Debate here if you doubt Jesus is the Creator of the universe born in flesh

[jusplay4fun]

Let's discuss a KEY Point: There are many different church denominations, especially Christian denominations.

Does this huge number (at least 40,000) mean they are all WRONG? NO.

Most or many of the most public controversies now involving the Catholic Church involve sex (NOT a major theme in Scripture, btw; it is to me a "fringe issue"). Those matters are: celibate priests, pedophile priests, abortion, and treatment of homosexuals. One recent Pope (I think it is Francis) said he wanted to move beyond these matters and wanted to shift attention toward the poor and marginalized.

It doesn't mean they're all wrong. It does mean, however, that they can't all be right, which is my main standpoint; since it is impossible to know which, if any, is right, then it's highly likely (ie 39999:1) that one's belief is incorrect in respect of the differences.

When did I say that THEY ALL must be right?? Please show me.

Which one is right? That is what one searches in one's Heart, reads Scripture for Guidance, and look at Good Leaders to help discern, too.

As for your second statement - this is typical of the problem with the church. One can't just "move beyond" paedophiles and the treatment of homosexuals that easily - sweeping it under the carpet as though it didn't matter or never happened, or has stopped. This is one of your "trivial" or "moot" dismissals; it IS a big issue, and a very uncomfortable one for the church, but more so for the victims, and they've done damn all to root out the perpetrators. This is why people see the church as hypocritical - they're supposed to be caring, yet they're abusing those in their care (they're also not always celibate when they claim to be, as per the Borgias for example, but that's their choice and doesn't affect others unless it's non-consensual). This, along with abortion, shows that they're out of date and out of touch, which is perhaps why the youth (along with wealth and health) don't turn to religion for succour - and perhaps is further evidence that religion is man-made to fill a need, rather than being a fundamental truth.

Here is our fundamental disagreement:

religion is man-made to fill a need, rather than being a fundamental truth.

Religion may be man-made, but the desire to seek God, I think, is a fundamental truth. There are also fundamental truths in Scripture. You dismiss religion, basically in ANY and ALL forms as useless. That is our fundamental difference, too.

The extent of sins committed by humans, including but NOT LIMITED to priests, is not for me to judge. Is pedophelia an EVIL? I say it is and so do MOST other people. Few will defend such heinous acts committed against CHILDREN. The real sin, besides the acts of the sinner, are those "leaders" who try TO HIDE the truth in these very serious and sinful and ILLEGAL matters.

Some 40 Years ago, when stories of pedophiles in the priesthood, church leaders FAILED to adequately deal with these horrific SINS and evil (and ILLEGAL) acts. That made ALL priest suspects for the acts of ONLY a few. Those few are similar to the extent in the general population; priests are not pre-disposed to such acts.

[HitRed]

Off to the desert 🏜

Heard

Time well spent. - God

[Dukasaur]

Let's discuss a KEY Point: There are many different church denominations, especially Christian denominations.

Does this huge number (at least 40,000) mean they are all WRONG? NO.

No, it doesn't mean they are "all" wrong. But it does mean that at least 39,999 are wrong.

[Apatheist]

Here is our fundamental disagreement:

religion is man-made to fill a need, rather than being a fundamental truth.

Religion may be man-made, but the desire to seek God, I think, is a fundamental truth.

I don't think a desire can be a "truth" as such. It may be a wide-spread need, but it's not essential to life.

There are also fundamental truths in Scripture. You dismiss religion, basically in ANY and ALL forms as useless. That is our fundamental difference, too.

Write enough stuff, some of it will be accurate - the same could be said of horoscopes and Nostradamus types. There's no way of knowing what is ACTUALLY true.
I say there's as much truth in the writings of Douglas Adams as there is in any scripture.

The extent of sins committed by humans, including but NOT LIMITED to priests, is not for me to judge. Is pedophelia an EVIL? I say it is and so do MOST other people. Few will defend such heinous acts committed against CHILDREN. The real sin, besides the acts of the sinner, are those "leaders" who try TO HIDE the truth in these very serious and sinful and ILLEGAL matters.

Some 40 Years ago, when stories of pedophiles in the priesthood, church leaders FAILED to adequately deal with these horrific SINS and evil (and ILLEGAL) acts. That made ALL priest suspects for the acts of ONLY a few. Those few are similar to the extent in the general population; priests are not pre-disposed to such acts.

Maybe they're not all pre-disposed; however, those who become priests are supposed to be BETTER than the rest of us. You may choose to believe there's only a few; perhaps there's only a few that have been caught. They're supposed to know what's right; if they're giving guidance on how to behave well at confession, it's somewhat hypocritical to be behaving worse when they leave the room.
BTW These are not "sins" - they are criminal acts. Whilst parts of the law derive from the concept of sin, there's a legal difference between for example "wrath" and "assault",
or "lust" and "rape of a minor".
I wouldn't trust a builder to guide me on spiritual matters any more than I'd trust a priest to build my garage; but I SHOULD be able to trust a priest on what's right and what's wrong. The "do as I say, not as I do" approach is never going to convince me that these people are any better than, or any different from, the rest of us; as such, I can't believe that they are any closer to any deities. It's too big a credibility gap.
Doubtless there are some who are totally devout, believe everything they say, and behave impeccably - indeed, my neighbour is a Baptist minister, and he and his wife to a great deal for the community; but for example we've seen in here the rantings of HitRed who claims to be hearing voices. I don't know how serious he is; but is he any different from those who claim to have a direct line of communication?

