Spirituality
25 Dec 13
25 Dec 13
RJ watch the video you always want us to watch your links LOL I think you might like it and he backs up his theories with what the sky was like @ 3-2 BC and while I'm about 95% convinced I'd like to research it a bit more. The whole premise is based upon if God created the heavens for signs and seasons and the passage of time why would God not mark the time of birth and even The Death and resurrection of The SON ?
Manny
26 Dec 13
Originally posted by menace71He doesn't convince me.
RJ watch the video you always want us to watch your links LOL I think you might like it and he backs up his theories with what the sky was like @ 3-2 BC and while I'm about 95% convinced I'd like to research it a bit more. The whole premise is based upon if God created the heavens for signs and seasons and the passage of time why would God not mark the time of birth and even The Death and resurrection of The SON ?
Manny
26 Dec 13
It is just a theory but the star maps don't lie I don't think. It's software that makes calculations based on Kelper and Newtonian mechanics and the planets behave and stars. I guess the flaws can be the same as with any assumptions. Such as speed of objects etc........the obvious things are these Magi saw something that prompted them to act upon it. As I said I'm about 95% convinced I would say he is on to something. It just like the Shroud of Tourin it will not change my faith but fun to think about. My premise is this that if these events are indeed true events that occurred in history and did not take place in a vacuum then there are other things we can look at including science to try to back up the story and that's all.
Manny
27 Dec 13
Originally posted by RJHindsHow does that affect his overall premise regarding the astronomic indicators that were ocuuring at the time of the star of Bethelehem?
His information from the New Testament on the time of death is wrong since he assumes the traditional Friday crucifixion, which conflicts with both prophecy and scripture accounts.
27 Dec 13
Originally posted by divegeesterHe may also be wrong on his assumptions concerning the star of Bethelenem too. He makes the assumption that Kepler was not looking for evidence for the star before the 4 B.C. time that was believed to be the time King Herod the Great died. He failed to backup his statement that King Herod the Great died in 1 B.C.
How does that affect his overall premise regarding the astronomic indicators that were ocuuring at the time of the star of Bethelehem?
It is true that Johannes Kepler suggested that the close encounters of Saturn and Jupiter that should have occurred on May 29, September 29, and December 4 in the year 7 B.C. may have been mistaken for a new star. However, the astronomical tables also revealed that in February of 6 B.C. that Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars should have appeared together in a triangle.
Ancient Chinese records recorded a star that appeared about March of 5 B.C. that was seen for 70 days. They recorded another one that appeared about April of 4 B.C.
I think more information is needed to support this idea that King Herod the Great did not die until 1 B.C. Luke records the following concerning the Passover:
And when he became twelve, they went up there according to the custom of the feast;
(Luke 2:42 NASB)
This would indicate that Jesus was born in the Spring at the time of the Passover. So his dates will not work.
27 Dec 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI thought he gave good reason for the date of death of Herrod, but it's fairly irrelevant anyway. But as usual you are barking up the wrong tree. Despite the solid astronimical research indicating that these celestial events occurred on the dates calculated you still would argue them being incorrect based on a labelling the day of the week Christ died. And yet you accept that the Turin shroud is actually the burial cloth of Christ on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence and it's physicality being contacry to scripture?
He may also be wrong on his assumptions concerning the star of Bethelenem too. He makes the assumption that Kepler was not looking for evidence for the star before the 4 B.C. time that was believed to be the time King Herod the Great died. He failed to backup his statement that King Herod the Great died in 1 B.C.
It is true that Johannes Kepler suggest ...[text shortened]... cate that Jesus was born in the Spring at the time of the Passover. So his dates will not work.
27 Dec 13
Originally posted by RJHindsBtw the arguments you present here don't make sense. How the heck has Jesus attendance at Passover got anything to do with what's in the video? There is one Passover per year and Jesus could have had his birthday at any time in it. I don't know why I'm even bothering to discuss this with you actually.
He may also be wrong on his assumptions concerning the star of Bethelenem too. He makes the assumption that Kepler was not looking for evidence for the star before the 4 B.C. time that was believed to be the time King Herod the Great died. He failed to backup his statement that King Herod the Great died in 1 B.C.
It is true that Johannes Kepler suggest ...[text shortened]... cate that Jesus was born in the Spring at the time of the Passover. So his dates will not work.
27 Dec 13
Originally posted by divegeesterHe gave no proof that the date of the death of Herod the Great was 1 B.C. instead of 4 B.C. That does not mean he must be wrong, but only that I need more proof to convince me. These celestial events could have occurred at other times too. Who knows for sure?
I thought he gave good reason for the date of death of Herrod, but it's fairly irrelevant anyway. But as usual you are barking up the wrong tree. Despite the solid astronimical research indicating that these celestial events occurred on the dates calculated you still would argue them being incorrect based on a labelling the day of the week Christ died. ...[text shortened]... rist on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence and it's physicality being contacry to scripture?
He would have been better off not trying to tie this in to the crucifixion date, because I know he is wrong on that one. This error causes me to suspect an error on the date of birth too.
There is a lot of unusual evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. There was only one piece of evidence, the C14 dating, that suggested that it might be a fake and that evidence has now been determined to be erroneous.