Evidence to support the Christian Bible.

[Confused]

This is simple:

What evidence exists to support the truth of the OT and NT. By evidence, I mean something outside of scripture. What evidence supports the stories of the OT and the NT?
I am not looking for evidence of the supernatural per se. But what about it gives it authenticity? Such as archeological evidence to support the existence of a place and the person who lived there. Perhaps some of the events that are physical in nature as well.

[Goat]

Goat wrote:

Since there were numerous things that could be.. how can you say any one was?

What can I say Goat? There may have been many things it could have been. But this one is documented and proven that it happened then, it happened where He was supposed to have been born. And IT was a rare occurrence NOT one of many things that it could have been, BUT ONE of those rare things that probably would only be seen once in a lifetime or even in many lifetimes AND REALLY DID HAPPEN!

The problem is that there are 'rare' occurrences that happen and are visible astrologically EVERY year. What that means is that you can pick a year, then pick an astrological event and proclaim, with all piousness and good intentions that "this was the event". Since that is the case, trying to find an astrological even to match is basically an inkblot test.

[joer]

Goat wrote:

Since there were numerous things that could be.. how can you say any one was?

What can I say Goat? There may have been many things it could have been. But this one is documented and proven that it happened then, it happened where He was supposed to have been born. And IT was a rare occurrence NOT one of many things that it could have been, BUT ONE of those rare things that probably would only be seen once in a lifetime or even in many lifetimes AND REALLY DID HAPPEN!

The problem is that there are 'rare' occurrences that happen and are visible astrologically EVERY year. What that means is that you can pick a year, then pick an astrological event and proclaim, with all piousness and good intentions that "this was the event". Since that is the case, trying to find an astrological even to match is basically an inkblot test.

If that's the case my friend, what was the Star of Bethlehem event that happen this year other than the one in the planetarium?

Please include your documentation as I have. BTW Happy New Year my friend and to all here.

[Goat]

Goat wrote:

Since there were numerous things that could be.. how can you say any one was?

What can I say Goat? There may have been many things it could have been. But this one is documented and proven that it happened then, it happened where He was supposed to have been born. And IT was a rare occurrence NOT one of many things that it could have been, BUT ONE of those rare things that probably would only be seen once in a lifetime or even in many lifetimes AND REALLY DID HAPPEN!

The problem is that there are 'rare' occurrences that happen and are visible astrologically EVERY year. What that means is that you can pick a year, then pick an astrological event and proclaim, with all piousness and good intentions that "this was the event". Since that is the case, trying to find an astrological even to match is basically an inkblot test.

If that's the case my friend, what was the Star of Bethlehem event that happen this year other than the one in the planetarium?

Please include your documentation as I have. BTW Happy New Year my friend and to all here.

It was recycling the Star of August, as well as using the Roman terms of 'Salvation' and "savior" that was associated with Augustus. In many respects, it was a midrash that was showing that was contrasting Jesus as the savior of the poor, meek, and for the 'world to come' while Augustus was the 'Savior' of the materialistic world.

The "star of augustus' was the sign that appeared to Augustus to show that Julius Caesar had become a God, and therefore Augustus was the 'Son of God'.

In case you didn't know, some of the titles of Augustus is 'savior of the world' 'Son of God'. who brought 'salvation' to the roman empire.

From http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/coins/augustus.html





A useful propaganda tool used by Augustus before he became emperor and after was through his lineage to his deified father Julius Caesar. The fact that the god Caesar was his father gave Augustus a significance and an inherent divinity that no one else could lay claim to. This coin which was struck around 18 BC is a commemorative issue that is not only a reminder of Augustus’ divine ancestry, but also remembers the deification of Julius Caesar which occurred in 42 BC.

The obverse is inscribed with the name CAESAR AVGVSTVS with the head of Augustus crowned by a corona civica (oak wreath). The name alone denotes Augustus’ kinship to Julius. The corona civica labels Augustus as the man who saved the citizens and the state of Rome from the destruction of the civil wars of the Republic and as the bringer of peace and prosperity to the Roman Empire.

The reverse of the coin is inscribed DIVVS IVLIVS, “the Divine Julius� The picture is that of an eight-rayed comet with the tail upwards. The comet is a symbol for the god Julius since it was stated in the biography of Julius Caesar by the ancient author Suetonius that a comet was seen over Rome just after Caesar’s death which was believed to be his soul ascending to heaven.