[Apatheist]

Let's discuss a KEY Point: There are many different church denominations, especially Christian denominations.

Does this huge number (at least 40,000) mean they are all WRONG? NO.

No, it doesn't mean they are "all" wrong. But it does mean that at least 39,999 are wrong.

+100

[jusplay4fun]

Let's discuss a KEY Point: There are many different church denominations, especially Christian denominations.

Does this huge number (at least 40,000) mean they are all WRONG? NO.

No, it doesn't mean they are "all" wrong. But it does mean that at least 39,999 are wrong.

+100

No, your analysis is wrong and much too narrow. If two groups disagree on a minor matter, it does not necessarily mean only ONE is correct. They can BOTH be correct as that minor difference does not really matter. Here is one such minor matter: Who selects the Scripture readings for a particular service? The Pastor or some group? Does that really matter? If both are reading from Scripture and the Scripture reading selected are significant, why does it matter who selects it?

[Dukasaur]

Let's discuss a KEY Point: There are many different church denominations, especially Christian denominations.

Does this huge number (at least 40,000) mean they are all WRONG? NO.

No, it doesn't mean they are "all" wrong. But it does mean that at least 39,999 are wrong.

+100

No, your analysis is wrong and much too narrow. If two groups disagree on a minor matter, it does not necessarily mean only ONE is correct. They can BOTH be correct as that minor difference does not really matter. Here is one such minor matter: Who selects the Scripture readings for a particular service? The Pastor or some group? Does that really matter? If both are reading from Scripture and the Scripture reading selected are significant, why does it matter who selects it?

You're downplaying it as "minor matter". Christian sects disagree on very fundamental issues. Trinitarianism versus Unitarianism. Jesus as fully divine versus the twin nature of Jesus as both divine and mortal, versus Jesus as fully human. Transubstantiation versus no transubstatiation. Adult baptism versus infant baptism versus no baptism at all. Full-immersion baptism versus token sprinkle baptism. Speaking in tongues. Iconography versus anti-iconography. Church tradition versus Sola Scriptura. The Bible as literal truth versus the Bible as symbolic parable.

Pretty major, and in many cases diametrically opposed, positions.

Even if you could iron out all those, Christianity even at its peak didn't get a majority of the world's people on side. Currently, less than 30% of the world is Christian, and even at the peak, circa 1900, it was never more than 35%. Even if you could miraculously explain away all the disagreements between Christian sects, you still have all those Hindus and Muslims and Shintoists and Animists to persuade.

Contrast that with scientific ideas. Once Pasteur and Koch proved the germ theory of disease, it only took a generation before a majority of scientists accepted it, and only about 3 generations before it was accepted by 99% of them. Once Einstein published Special Relativity, it only took one generation of physicists before it was the majority view, and only about 3 generations before it was accepted by 99.99% of them. Demostrable, provable theories spread like wildfire and take very little time to become accepted. Good ideas chase bad ideas out the door very, very quickly. Religions, which are based on NOT provable, NOT demonstrable ideas, cannot. After many hundreds and sometimes thousands of years, there is still no religion which has ever reached the level of majority acceptance (except in narrowly-defined areas) and none ever will. They cannot show any proof, any evidence.

[Apatheist]

As a more direct example - JP, you (and others) disagree with Lionz about how old the Earth is. You can't both be right. Either it's about 4.5 billion or 6000 years old, or some other number, but at least one of you has to be wrong if you're using the current orbit as the definition of a year. It's pretty fundamental.

[jusplay4fun]

As a more direct example - JP, you (and others) disagree with Lionz about how old the Earth is. You can't both be right. Either it's about 4.5 billion or 6000 years old, or some other number, but at least one of you has to be wrong if you're using the current orbit as the definition of a year. It's pretty fundamental.

I think Duk and Apatheist are BOTH trying to compare apples to oranges: there are significant differences that make comparisons not straightforward.

Comparing the age of the earth to the "One True" Religion are two much different things. One can be "proven" rather well with a preponderance of evidence (geologic, biologic, chemical, radioactive [as in radioactive dating], and more). The only "source" that I have seen that argues the earth is some 6,000 years old is the LITERAL translation of the Bible, and I have shown that the definition of day and year is suspect in that the sun was not created until day 4 of the Genesis account. Also, the Bible is NOT a book of Science (or History, either) as I have said several times already. NOT every Christian takes every word in the Bible literally; yes, some do.

As I have said very recently, AND before, Religious matters are based on Faith and NOT just on Facts. One must use the Heart and NOT JUST the intellect or Brain to discern the Truth about religious and theologic matters. One cannot truly grasp the truth about God with the Brain and logic and intellect. I think both Duk and Apatheist tend to IGNORE this fundamentas point. I cannot recall where they even actually responded to that point, except perhaps to merely dismiss it. Seeking and looking for God with Heart and Head allows a better and more complete perspective. Looking for God with only the Head is like looking at the world through a tube: a very limited perspective is obtained.

