Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Proof that jesus walked the earth???

12346

Comments

  • #152
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    pinksoir wrote: »
    Yes, but would the early Christians you posit not in fact have been much more knowledgable of doctrine than the watered down Catholics of today?

    Well the doctrine was still forming.

    Paul probably died before the first gospel was actually written down. We don't know very much about who actually wrote the gospels. Nor do we know very much of the apostles other than from these works.

    Paul refers to James as Jesus' "brother" Many take that as refutation of the idea that Jesus wasn't a real person. Others point out that the followers of Jesus are often referred to as "bothers" in other places in Paul's writing.

    Personally I think it is plausible that Jesus was a real person, but equally I think it is plausible that he wasn't. Or more specifically I don't think it is implausible that he wasn't


  • #153
    pinksoir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,737 ✭✭✭pinksoir


    I this i a bit out there, but there is a theory (though how airtight this is is questionable) that Jesus is accounted for in Buddhist records. The theory goes that after surviving crucifiction Jesus travelled east to find and unite the lost tribes of Israel, as he was prophesised to do so in the Old Testament. The argument for Jesus surviving the crucifiction is that he was only on the cross for a short period of time, between the 3rd hour or 6th hour according to Mark or John.

    Apparently he arrived in India and his Tomb is in Kashmir. He was known in Buddhist scriptures as Issa, or Yuz Assaf.

    Another part of the theory goes that the three wise men were in fact Buddhist monks searching for the reincarnation of Buddha (who they believed Jesus to be) and that the unaccounted period of his life, between the ages of 12 to 32, was spent training as a Buddhist monk. This is said to account for the radical change in New Testament teachings of love as opposed to the fear expressed in the OT. It is claimed that Jesus teachings are very close to that of Buddhism. Scriptures from this time also refer to a man from Judea roughly corresponding to the unaccounted period of Jesus' life.

    On travelling to India after the crucifiction he is said to have continued his ministry and that his tomb is in Kashmir, accompanied by a cast taken of his foot (as was the style of the time) showing the wound from the nail.

    Obviously this theory is a bit odd, but if the Buddhist records do in fact refer to Jesus then it is indeed independent evidence of his existence. And also that the biblical account is not 100% accurate.

    http://www.tsl.org/masters/jesus/jesus01.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuz_Asaf
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Christianity
    http://www.goacom.org/overseas-digest/Religion/jesus-in-kashmir.htm
    http://www.tombofjesus.com/news/FAQ/index.htm

    cheers,
    karl.


  • #154
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    pinksoir wrote: »
    Obviously this theory is a bit odd, but if the Buddhist records do in fact refer to Jesus then it is indeed independent evidence of his existence.

    Depends on what the records are. Its important not to confuse Jesus with Christianity. Evidence of Christianity is not evidence of Jesus the man.


  • #155
    pinksoir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,737 ✭✭✭pinksoir


    Well they refer to Yuz Assaf, or Issa, and the times and place of his origin correlate very well. Obviously there must be speculation on whether either of those names in fact refer to Jesus, though the Gospel of Thomas refers to the two of them travelling to India.


  • #156
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    pinksoir wrote: »
    Well they refer to Yuz Assaf, or Issa, and the times and place of his origin correlate very well. Obviously there must be speculation on whether either of those names in fact refer to Jesus, though the Gospel of Thomas refers to the two of them travelling to India.

    well what I mean is did the historians meet Jesus, did they meet people who met Jesus, or did they meet people who believed in Jesus?

    Depending on that will determine what these sources can tell us.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Personally I think it is plausible that Jesus was a real person, but equally I think it is plausible that he wasn't. Or more specifically I don't think it is implausible that he wasn't

    That is a fair statement, I'd say I'm an open agnostic when it comes to belief in Jesus' existence and athiest when it comes to God. I would probably be siding closer to believing that he did exist than that he didn't.

    I don't believe the Gospel is anyway reliable to give an idea of what the historical Jesus was like, I don't believe it was written by eye-witnesses to the events. It seems more like what you would expect from a highly politicised document written by the victors in the early stuggle for dominance among followers of Jesus (for example the absolving the Romans of his death and the blaming of the Jews, Jesus disowning his family).

    I find it strange how St Paul seemed to show very little knowledge of the Jesus that we know today despite converting less than 10 years after Jesus' death. He showed no awareness of the virgin birth, John the Baptist, Judas Iscariot, or any of the miracles Jesus is said to have done (except for the resurrection).

    All in all I would say there is some truth to the story, but there is far more fiction.