[McCulloch]

If that's the case my friend, what was the Star of Bethlehem event that happen this year other than the one in the planetarium?

Please include your documentation as I have.

Is there any evidence outside of the Biblical record that the Star of Bethlehem existed? How could a star lead travelers from the east to a specific town? Please include explanations including physics and geometry.

[Zzyzx]

.

1. The "eyewitness" claims are PART of the story, they are NOT independent accounts separate from the story.

If I suppose a given person's account of meeting Jesus are accurate<

I'm not sure if I'm willing to say these accounts can't be considered independent. If Jesus comes into my house and I tell that story to another, It's not necessarily my intent to 'promote' Jesus as it is to just say He was in my house. Of course there may/will be those that would do so in promotion.My point here is that I don't think the position can be proven either way...

The "promotion" of the tale, in my opinion, is involved in the process of collecting the individual accounts and making them into the story. For instance, if we wish to promote UFOs we can collect a lot of "independent eyewitness accounts" and compile them into a book. In doing so we select certain accounts (those that favor our point of view) and reject others (those that disfavor our view). Thus we lost objectivity and claim of independence when we injected our bias in the selection process.

The UFO accounts we select are DEPENDENT in that they meet our criteria for selection. Yes, they were reported by different people but they were selected because they agreed with what we wanted to present.

The same is true of bible stories – only more so. The claim of "eyewitnesses" to the "resurrection", for instance, are ONLY someone saying "Joey saw that" – which means the person writing has to have been told what Joey saw by someone. At best it would be by the observer. However, the bible stories were written long after the supposed events by people who cannot be shown to have even known the people involved (who may well have died long before the stories were written).

Worse yet, we don’t even know the identity of the writers of bible stories OR the identity of the people who may have told them the stories. Tales could have been passed down through generations and distorted or exaggerated in unknown ways. Distortion is expected in "mouth to ear" transmittal. Why would the bible tales be exempt from reasonable doubt?

My personal opinion is that this character likely existed, and one heck of a tall tale sprung up.

I do not disagree that one or more characters formed the basis of the Jesus story and were "immortalized" by extreme exaggeration.

I do not accept ANY of the supernatural claims and stories and do not accept any claim of divinity. The ONLY "proof" of divinity is a claim in a book – NOTHING else.

But in the end after the more thorough examination we do allowing whatever facts we personally find unequivocal to influence us under the guise of being “absolutely irrefutable� we add to our world view because it seems (sounds) so true (right).

I would say only after unequivocal evidence, then yes, we add to our world view. My intent was to say that we shouldn't let our world view interfere with a proper evaluation of the evidence. Pipe dream perhaps, but I still say it's a correct way to go.

In my opinion we make our best and most reasoned decisions when we reduce personal bias – particularly by seeking to form conclusions upon a wide base of information gathered form wide-ranging sources – and certainly NOT from a single source.

The best system for learning about the real world is what we know as the "Scientific Method - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses".

Evidence and observation do NOT apply to the UNREAL world of supernaturalism (the world that cannot be shown to exist).

So where does the 'eyes of what is actually correct' come from?...

It goes right back to our world view biases. I propose that what is 'true' is independent of the observer. A bad example, but its all I have right now: If the whole planet thought the Moon wasn't there, would it disappear?

In my opinion "true" is an idealized concept toward which we may strive – BUT which we cannot claim to possess except in a very limited way. We can know some things that are true for us. For instance, beyond my monitor is a window through which I see a forest – those things exist for me whether others accept their existence or not. However, to you reading my description the window and forest don't exist except as an image I convey.

For the believer wouldn’t be the same things with a different “basis of reality� or maybe a several “basis of reality�. One for the spiritual and one comparably to the material realist’s “basis of reality�

Agreed. Just because we may not be able to measure a 'spiritual reality' does not mean it's not there.

Agree 100%

While I personally attribute this to psychological phenomena, I can't honestly say it does not occur. I hope you would agree that folks who experience this spiritual reality should also consider it might be a psychological event. Here I mean purely within the 'physical' mind, and not some funky new age stuff

Agreed. We cannot know whether our own mental and emotional (non-physical) experiences represent actual entities or events that occur in the real world or whether we "experience" them only through mental processes alone. Ingesting certain substances will demonstrate the concept.

Assuming that one has had an emotional or mental "experience" or "vision" (or whatever), they can no more transfer that experience to others than I can transmit the window and forest to you. For it to be real for you, you MUST experience it yourself.