Duk does point to SOME significant differences between SOME religions; however, NOT all differences are that profound. It need NOT be 1 vs. 39,999. I can be 10K vs 20K (or even 50/50, but I doubt that close a split), depending on how much to split hairs (or how many angels dance on the head of a pin).

[Apatheist]

As a more direct example - JP, you (and others) disagree with Lionz about how old the Earth is. You can't both be right. Either it's about 4.5 billion or 6000 years old, or some other number, but at least one of you has to be wrong if you're using the current orbit as the definition of a year. It's pretty fundamental.

I think Duk and Apatheist are BOTH trying to compare apples to oranges: there are significant differences that make comparisons not straightforward.

Comparing the age of the earth to the "One True" Religion are two much different things. One can be "proven" rather well with a preponderance of evidence (geologic, biologic, chemical, radioactive [as in radioactive dating], and more). The only "source" that I have seen that argues the earth is some 6,000 years old is the LITERAL translation of the Bible, and I have shown that the definition of day and year is suspect in that the sun was not created until day 4 of the Genesis account. Also, the Bible is NOT a book of Science (or History, either) as I have said several times already. NOT every Christian takes every word in the Bible literally; yes, some do.

As I have said very recently, AND before, Religious matters are based on Faith and NOT just on Facts. One must use the Heart and NOT JUST the intellect or Brain to discern the Truth about religious and theologic matters. One cannot truly grasp the truth about God with the Brain and logic and intellect. I think both Duk and Apatheist tend to IGNORE this fundamentas point. I cannot recall where they even actually responded to that point, except perhaps to merely dismiss it. Seeking and looking for God with Heart and Head allows a better and more complete perspective. Looking for God with only the Head is like looking at the world through a tube: a very limited perspective is obtained.

Duk does point to SOME significant differences between SOME religions; however, NOT all differences are that profound. It need NOT be 1 vs. 39,999. I can be 10K vs 20K (or even 50/50, but I doubt that close a split), depending on how much to split hairs (or how many angels dance on the head of a pin).

That's not actually the point. It's the fact that logical or evidential conflicts undermine faith in any one version.
What I was saying was that at least one of you and Lionz is 4.5 billion years wrong; that calls into question other things that you may state as truths. I'm not concerned if one group thinks Jesus was born on a Monday and another says it was Tuesday; but following a star to where they'd travelled to versus no star and it was where they were living, that's enough to doubt the authenticity of either account. I'll say again, even going by the biblical account, the star was actually a comet anyway.
It doesn't matter as much about the small differences, that's just the subjective definition of importance; but the significant ones, as listed by Duk, are big enough to suggest that no one explanation is to be trusted or seen as "the Truth".
Contrary to what you say, I believe that religion has to be based ENTIRELY on faith and the heart, because evidence and the head suggest that no-one has a clue as to the actual truth.

[jusplay4fun]

As a more direct example - JP, you (and others) disagree with Lionz about how old the Earth is. You can't both be right. Either it's about 4.5 billion or 6000 years old, or some other number, but at least one of you has to be wrong if you're using the current orbit as the definition of a year. It's pretty fundamental.

I think Duk and Apatheist are BOTH trying to compare apples to oranges: there are significant differences that make comparisons not straightforward.

Comparing the age of the earth to the "One True" Religion are two much different things. One can be "proven" rather well with a preponderance of evidence (geologic, biologic, chemical, radioactive [as in radioactive dating], and more). The only "source" that I have seen that argues the earth is some 6,000 years old is the LITERAL translation of the Bible, and I have shown that the definition of day and year is suspect in that the sun was not created until day 4 of the Genesis account. Also, the Bible is NOT a book of Science (or History, either) as I have said several times already. NOT every Christian takes every word in the Bible literally; yes, some do.

As I have said very recently, AND before, Religious matters are based on Faith and NOT just on Facts. One must use the Heart and NOT JUST the intellect or Brain to discern the Truth about religious and theologic matters. One cannot truly grasp the truth about God with the Brain and logic and intellect. I think both Duk and Apatheist tend to IGNORE this fundamentas point. I cannot recall where they even actually responded to that point, except perhaps to merely dismiss it. Seeking and looking for God with Heart and Head allows a better and more complete perspective. Looking for God with only the Head is like looking at the world through a tube: a very limited perspective is obtained.

Duk does point to SOME significant differences between SOME religions; however, NOT all differences are that profound. It need NOT be 1 vs. 39,999. I can be 10K vs 20K (or even 50/50, but I doubt that close a split), depending on how much to split hairs (or how many angels dance on the head of a pin).

That's not actually the point. It's the fact that logical or evidential conflicts undermine faith in any one version.
What I was saying was that at least one of you and Lionz is 4.5 billion years wrong; that calls into question other things that you may state as truths. I'm not concerned if one group thinks Jesus was born on a Monday and another says it was Tuesday; but following a star to where they'd travelled to versus no star and it was where they were living, that's enough to doubt the authenticity of either account. I'll say again, even going by the biblical account, the star was actually a comet anyway.
It doesn't matter as much about the small differences, that's just the subjective definition of importance; but the significant ones, as listed by Duk, are big enough to suggest that no one explanation is to be trusted or seen as "the Truth".
Contrary to what you say, I believe that religion has to be based ENTIRELY on faith and the heart, because evidence and the head suggest that no-one has a clue as to the actual truth.