  • #158
    pinksoir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,737 ✭✭✭pinksoir


    I understand that. Though my point is that the references to Jesus, or Issa, or Yaz Assaf, are in original Buddhist scritures from the time, and that time correlates to the periods of Jesus' life not accounted for in the Gospels. I am merely saying that whilst this is in no way conclusive evidence, it at least shows some sort of apparent corroboration of accounts of Jesus the historical figure from independent sources (the Bible and the Buddhist scriptures).

    From what I understand the Buddhist scriptures are originals and contemporary to Jesus. Whether or not they are first hand or second hand sources is irrelevent as they deal with the historical Jesus in an area so far removed from the accounts of the Bible, ie India, but also, chronologically, contemporary to his life.

    Of course it could be complete coincidence that such a figure born at around the same time as the Biblical Jesus, who was also reported to come from Nazareth, in a time roughly correlating with the period of Jesus' life not accounted for in the Gospels, known as Yaz Assif or Issa travelled to India to be trained as a Buddhist monk. Just like Monty Python.


  • #159
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well the earliest Christian writing that refers to Jesus as a man would do.

    Galatians is usually reckoned to be the earliest of Paul's epistles, about 50AD.

    Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

    Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. (Galatians 3:15-16)

    But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Galatians 4:4

    Romans was written between 50AD and 60AD.

    Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God - the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 1:1-4)

    But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:15-17)

    I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit - I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. (Romans 9:1-5)


  • #160
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Galatians is usually reckoned to be the earliest of Paul's epistles, about 50AD.

    Not really surprisingly Dotherty disagrees with the context of those translations

    http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/silrom.htm
    http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/silgals.htm

    I imagine you won't agree, but then I wouldn't expect you to. :)


  • #161
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Not really surprisingly Dotherty disagrees with the context of those translations

    Translations? Are you really wanting to claim that the translations are wrong here?

    The links you provide in no way refute the fact that the verses I have quoted refer to Jesus as a man. They do not even address 4 of the 6 references that I cited.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Good point - a very good point. If there was no historical Jesus, one has to posit a conspiracy for which there is even less evidence than there is for Jesus...

    Actually it goes further than that. In order to deny the historicity of Jesus you have to posit a multitude of entities (shades of Occam's razor here) for which there is less evidence than there is for Jesus.

    For example, Earl Doherty (who Wicknight refers to) is the most prominent advocate for the view that Jesus didn't exist. However, in order to support his thesis he has to posit all of the following:

    1. There is no evidence or reference anywhere in ancient literature or tradition to a "brotherhood of the Lord". Yet Doherty has to posit such an entity in order to explain away the references in Paul's epistles to James as being "the brother of the Lord".

    2. Doherty has to posit a "Q Community" that formed a common Gospel that served as the basis for the biblical Gospels. However, there are no references anywhere to such a community.

    3. Doherty has to posit a "Q document". While textual and form critics have suggested such a document existed, there is much less evidence for its existence than there is for the historical existence of Jesus.

    4. The manuscripts of the Ascension of Isaiah, which Doherty argues demonstrates that the early Christians believed Jesus was not killed on earth but was killed in “the higher world” by demons, are extremely late. Indeed this work was written much later than the Four Gospels. Doherty rejects the Gospels on account of their late date yet relies on the accuracy of a much later work.

    5. Doherty also relies heavily on many other 2nd and 3rd Century documents that are indisputably later than the Gospels.

    6. Doherty's main argument against the historicity of Jesus is an argument from silence. However, he concedes that there is no known ancient source attacking the concept that Jesus was an historical figure. Therefore the argument from silence is stronger against Doherty's theory than it is against the historicity of Jesus.

    So, in order to argue against the historical existence of Jesus, Doherty is forced to posit six positions or entities for which there is less evidence and, in some cases, no evidence at all.


  • #163
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    PDN wrote: »
    Actually it goes further than that. In order to deny the historicity of Jesus you have to posit a multitude of entities (shades of Occam's razor here) for which there is less evidence than there is for Jesus.

    Oh, I'm sure we could do it much more simply, by, you know, panning out and looking at the 'big picture'. We wouldn't necessarily go into details, unlike Doherty.
    PDN wrote: »
    3. Doherty has to posit a "Q document". While textual and form critics have suggested such a document existed, there is much less evidence for its existence than there is for the historical existence of Jesus.

    You're making it sound like this isn't widely accepted as the solution to the Synoptic Problem, which it is. The document itself remains hypothetical, but that (in the context of ancient documents) means very little.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #164
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You're making it sound like this isn't widely accepted as the solution to the Synoptic Problem, which it is. The document itself remains hypothetical, but that (in the context of ancient documents) means very little.

    It's widely accepted, but not as widely as, and with less evidence than exists for, the historicity of Jesus. Which is a point I've been making all along. We accept lots of stuff on less evidence.


  • #165
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    PDN wrote: »
    It's widely accepted, but not as widely as, and with less evidence than exists for, the historicity of Jesus. Which is a point I've been making all along. We accept lots of stuff on less evidence.

