Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 01-03-2012, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi sotto voce,

Here is the text in question

Hi,

The text in question, conservatively and accurately translated, is here:

'Magi came from the East to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one born king of the Jews? We saw his star rising, and have come to worship him."' Mt 2:1-2

This does not seem to present any problems.

Matthew 2:9 (NIV) - After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was.

A magic star that goes from south to north and then stops in the sky would appear to present some problems.

sotto voce · 01-03-2012, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

A magic star that goes from south to north and then stops in the sky would appear to present some problems.

If the word 'magic' is problematic, then it would present problems. The difficulty may be resolved by selection of another adjective.

Mageth · 01-03-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

A magic star that goes from south to north and then stops in the sky would appear to present some problems.

If the word 'magic' is problematic, then it would present problems. The difficulty may be resolved by selection of another adjective.

Leave off "magic" and it's still a problem. Stars don't travel south to north and don't stop over a location. (Well, unless they're magic stars.

)

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-03-2012, 01:54 PM

A piece I wrote a few years ago on the topic.

Shredding the Gospels

sotto voce · 01-03-2012, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

If the word 'magic' is problematic, then it would present problems. The difficulty may be resolved by selection of another adjective.

Leave off "magic" and it's still a problem. Stars don't travel south to north and don't stop over a location. (Well, unless they're magic stars.

)

That's the same circularity.

Mageth · 01-03-2012, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

If the word 'magic' is problematic, then it would present problems. The difficulty may be resolved by selection of another adjective.

Leave off "magic" and it's still a problem. Stars don't travel south to north and don't stop over a location. (Well, unless they're magic stars.

)

That's the same circularity.

That's the same dodge.

Stars don't travel south to north and don't stop over a location.

Unless you have an explanation that holds up to scrutiny .... ??? ... there is a problem.

Brian63 · 01-03-2012, 02:22 PM

I don't spend much time even lurking in this forum and do not know the subject matter well, but when getting into such discussions I have found it helpful to point out that it is a major point made by Christian apologists themselves that there are errors in the gospels, and they try to turn that admission into an argument in support of the NT's historical accuracy. For example, from the very popular "Case for Christ" there are the following exchanges between Lee Strobel and various experts he interviews:

pp. 215-216:

Quote:

”…I remarked to Craig, ‘I suppose if all four gospels were identical in all their minutiae, that would have raised the suspicion of plagiarism.’ ‘Yes, that’s a very good point,’ he said. ‘The differences between the empty tomb narratives suggest that we have multiple, independent attestation of the empty tomb story…’

…no historian would disregard this evidence just because of secondary discrepancies…

…illustration of discrepancies in secondary details failing to undermine the historical core of a historical story.

pp. 45-46:

Quote:

Blomberg acknowledged that there are numerous points at which the gospels appear to disagree...

"Ironically," I pointed out, "if the gospels had been identical to each other, word for word, this would have raised charges that the authors had conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories in advance, and that would have cast doubt on them."
"That's right," Blomberg agreed. "If the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses. People would then say we really only have one testimony that everybody else is just parroting.

[Referring to Simon Greenleaf, "the author of an influential treatise on evidence"] After studying the consistency among the four gospel writers, he offered this evaluation: "There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them..."

[German scholar Hans Stier] has concurred that agreement over basic data and divergence of details suggest credibility, because fabricated accounts tend to be fully consistent and harmonized. "Every historian," he wrote, "is especially skeptical at that moment when an extraordinary happening is only reported in accounts which are completely free of contradictions."

No apologist that has ever cited the general presence of discrepancies or errors and that I have asked to identify specific examples of them (including WL Craig quoted above, who I sent feedback to via his website) has ever responded back to me with any such examples. They just leave it as a generalization that the NT has errors. They will say the errors enhance its credibility, but they do not get specific on what those errors actually are. The most you will probably get is them saying that they are in the "insignificant" parts and other blatant attempts to divert your attention away from thinking about why a divinely inspired book would have any errors or discrepancies at all, in the significant or insignificant parts.

Brian

Sarpedon · 01-03-2012, 02:27 PM

What I don't understand is why christians persist in saying it was a star. Why not just say it was an angel sent to guide the magi, and be done with it? A naked eye astrologer probably couldn't tell the difference. They have the sheperds being guided by angels, why not the magi too?

sotto voce · 01-03-2012, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

What I don't understand is why christians persist in saying it was a star.

Have you read the thread carefully?

sotto voce · 01-03-2012, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

Stars don't travel south to north and don't stop over a location.

Quite so.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2012, 01:54 PM	#34
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	A piece I wrote a few years ago on the topic. Shredding the Gospels

01-03-2012, 02:27 PM	#38
Sarpedon Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le Posts: 8,446	What I don't understand is why christians persist in saying it was a star. Why not just say it was an angel sent to guide the magi, and be done with it? A naked eye astrologer probably couldn't tell the difference. They have the sheperds being guided by angels, why not the magi too?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.