The Bible is NOT a book of Science or about Science. If the science is wrong, that unto itself is NOT sufficient to cause me to have a crisis of faith. I assume that is true for most Christians. Wandering nomads in the desert, as were the Jews in their early History, did not KNOW enough Science to discern the difference. What the Magi called the event in the sky is the same for me: NOT that significant. How the Jews during that time interpreted what the Magi saw is the SAME: not that important.

Those Christians who take the Bible LITERALLY (6,000 or so years) are not nessarily correct. I see no need to tell them that they are wrong. I have had a few open-minded discussions with a few such Christians. Most are closed minded on this topic; it is not worth getting into arguments about with other Christians. I present my arguments and allow them to make up their own minds.

The KEY is that God sent his only Begotten Son to save us.

John 3:16
King James Version
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I want everlasting life; if you do not, so be it. You make that decision.

There is ENOUGH Science for me that validates what the Bible says. I have read several books that discuss those key points. My faith is affirmed in what I read and by the learned men who write those books.

The Big Bang theory points to a BEGINNING; most scientists, including Einstein, thought the Universe existed in a steady (or static) state and did not start in Big Bang. Einstein and others later modified their thinking as more evidence suggested the Big Bang was indeed LIKELY.

[Apatheist]

The Big Bang theory points to a BEGINNING; most scientists, including Einstein, thought the Universe existed in a steady (or static) state and did not start in Big Bang. Einstein and others later modified their thinking as more evidence suggested the Big Bang was indeed LIKELY.

Exactly. Opinions on science change as more evidence is uncovered, and that was always going to happen with astronomy and cosmology (more recently there was speculation about the Martian "canals" until we got a better look), as well as the subatomic. Why should that not apply to other beliefs where the answer is not known, such as religion? We now know what a comet is and how it behaves, exactly as described in the gospel, so why not accept that the "star" of Bethlehem was indeed a comet and NOT A SIGN OF THE BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH?
The biggest problem for me with religions is when the information that claims to come directly from an omniscient source proves to be wrong.
Take HitRed, for example - he posts claimed that he has "heard" Jesus tell him not to vote Democrat because of the stance on abortion. Is that any less valid that anything written in your little book? One would scoff of course, but according to the book of the prophet HitRed, Jesus told his followers to vote for Trump. If that were the only writing to survive a global cataclysm, it could become the basis for a new religion, and Trump would get his wish of being deified.
Trying to be objective: how is HitRed any different from Ezekiel and the rest?

[jusplay4fun]

The Big Bang theory points to a BEGINNING; most scientists, including Einstein, thought the Universe existed in a steady (or static) state and did not start in Big Bang. Einstein and others later modified their thinking as more evidence suggested the Big Bang was indeed LIKELY.

Exactly. Opinions on science change as more evidence is uncovered, and that was always going to happen with astronomy and cosmology (more recently there was speculation about the Martian "canals" until we got a better look), as well as the subatomic. Why should that not apply to other beliefs where the answer is not known, such as religion? We now know what a comet is and how it behaves, exactly as described in the gospel, so why not accept that the "star" of Bethlehem was indeed a comet and NOT A SIGN OF THE BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH?
The biggest problem for me with religions is when the information that claims to come directly from an omniscient source proves to be wrong.
Take HitRed, for example - he posts claimed that he has "heard" Jesus tell him not to vote Democrat because of the stance on abortion. Is that any less valid that anything written in your little book? One would scoff of course, but according to the book of the prophet HitRed, Jesus told his followers to vote for Trump. If that were the only writing to survive a global cataclysm, it could become the basis for a new religion, and Trump would get his wish of being deified.
Trying to be objective: how is HitRed any different from Ezekiel and the rest?

Silly argument. I doubt many would call HitRed a Prophet. To equate HR to Ezekiel is ridiculous.

Is HR's message wrong? IDK. That decision awaits more evidence.

As far as the Star of Bethelehem as being a COMET and not another celestial event, the EVIDENCE is NOT Definitive, as you suggest.

Could the Star of Bethlehem have actually been a comet?

By Keith Cooper; Published December 16, 2025

If Matney is right, why doesn't the Book of Matthew refer to a comet rather than a star? To the ancients, everything in the celestial sky barring the sun and the moon was a star. Planets were 'wandering stars', while comets were 'hairy stars' or 'broom stars' to the Chinese. (...)

Even so, it does seem like it would require a remarkable set of coincidences for the comet to have been the Star of Bethlehem, by being in the right direction, at the right time, moving at the right speed and at the right distance — a Goldilocks comet, if you will.

"It is a very unusual set of parameters," conceded Matney. "It had to come at the right time so that the right longitude could see it. Twelve hours sooner and it would have been on the other side of the world. But even though it is a highly unlikely set of circumstances, it's not out of the question. After all, every comet's orbit is a unique set of parameters."
(...)
Another problem with Matney's hypothesis is that other than the short section in the Book of Matthew, which is believed to have been written after 70 AD, the only other source of information regarding the comet and its possible link with the Star of Bethlehem is the Chinese observations of the comet. If anyone else did see the star, they didn't leave any records — or at least, no records that have survived across the millennia since. Still, Matney is hopeful that something else might yet turn up.