    Well, the evidence for a book is slightly different from the evidence for a person. If I read two student essays, say, and find the same material in the same form cropping up in both, is it unreasonable to posit the existence of Wikipedia?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #166
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Well, the evidence for a book is slightly different from the evidence for a person. If I read two student essays, say, and find the same material in the same form cropping up in both, is it unreasonable to posit the existence of Wikipedia?

    It's not unreasonable if the material is dodgy.


  • #167
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    PDN wrote: »
    It's not unreasonable if the material is dodgy.

    Luckily, that does not apply in this case.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #168
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Wicknight wrote: »
    John, the gospel that doesn't follow similar patterns, was probably written around 100 AD, 30 years after the earliest estimate of Mark, at which time it would have been impossible to independently confirm the similar stories in the other 3 Gospels.

    .

    Wicknight, I wish oh how I wish that you would get your history correct and tyo stop spewing these falsities every now and again.

    Matthew - prior to AD70.
    Mark - AD55
    Luke - Approx. AD60
    John - AD85

    Paul Died: Approx. AD65.

    That measn that two of the four gospels were written before hios death. As was Acts.


  • #169
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Matthew - prior to AD70.
    Mark - AD55
    Luke - Approx. AD60
    John - AD85

    I'm not sure where you got those figures from BC, but I've never seen Mark dated before AD60. Most accounts I've seen say it was probably written after Paul died and probably after the Jewish war of AD70, the theory being that this shaped Mark 13

    Can I ask who dates Mark around AD55? And is this date based on historical assessment or religious assessment?


  • #170
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Translations? Are you really wanting to claim that the translations are wrong here?

    I don't want to refute anything PDN.

    The point is that Dortherty interprets words like "brother" as different to how you would interpret them

    Have you never had a conversation with someone who says "If Jesus was all about the love why did he say I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

    I would imagine if anyone dared say that on this forum these days you would throw your hands up and explain them that that sentence does not mean what it appears to mean at face value. Jesus is trying to bring peace, and he isn't bring a sword.

    Dortherty is doing the same thing with the passages you quote, saying that while they appear on face value reading to say that Jesus had brothers and was born of a woman, that isn't actually what they mean.


  • #171
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm not sure where you got those figures from BC, but I've never seen Mark dated before AD60. Most accounts I've seen say it was probably written after Paul died and probably after the Jewish war of AD70, the theory being that this shaped Mark 13

    Can I ask who dates Mark around AD55? And is this date based on historical assessment or religious assessment?

    From a well-known and much-maligned Internet source:
    Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others, while liberal scholars usually date later.[citation needed] The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996 (for a fuller discussion of dating, please see the articles for each Gospel):

    * Mark: c. 68–73
    * Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
    * Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
    * John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

    Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65. Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis):

    * Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
    * Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
    * Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
    * John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

    Which identifies Brian's probable source as the NIV Study Bible, and Wicknight's as the general scholarly consensus. How accurate will these predictions prove!?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Wicknight, I wish oh how I wish that you would get your history correct and tyo stop spewing these falsities every now and again.

    I re-read your post BC and to be honest I really don't appreciate your choice of language ("spewing these falsities")

    What ever you believe yourself, the standard historical assessment of Mark [EDIT]Of which I've just seen Scofflaw post[/EDIT] is that it was written after Paul's death and probably after the Roman Jewish war dating it probably between 65AD and 75AD.

    Now if you have an unorthodox historical theory that it was in fact written much earlier than that by all means present it. Being an atheist I have the joy of not being religiously invested in any of these theories, and as such I find them all equally fascinating.

    I myself, as you can see, have presented unorthodox historical theories as well, despite a rather strong negative reaction from some of the regular Christians posters.

    But I don't appreciate your tone in responding to me as if I am purposely and regularly presenting lies and falsehoods.


  • #173
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Scofflaw wrote:
    viewpost.gif
    Good point - a very good point. If there was no historical Jesus, one has to posit a conspiracy for which there is even less evidence than there is for Jesus...




    I'm coming into this discussion late as I was sitting out a much deserved banning but I'm not sure I get this point, not saying I disagree with it entirely, just that I don't see why it's such a good point. My first thought was well - doesn't a legend itself propel itself forward? ...no real conspiracy just a lot of rumour poorly referenced compounding through the centuries?
    As a result I don't think one has to 'posit' a conspiracy but merely realise the possiblity that the story could have been relayed a certain way. Each new reference or record is not a conspiratorial writing just a poorly researched one. The kind of thing that really doesn't happen *anymore becasue of the wide access of information which can be easily cross referenced.
    In the abscence of such cross refernecing the scholars of old had to rely on certain sources as being accurate therefore there is every possibility of compunding a fallacy, honestly.


