It's simple. No natural event fits the description, therefore references to natural events cannot confirm that the description is factual.
I take the appearing of the star to be a supernatural event. How the mechanics of it worked I do not know. But that it was arranged under the supervision of the Creator on behalf of the incarnation of the Son of God, is how it seems presented in the Bible.
I do not know the scientific mechanics of how it happened.
Actually a very bad one,, since it deals with events referred to in only one Gospel, events that would have happened a long time before Jews were even aware of that Gospel and concerning a ruler whoxsse memory they had no wish to defend.
I don't think this helps your skeptical analysis that much. It implies that things repeated in all the gospels are more credible.
So should we say then that the appearance of the star, because it is mentioned only in Matthew is not to be believed. But the resurrection of Christ from the dead, because repeated in all four gospels, is much more likely to have occured?
Anyway, I see God overseeing the writing of His book. And it was under His guidance what was mentioned and how many times. If you look at a cell under a powerful microscope you will notice of course incredible detail of the mechanics of life. I don't think God would be more sloppy in the passing on to us a revelation of His move of salvation as recorded in the Bible.
I include God in my reasoning process. I think you exclude the possibility of the presence and power of God in your reasioning process about these things.
Now if the resurrection had been mentioned only in Matthew and the star mentioned four times in all four gospels, I would wonder that there was something more important to realize about that star. As it stands God saw fit that one mention of it in Matthew was good enough.
It is the difference between regarding the Bible as a religious scap book thrown together willy nilly and a sovereign and wise God overseeing its writing, preservation, and transmission. I believe the latter.
If there had been usch works then is is unlikely that they owuld have been preserved. Works confirming the massacre would be more likely to survive because Christians would prefer those. You do know that our knowledge of some of the major criticisms of Christianity is limited to Christian responses to those works ?
This theory doesn't hold up to me. There are too many things recorded in the New Testament, that if it were false propoganda, a sensible propogandist would have NOT included them. Had they wanted to eliminate difficult, embaressing, and suspect material there are plenty things that they could have made sure that they were eliminated from the gospels.
For example:
1.) Jesus's own brothers not believing in Him
2.) His family thinking that He was mad or beside Himself
3.) He being accused of being a winebibber
4.) He being accused of having a demon
5.) Sayings causing His own disciples to withdraw from Him
6.) Women being the first to witness His resurrection
rather than men
7.) His own disciples being too cowardly to bury Him
8.) His calling the lead disciple "Satan" on one occasion
9.) His crying out
"Why have you forsaken Me" to God
10.) Diffiult teachings which practically no one can accept
11.) Some of His own disciples doubting His resurrection
12.) He being accused of socializing with sinners and tax
collectors
These and other inclusions of the Gospel accounts could have been eliminated because they would be problematic to the cause of the Christian propogandist.
The testimony of women was not counted in court for example. Yet the mentioning of the fact that the women and not the men were the first witnesses of the singularly most important aspect of Christ's mission - His resurrection, is telling. It speaks of the candor of the record.
If you can't even admit the fact that you have a religion, then what hope is there for you ?
Oh, you haven't read? He is the God of eternal encouragement.
Christ is not a religion but a living Person.
If I do have some religion in me I know Who to go to to be saved from it, Jesus.
I have said nothging about Saul of Tarsus. About the alleged Massacre the weight of evidence indicates that it is a fiction.
What evidence? Your speculations that this or that is more likely to have been the case? Is that your weighty evidence?
Instead of accusing me of having a religion you should consider that you are an obsessed person perhaps - obsessed with acculating a lot of speculative
"Should have beens" and
"More likely thats" and parading it as solid "evidence".
You can't answer that evidence and so you resort ot distortion, misrepresentation and double standards.
I don't see evidence to distort. I see a lot of speculative -
"This should have been the case" and "that is more likely" and "certainly it would have been like this" and "only mentioned once so it probably didn't happen".
Junk
The writer of the book of Matthew displays a concern that Christians would have the highest morality in the world. The writer of the book of Matthew highights the most difficult teachings of Christ in terms of the morality and behavior.
Then your conduct here must be all the more disappointing.
I'm still a work in progress.
Doesn't rescue the flimsy skepticism your obsessed with.
Maybe because he believed his fiction.
Self deceived? Maybe. A self deceived writer writing with lucidity about a Person Jesus who seemed to be very soberminded, honest, straight forward, frank, not self serving, absolute for His Father's will to the point of torture and death.
This is the theory of a befuddled Matthew writing about a extrememly lucid and soberminded Savior.
What other theory do you have?
Or because he was so self-righteous he didn't care.
A self righteous and self deceived writer writing about Christ's constant exposure of the hypocrisy of of the self righteous religionists?
Not caring? Are you projecting? I think you're the one who couldn't care less about what the Apostle Matthew recorded for us. You're the one who seems to not care that a Son of God was born to be the Savior of the world.
Why do you want now to project your apathy onto Matthew?
Either is plausible.
Tell me, do you beleive all the many falsehoods that you have produced in this thread ? Do you really beleive that your behaviour here has been honest ? Either answer damns your argument.
I think that is a loaded question like, "Don't you think it is time you stop beating your wife?"
I'm not immoral just because I don't take some of your speculative skepticism hook, line, and sinker. After the event with the star what is the next bone you choke on in Matthew's gospel?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