"The weakest link in my story is that we don't have other records, which is why I'm still on the lookout for some untapped historical or archaeological source that might provide more clues," he said.

https://www.space.com/astronomy/comets/ ... tmas-story

AI Summary:

Recent studies suggest that the Star of Bethlehem may have been a comet. A NASA planetary scientist, Mark Matney, proposed that a comet observed by the Chinese around 5 BCE could have been the celestial event described in the Bible. This comet might have come as close to Earth as the moon, leading to its historical significance

Historically, other theories have suggested that the Star could have been a conjunction of planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, but the comet hypothesis is gaining traction due to new evidence

Star of Bethlehem
(...)
Many Christians believe the star was a miraculous sign. Some theologians claimed that the star fulfilled a prophecy, known as the Star Prophecy.[4] Astronomers have made several attempts to link the star to unusual celestial events, such as a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn or Jupiter and Venus,[5] a comet, or a supernova.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem

[Apatheist]

The Big Bang theory points to a BEGINNING; most scientists, including Einstein, thought the Universe existed in a steady (or static) state and did not start in Big Bang. Einstein and others later modified their thinking as more evidence suggested the Big Bang was indeed LIKELY.

Exactly. Opinions on science change as more evidence is uncovered, and that was always going to happen with astronomy and cosmology (more recently there was speculation about the Martian "canals" until we got a better look), as well as the subatomic. Why should that not apply to other beliefs where the answer is not known, such as religion? We now know what a comet is and how it behaves, exactly as described in the gospel, so why not accept that the "star" of Bethlehem was indeed a comet and NOT A SIGN OF THE BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH?
The biggest problem for me with religions is when the information that claims to come directly from an omniscient source proves to be wrong.
Take HitRed, for example - he posts claimed that he has "heard" Jesus tell him not to vote Democrat because of the stance on abortion. Is that any less valid that anything written in your little book? One would scoff of course, but according to the book of the prophet HitRed, Jesus told his followers to vote for Trump. If that were the only writing to survive a global cataclysm, it could become the basis for a new religion, and Trump would get his wish of being deified.
Trying to be objective: how is HitRed any different from Ezekiel and the rest?

Silly argument. I doubt many would call HitRed a Prophet. To equate HR to Ezekiel is ridiculous.

Why? Both are claiming to hear celestial voices telling them what's what. There is NO difference, other than you looking at it with a modern eye and being better acquainted (albeit via cyberspace). Quite possibly both are the result of substance use, that's difficult to confirm, but essentially they're experiencing the same sort of delusion.

As far as the Star of Bethelehem as being a COMET and not another celestial event, the EVIDENCE is NOT Definitive, as you suggest.

Could the Star of Bethlehem have actually been a comet?

By Keith Cooper; Published December 16, 2025

If Matney is right, why doesn't the Book of Matthew refer to a comet rather than a star? To the ancients, everything in the celestial sky barring the sun and the moon was a star. Planets were 'wandering stars', while comets were 'hairy stars' or 'broom stars' to the Chinese. (...)

Even so, it does seem like it would require a remarkable set of coincidences for the comet to have been the Star of Bethlehem, by being in the right direction, at the right time, moving at the right speed and at the right distance — a Goldilocks comet, if you will.

"It is a very unusual set of parameters," conceded Matney. "It had to come at the right time so that the right longitude could see it. Twelve hours sooner and it would have been on the other side of the world. But even though it is a highly unlikely set of circumstances, it's not out of the question. After all, every comet's orbit is a unique set of parameters."
(...)
Another problem with Matney's hypothesis is that other than the short section in the Book of Matthew, which is believed to have been written after 70 AD, the only other source of information regarding the comet and its possible link with the Star of Bethlehem is the Chinese observations of the comet. If anyone else did see the star, they didn't leave any records — or at least, no records that have survived across the millennia since. Still, Matney is hopeful that something else might yet turn up.

"The weakest link in my story is that we don't have other records, which is why I'm still on the lookout for some untapped historical or archaeological source that might provide more clues," he said.

https://www.space.com/astronomy/comets/ ... tmas-story

AI Summary:

Recent studies suggest that the Star of Bethlehem may have been a comet. A NASA planetary scientist, Mark Matney, proposed that a comet observed by the Chinese around 5 BCE could have been the celestial event described in the Bible. This comet might have come as close to Earth as the moon, leading to its historical significance

Historically, other theories have suggested that the Star could have been a conjunction of planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, but the comet hypothesis is gaining traction due to new evidence

Star of Bethlehem
(...)
Many Christians believe the star was a miraculous sign. Some theologians claimed that the star fulfilled a prophecy, known as the Star Prophecy.[4] Astronomers have made several attempts to link the star to unusual celestial events, such as a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn or Jupiter and Venus,[5] a comet, or a supernova.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem

There's an astronomy show in the UK called The Sky At Night. It's been running since 1957, and for a while was the longest running show with the same presenter (Patrick Moore, later Sir Patrick, whose information was used in the moon landings) in the world. It's presented by Oxford Professor Chris Lintott and Dame Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock, who was part of the JWST team, and have guest presenters and astronomers (including Professor Brian Cox and Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees). I've been on it twice.
They did a special on the star of Bethlehem, examined all the possibilities, including conjunctions, supernovae and so on, and came to the definitive conclusion that the behaviour described was that of a comet. They were able to reject the other possibilities because they didn't fit the described pattern. They showed the ancient tablet that you mention. I don't know whether you'll be able to see the show outside of the UK, maybe it's uploaded somewhere.
I understand that the gospel says that the "star" brightened, then disappeared, then reappeared going the other way, and wasn't as bright. That's classic comet behaviour - brightening as it approached the sun, then going behind it, then coming out the other side with a reduced tail due to the direction of the solar wind.
It's also pretty obvious that the people of the time were pretty desperate for a messiah, and would have shoe-horned anything in to try to justify the story.

