i.e. trolling).

3. You have not read anything.




I would not believe in the nonsensical, cartoon version of Christianity that you espouse either.

Actually yes you do. You believe in exactly the same version of christianity that I speak of, because if you didn't, you wouldn't believe in the bible.

[JimL]

Then you should perhaps be more careful about separating the pieces. The claim "the bible is not history" is too sweeping. It makes you sound a bit uninformed - and it makes your other arguments/statements corresponding less likely to be received.

Ah, the Bible, particularly the NT, which is the book we were discussing, is not a book of History, as a story it is set in that historic time, but it isn't history.

[JimL]

It was a comet that was actually recorded in ancient Chinese records. It fit all of the details recorded in the birth narrative including the Magi and them setting out to visit Jesus. Interestingly, the Chinese recorded that the comet was signifying that a new king / ruler was being born or something to that effect (I forget the exact wording).

I think you would like the scientific approach to verifying the historical accuracy.

And why would the so called non Jewish Magi give a hoot about the birth of a Jew, or believe he would be a King of the Jews. Do you really believe in astrology, do you really believe that the Magi read all of this in the stars, and then followed a star/comet all the way to the Bethlehem manger just to say hi?