    *edited original typo
    __________________


  • #174
    GerryRyan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 966 ✭✭✭GerryRyan


    Yes a man called Jesus did walk the earth - writings at the time, physical evidence etc.

    Was he the son of god? No. The greatest con artist of all time? Perhaps.


  • #175
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brian wrote:
    That measn that two of the four gospels were written before hios death. As was Acts.
    Brian, I'm interested in what you say here. Scofflaw says that the dates accepted in mainstream universities are between five and twenty years later than the dates that you quote.

    Do you accept the earlier dates above the mainstream dates because they are provided by fellow-christians? ie, are christian historians more likely to be accurate in this than mainstream ones?


  • #176
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    I'm coming into this discussion late as I was sitting out a much deserved banning;) but I'm not sure I get this point, not saying I disagree with it entirely, just that I don't see why it's such a good point. My first thought was well - doesn't a legend itself propel itself forward? ...no real conspiracy just a lot of rumour poorly referenced compounding through the centuries?
    As a result I don't think one has to 'posit' a conspiracy but merely realise the possiblity that the story could have been relayed a certain way. Each new reference or record is not a conspiratorial writing just a poorly researched one. The kind of thing that really doesn't happen anyone becasue of the wide access of information which can be easily cross referenced.
    In the abscence of such cross refernecing the scholars of old had to rely on certain sources as being accurate therefore there is every possibility of compunding a fallacy, honestly.

    I'd agree to some extent, but I think that while it's very easy to make the case for conspiracy in outline, it becomes rather harder once you start going into detail.

    That's why PDN concentrates on the rapid expansion in Christian numbers - that Paul is dealing with already-formed Christian communities, and also with the Apostles. Essentially, there are people around and in positions of relative prominence in existing communities who would have to be "in" on the conspiracy to pretend that Jesus existed.

    If you can outline a scenario by which we can produce the various known early Christian communities, and the Gospels, without it being a lot more complex than Jesus simply existing, I'd be interested to hear it. Bear in mind that it's quite possible for a historical Jesus to have existed, while the stories about him, particularly the accounts of miracles etc, remain both garbled and/or simply fictitious.

    After all, the claim that there was, at the time, one or more Jewish apocalyptic demagogues who were executed by the Roman authorities, is hardly an exceptional claim.


    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #177
    Schuhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    Apologies if I’m saying something already covered, as I haven’t read the thread from the start. Apologies also on stomping all over this biblical scholarship lark with nothing more behind me than a quick read a few months ago of ‘The Bible: A Very Short Introduction’, but the discussion just strikes me as risking going ‘ding dong’ over a point that’s less than crucial.

    Is twenty years here or there really that pivotal? Surely two points stand regardless. Taking PDN’s point, unless we feel (without any evidence) there was a conspiracy that invented a total fabrication, we have to accept that the gospel accounts are an attempt to document something. Hence, it would seem reasonably non-controversial to accept that there was some religious leader and the account of the life of Jesus bears some relationship to that person’s career.

    On the other hand – whatever dates we pick – it seems clear that the gospels are not documents made at the time of the events recorded. Hence, there’s enough of a time delay for errors and embellishments to enter the story. If Paul was still alive, that might effect the degree of error, but it would surely not impact the principle that myth would have merged with fact.

    So are the gospels to be taken as a reliable, factual account of miracles, for the sake of argument? Hardly, unless we’re also to take some significance in Jesus’ birth being predicted by astrologers.


  • #178
    condra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,852 ✭✭✭condra


    ThatGuy wrote: »
    Yes a man called Jesus did walk the earth - writings at the time, physical evidence etc.

    Was he the son of god? No. The greatest con artist of all time? Perhaps.

    Oh ok. Thanks for the info. I might dispute it only you backed up your points so well.


  • #179
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    ThatGuy wrote: »
    Was he the son of god? No. The greatest con artist of all time? Perhaps.

    I reckon he was saying we're all sons of God, don't blame Yeshua for the con job it's the fault of the scribes. Beware of the scribes :rolleyes: Pretty much everything apart from his words as found in the hypothetical "quelle" document is mostly a greaco-roman pagan invention. I'm sure he'd be horrified at what's happened.


  • #180
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Schuhart wrote: »
    So are the gospels to be taken as a reliable, factual account of miracles, for the sake of argument? Hardly, unless we’re also to take some significance in Jesus’ birth being predicted by astrologers.

    Sorry, maybe you could expand on this? What is the significance of astrology?


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Schuhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    PDN wrote:
    What is the significance of astrology?
    I’m just making a passing reference to the way the birth of Jesus is depicted as being marked by the appearance of a star. That, to me, suggests that astrology is being invoked.


Advertisement