[HitRed]

God is knowable and wants to be known.

This reads like a job description.

I come to those who are simple and with hearts open to my voice. There must be those who listen. To each a task is given. I have sent those with ears to hear to tell those who have not. I the God of time reaches out to those who have not the ears to hear to read my words. - God

[Apatheist]

God is knowable and wants to be known.

This reads like a job description.

I come to those who are simple and with hearts open to my voice. There must be those who listen. To each a task is given. I have sent those with ears to hear to tell those who have not. I the God of time reaches out to those who have not the ears to hear to read my words. - God

You see, this proves that it's not from an infallible source - certainly not as far as grammar is concerned.

come to those who are simple and with hearts open to my voice. There must be those who listen. To each a task is given. I have sent those with ears to hear to tell those who have not. I the God of time reach out to those who have not the ears to hear to read my words. - God/quote]

Were you aware that scammers deliberately use bad spelling and grammar so that they don't waste time trying to scam the educated among us who can spot the errors? He would know that the subject of the sentence is "I", therefore the verb takes the first person singular.
EDIT: "to hear to read my words" is clearly just you making stuff up, changing your mind and forgetting to correct it before hitting submit. People don't read with their ears.
I guess I misread that. Perhaps you should suggest to him that punctuation makes his message much clearer:
I, the God of time, reach out to those who have not the ears to hear, to read my words.
Still nonsense, but at least it's readable. It reminds me of an old phrase:
Caesar entered on his head his helmet on his hip his sword on his feet his sandals.

Anyway, it really is time to stop, HitRed.

[Pack Rat]

Hearing voices, known medically as an auditory hallucination, is most commonly linked to schizophrenia and psychosis. However, it can also happen with severe depression, bipolar disorder, PTSD, extreme stress, lack of sleep, or certain medical and neurological conditions.Mental Health ConditionsSchizophrenia: A long-term mental illness where people often lose touch with reality and hear verbal voices.Psychosis: A state where a person has trouble telling what is real and what is not real.Bipolar Disorder: Severe mood shifts can sometimes include hearing things during high or low episodes.Severe Depression: Deep sadness and low mood can occasionally bring on psychotic features like voices.Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): Past trauma and severe stress can trigger voices related to the event.Dissociative Identity Disorder: A condition split into separate identities where people may hear internal talking.

[Apatheist]

This also reminds me of a Zoe Lyons joke about an insurance claim being denied:
Do you hear voices?
No.
Are you deaf?
No.
So you do hear voices?
Well, yes...
You lied! Claim denied!

[Lionz]

Dukasaur,

How about just keep looking if you think there’s no evidence for a non-materialist view of the universe.

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/fCgqku3Uboc

When does math lie even if people can lie about history and science?

Apatheist,

There might be as many worldviews as there are conscious beings.

I guess jusplay4fun has a more correct view than me in some areas and I have a more correct view than him in some areas and you have a better understanding than either of us on some stuff as well.

I don’t deny that mainstream sources and AI are useful for research (even if the world is filled with AI haters).

Let’s just be careful about adamantly claiming or believing something is true simply because a mainstream source or AI or the majority says so.

I propose that Mount Everett didn’t exist before the flood; remember back to what I shared about how well continents fit together globally and also what I posted that pointed to rapid accordion like smashing together of landscape

I was more going for an archaic Merriam Webster definition of dragon and what Tolkien envisioned is kind of off topic maybe; what does Medusa do to help explain how accurately dinosaurs were portrayed in ancient times?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dragon

What's not going to be way off base when it comes to something like carbon dating if the flood really happened and yet carbon dating assumes the amount of carbon-14 being produced in the atmosphere has always been equal to the amount being removed? Consider implications if fossil fuels are primarily the result of the flood in the first place. If there was much more vegetation across the world before the flood and the biosphere just prior to the flood had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today, then think about how inflated dates would be for preflood things. And what does actual tangible evidence say in regards to if there was a much different atmosphere with more plant life in the past if a) there are fossilized forests in Antarctica and b) mega fauna/mega flora suggest creatures in the ancient past had access to an atmosphere with much more oxygen and c) amber bubbles have much more oxygen than the atmosphere does in modern time and d) gulfs are filled with oil that is the product quickly buried biologic life mostly consisting of former plantlife?

Please do look into Genesis 6:4 and the Book of Enoch if you want to talk about ancient aliens and where ancient humans got various forms of technology. This might be a great place to start even if you only read a top 10% or so of a page here:

http://ancientnostalgia.weebly.com/nephilim.html

The first heaven is basically just earth’s atmosphere maybe. And don’t think I’m just talking out of my butt if shamayim (heavens?) is a plural word and birds fly there scripturally, haha.