Yes, you can accept my description (limited though it may be) and conclude that those things exist beyond my monitor – but they are NOT real for you.

So that the 'eyes of what is actually correct' for the believer would be, the accumulative “eyes of the seer� ... And both positions would be TRUE in the “eyes of their respective adherents� when your following statement is applied to them...

Both would be considered true, only one would be true (barring the middle ground). My intent was to help the observer, (and perhaps subconsciously myself) realize that just because a given piece of evidence contradicts what we understand is no reason to consider it false. As well, just because a piece of evidence fits with what we know, we must still consider it against the oppositions' arguments. Many previous theological, and scientific positions have be turned because someone had the courage to question their own beliefs.

Some (limited) truths CAN be demonstrated. Joey demonstrated that falling concrete blocks can severely injure human body parts. He can demonstrate this to anyone in doubt by describing an "experiment" for them involving a tall stack of blocks and their leg. Anyone can verify the experiment and come to similar conclusions.

My intent was to point out to the observer that both sides in this debate have put up some really great arguments.

I have yet to encounter "really great arguments" in favor of supernaturalism. Can someone point them out?

I wanted to reinforce the idea that we should try to separate ourselves from our positions, and consider the great evidence that has been offered for both sides as equally valid as I've seen it presented.

Agreed. The best we can do is to base our conclusions upon evidence. For instance, I would ask for verbatim quotes of evidence or reasoning to support the claim that "really great arguments" have been made in favor of supernaturalism (or religion or whatever is "on the other side").

If evidence of such great arguments is presented I am willing to consider that statement as being true.

But that’s arguable too isn’t it. Where do we find “REAL absolute correctness�?

It’s all relative.

Well said, well said.

Peace back Joer, I'm learning much from your and Zzyzx's and others posts.

Again, I regard "real absolute correctness" as a concept rather than a reality, and I observe that we may strive to be correct but cannot rationally claim to be "absolutely correct". To be "substantially correct" may be the best we can manage.

I do not bemoan the non-existence of absolute ANYTHING and do not seek supernatural "explanations" beyond my (our) ability to understand.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 26 Post 255:

Where I've left out some of Zzyzx's comments, please consider such as my accepting them.

I'm not sure if I'm willing to say these accounts can't be considered independent. If Jesus comes into my house and I tell that story to another, It's not necessarily my intent to 'promote' Jesus as it is to just say He was in my house. Of course there may/will be those that would do so in promotion.My point here is that I don't think the position can be proven either way...

The "promotion" of the tale, in my opinion, is involved in the process of collecting the individual accounts and making them into the story. For instance, if we wish to promote UFOs we can collect a lot of "independent eyewitness accounts" and compile them into a book. In doing so we select certain accounts (those that favor our point of view) and reject others (those that disfavor our view). Thus we lost objectivity and claim of independence when we injected our bias in the selection process.

I see what you mean here. Where only accounts that support my position are given, and all accounts in contrast are not, then I have become a "promoter", moreso than a "hey, y'all aint gonna believe this..." type of person.
I agree "promoter" does seem to be the case with the Bible.

My personal opinion is that this character likely existed, and one heck of a tall tale sprung up.

I do not disagree that one or more characters formed the basis of the Jesus story and were "immortalized" by extreme exaggeration.

I do not accept ANY of the supernatural claims and stories and do not accept any claim of divinity. The ONLY "proof" of divinity is a claim in a book – NOTHING else.

Agreed. I reject the Bible specifically because of its lack of verifiable evidence (at least what I consider verifiable or proven).

In my opinion we make our best and most reasoned decisions when we reduce personal bias – particularly by seeking to form conclusions upon a wide base of information gathered form wide-ranging sources – and certainly NOT from a single source.

The best system for learning about the real world is what we know as the "Scientific Method - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses".

Evidence and observation do NOT apply to the UNREAL world of supernaturalism (the world that cannot be shown to exist).

Agreed. I will address the supernatural in a following post.

My intent was to point out to the observer that both sides in this debate have put up some really great arguments.

I have yet to encounter "really great arguments" in favor of supernaturalism. Can someone point them out?

I was referring to previous arguments of the historocity of some claims, and not for supernatural events. As mine is opinion, I would retract so much of it as to remove any objective claim, and place it safely into subjective. I stand by it as a subjective statement, with little evidentiary value outside myself and those who agree.
Only now am I seeing supernaturalism come into play, and I will have a following post to address my position on such.