The Great Pyramid might have been built before Adam was created. When did humans learn about Pi and Phi and the golden ratio and the speed of light or Giza’s position on earth and so on if the great pyramid references information related to stuff like this? And there might be several other structures including others on the Giza Plateau that were built with help from fallen angels later.

If the disciples all claimed they saw Christ after the resurrection and all of them besides Judas and John died as martyrs, doesn’t that say more than just someone who believed a book a lot and then died?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=23UNLLbOS3w

@jusplay4fun

I might have skimmed past a lot of stuff that didn’t seem directed at me specifically, but cheers if we had the same basic point.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=23UNLLbOS3w

I guess there is a deception coming where fallen angels will claim to be Elohim and say they created Adam by taking a primate and doing something special to it.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree when it comes to the flood, but do you honestly think different colored layers of dirt just kind of built up over time with clear divisions in color and with smooth lines with no erosion over 350 million years and that’s more sensible than believing there was liquefaction on a widespread scale?

[jusplay4fun]

@jusplay4fun

I might have skimmed past a lot of stuff that didn’t seem directed at me specifically, but cheers if we had the same basic point.



I guess there is a deception coming where fallen angels will claim to be Elohim and say they created Adam by taking a primate and doing something special to it.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree when it comes to the flood, but do you honestly think different colored layers of dirt just kind of built up over time with clear divisions in color and with smooth lines with no erosion over 350 million years and that’s more sensible than believing there was liquefaction on a widespread scale?

NO Erosion? Erosion explains the reason the specific Island was separated from the rest of the mainland.

The sea stack known as 'Dún Briste' was part of the mainland until 1393 when heavy seas severed it from the mainland and the people were taken from it by means of ship's ropes.
(...)

On July 31st 1980, Dr. Seamus Caulfield, his father Patrick Caulfield and Martin Downes, Professor of Biology at Maynooth College, landed by helicopter on Dún Briste and spent two hours there examining the remains of the building and plant life. They discovered that the building across the centre of the headland was a structure 30 ft by 13 ft inside built up against the south of a long continuous wall which runs through from the edge across the headland.
(...)

The size and shape of the buildings suggest that they were medieval. The area on top of the stack measures about 50 yards long and 15 yards across the centre.

https://www.mayo-ireland.ie/en/towns-vi ... riste.html

also,

I find it interesting that you so often quote a book that is NOT in the Bible and is NOT CANON.

AI Summary:
The Book of Enoch is not included in the Bible. It is considered a non-canonical text by most religious traditions, meaning it does not meet the criteria established by early church leaders for inclusion in the Biblical canon. The only complete version available today is an Ethiopic translation, which is derived from earlier Greek translations of the original Hebrew or Aramaic texts

Background
Authorship: The Book of Enoch is attributed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah, but it is classified as pseudepigrapha, meaning it falsely claims authorship.

Content: It contains various themes, including visions of heaven, the nature of angels, and prophecies about the coming judgment.

Reasons for Exclusion
Canonical Criteria: To be included in the Bible, texts must align with specific theological and historical criteria set by early church authorities.

Theological Disputes: Some of its teachings and ideas were considered inconsistent with the established doctrines of Christianity.

You (Basically) DEFEND the Bible by using a source NOT included in the Bible; it was specifically excluded from the Bible as not being reliable.

[jusplay4fun]

@jusplay4fun

I might have skimmed past a lot of stuff that didn’t seem directed at me specifically, but cheers if we had the same basic point.



I guess there is a deception coming where fallen angels will claim to be Elohim and say they created Adam by taking a primate and doing something special to it.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree when it comes to the flood, but do you honestly think different colored layers of dirt just kind of built up over time with clear divisions in color and with smooth lines with no erosion over 350 million years and that’s more sensible than believing there was liquefaction on a widespread scale?

NO Erosion? Erosion explains the reason the specific Island was separated from the rest of the mainland.

The sea stack known as 'Dún Briste' was part of the mainland until 1393 when heavy seas severed it from the mainland and the people were taken from it by means of ship's ropes.
(...)

On July 31st 1980, Dr. Seamus Caulfield, his father Patrick Caulfield and Martin Downes, Professor of Biology at Maynooth College, landed by helicopter on Dún Briste and spent two hours there examining the remains of the building and plant life. They discovered that the building across the centre of the headland was a structure 30 ft by 13 ft inside built up against the south of a long continuous wall which runs through from the edge across the headland.
(...)

The size and shape of the buildings suggest that they were medieval. The area on top of the stack measures about 50 yards long and 15 yards across the centre.

https://www.mayo-ireland.ie/en/towns-vi ... riste.html

also,

I find it interesting that you so often quote a book that is NOT in the Bible and is NOT CANON.

AI Summary:
The Book of Enoch is not included in the Bible. It is considered a non-canonical text by most religious traditions, meaning it does not meet the criteria established by early church leaders for inclusion in the Biblical canon. The only complete version available today is an Ethiopic translation, which is derived from earlier Greek translations of the original Hebrew or Aramaic texts

Background
Authorship: The Book of Enoch is attributed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah, but it is classified as pseudepigrapha, meaning it falsely claims authorship.

Content: It contains various themes, including visions of heaven, the nature of angels, and prophecies about the coming judgment.

Reasons for Exclusion
Canonical Criteria: To be included in the Bible, texts must align with specific theological and historical criteria set by early church authorities.

Theological Disputes: Some of its teachings and ideas were considered inconsistent with the established doctrines of Christianity.

You (Basically) DEFEND the Bible by using a source NOT included in the Bible; it was specifically excluded from the Bible as not being reliable.

[Apatheist]

Is it me or did you post this twice?

[Apatheist]

Apatheist,

There might be as many worldviews as there are conscious beings.

I guess jusplay4fun has a more correct view than me in some areas and I have a more correct view than him in some areas and you have a better understanding than either of us on some stuff as well.

I've yet to see anything of yours that strikes me as more correct than either of us in any area. Your beliefs seem entirely to be against the prevailing views of learned scientists and theologians.

Let’s just be careful about adamantly claiming or believing something is true simply because a mainstream source or AI or the majority says so.

Let's be even more careful about claiming something isn't true despite mainstream sources or the majority saying it is.
There are many learned people who have done exhaustive research and come to the conclusions that they have. People measure the speed of light with great accuracy, they take detailed observations, and those tell us that the observable universe is around 14 billion years old. You read a questionably-translated piece of pre-historic fancy about people for whom we have no empirical physical dating evidence and claim it's around 5000 or 6000 years old. It's pretty obvious to me who a rational person should believe.

I propose that Mount Everett didn’t exist before the flood; remember back to what I shared about how well continents fit together globally and also what I posted that pointed to rapid accordion like smashing together of landscape

Again, the learned people who have studied and understood geology and plate tectonics would seem to be a more reliable source.

I was more going for an archaic Merriam Webster definition of dragon and what Tolkien envisioned is kind of off topic maybe; what does Medusa do to help explain how accurately dinosaurs were portrayed in ancient times?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dragon

I mentioned Medusa as an example of a fantasy creature in literature. Was there really a woman with snakes in her hair whose gaze could turn men to stone? I suspect not. Someone thought her up, perhaps for a parable or moral lesson, or maybe just exaggerated some poor woman's appearance. Maybe dragons fall into the same category.

We've been through the Nephilim thing before. There are so many possible translations, who knows what they meant? Hebrew was such a bad choice as a language.
Yes, there were "giants" - tall people, or just important and brave men.
There are those who believe that the giant skeletons in America and the dwarf skeletons in Indonesia show that the ancient aliens were conducting experiments on which was the most suitable type of hominid, and it was the medium-sized ones with which they seeded Africa that eventually survived the best.
It's no less credible than fallen angels.

What's not going to be way off base when it comes to something like carbon dating if the flood really happened and yet carbon dating assumes the amount of carbon-14 being produced in the atmosphere has always been equal to the amount being removed? Consider implications if fossil fuels are primarily the result of the flood in the first place. If there was much more vegetation across the world before the flood and the biosphere just prior to the flood had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today, then think about how inflated dates would be for preflood things. And what does actual tangible evidence say in regards to if there was a much different atmosphere with more plant life in the past if a) there are fossilized forests in Antarctica and b) mega fauna/mega flora suggest creatures in the ancient past had access to an atmosphere with much more oxygen and c) amber bubbles have much more oxygen than the atmosphere does in modern time and d) gulfs are filled with oil that is the product quickly buried biologic life mostly consisting of former plantlife?

It's well known that there was much more oxygen in the atmosphere, that's how dinosaurs got so big, and we had dragonflies a foot long. I'm sure the people who study and report these things have taken all the variables into account; do you really think people would get a PhD having not thought of the objections that you bring up?
The Earth goes through various cycles - ice ages and such - and these things are stored in the record. Do you believe that the different strata in Arctic core samples were all deposited at once? Come off it.

The Great Pyramid might have been built before Adam was created. When did humans learn about Pi and Phi and the golden ratio and the speed of light or Giza’s position on earth and so on if the great pyramid references information related to stuff like this? And there might be several other structures including others on the Giza Plateau that were built with help from fallen angels later.

WHOA. Are you now saying that Adam wasn't the first person created by god? You mean the bible might not be literally true?
Egypt and Greece had mathematicians who knew a great deal more about the subject than you or I ever will.

If the disciples all claimed they saw Christ after the resurrection and all of them besides Judas and John died as martyrs, doesn’t that say more than just someone who believed a book a lot and then died?

Who says any of these people existed? Who knows what anyone saw? Think of all the misinformation that's around these days. Someone could have made a joke and it went viral. A group could have got together and created the verbal equivalent of a flash mob. They were trying to promote their new religion - perhaps this was just a bit of marketing that the oppressed people wanted to believe?
As a more modern example, people in Germany in the 1930s were carried along on a tide of charisma and oratory that blamed the Jews for all their problems. Their country was in a mess and they were vulnerable to believing it. I'm not saying the people behind it were the same or had similar motives, far from it, but come up with the right propaganda, and susceptible people will cling on to it as the truth.
What if someone gave Jesus a serum to simulate death, then beamed him up to the ship and revived him? Again, I find the aliens story no less credible than anything else extra-terrestrial.

[Apatheist]

Here's another one for you Lionz:
Do you believe that EVERY reported miracle actually happened, and did so as a result of the intervention of saints or others from heaven?

[Pack Rat]

What's next? Debating whether Santa or the Easter Bunny exist?