Again, I regard "real absolute correctness" as a concept rather than a reality, and I observe that we may strive to be correct but cannot rationally claim to be "absolutely correct". To be "substantially correct" may be the best we can manage.

I do not bemoan the non-existence of absolute ANYTHING and do not seek supernatural "explanations" beyond my (our) ability to understand.

Agreed. I'll address supernatural claims here directly...

[JoeyKnothead]

I don't think it necessary to consider the Star of Bethlehem was anything but a perhaps rare, yet still physical process.
There are just too many rational, plausible scenarios for how the Star of Bethlehem comes into play. Some kind of supernova? A huge asteroid that managed the right size and trajectory to create the illusion of a star? Stars or planets converging in the sky? Folks just picking a star out at random and considering it as special?
Looking at the other just as likely or valid claims presented, I just don't see why it's necessary to consider the Star of Bethlehem as not having occurred either.

If supernatural, this is another one of those 'fuzzy' claims that can't be proven either way. Was it supernatural? Given so many other likely scenarios for its occurring, why is it necessary to consider it supernatural? I propose the only reason to consider it supernatural is in support of other claims that are in doubt.

But if it's not a supernatural event, then what does it tell us other than folks considered it special?

[joer]

Goat you wrote:

The problem is that there are 'rare' occurrences that happen and are visible astrologically EVERY year.

I asked you to show me evidence of This years event:

If that's the case my friend, what was the Star of Bethlehem event that happen this year other than the one in the planetarium?

Please include your documentation as I have.

That's not what you provided. I'm still curious if what you sya is true, "there are 'rare' occurrences that happen and are visible astrologically EVERY year."

Why can't you prove it? Maybe overstating your position little bit? Could that be the problem?

[Nilloc James]

Goat you wrote:

The problem is that there are 'rare' occurrences that happen and are visible astrologically EVERY year.

I asked you to show me evidence of This years event:

If that's the case my friend, what was the Star of Bethlehem event that happen this year other than the one in the planetarium?

Please include your documentation as I have.

That's not what you provided. I'm still curious if what you sya is true, "there are 'rare' occurrences that happen and are visible astrologically EVERY year."

Why can't you prove it? Maybe overstating your position little bit? Could that be the problem?

Example: certain stars can only be seen when we are on one side of the sun, we can predict when we will see them.

Thats evidence.

Ironically it was the christain asking for evidence, thats different.

[joer]

If that's the case my friend, what was the Star of Bethlehem event that happen this year other than the one in the planetarium?

Please include your documentation as I have.

Is there any evidence outside of the Biblical record that the Star of Bethlehem existed? How could a star lead travelers from the east to a specific town? Please include explanations including physics and geometry.

McCulloch, I’m not saying there is a Star of Bethlehem. I present evidence for an extraordinary occurrence of a conjunction of planets that occurred at the time and place of Jesus birth. And I’m stating that that evidence COULD BE what was witnessed by those at the time and it COULD BE the basis for The Star of Bethlehem story. It logically could very well be the basis for the story. The conjunction would have looked like a Star to the people of that time and it would have appeared to have moved because of the closeness and positions of the planets during the three conjunctions that year.

I presented enough evidence to make that case already. I don’t need to present anymore. But if you or a friend have an avid interest in astronomy, here’s more details from one of many studies conducted concerning the astronomically extraordinary event that occurred when Christ was born.

Jean Meeus another astronomer besides Prichard, did calculations and work on this event

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meeus

Another Astronomer adds graphical detail to display Jean Meeus’ work.

The three conjunctions were “similar� in the respect that the minimum angular separation was close to one degree.

According to my own thorough calculations (based on Jean Meeus´ mathematics and the SkyMap software I get the following results. On the dates May 29 and December 5 the planets behaved �regularly�, i.e. the minimum angular separation and the zero difference in longitude coincide in time:









However, the minimum angular separation and the zero difference in longitude do NOT coincide in time, at the September 7 BC conjunction:





This is very strange. Most astronomers would use a computer search strategy that would fid the zero difference in celestial longitude; they would therefore in this case find the date October 1 (marked by the number 31...32 in my diagram)!

But the minimum angular separation occurred on the date September 30, like Meeus said in his letter. In my graph this separations (as seen from above the earth’s atmosphere) is about 0.974 degrees.

I we analyze my curves for the angular separation of the planet (seen from Jerusalem) we find that the atmospheric refraction will bring the angular separation to the same values on September 29 and 30.

Therefore, the conjunction is already ending at October 1.