The historical evidence for Christ

[dayage]

Good points Gman.

[DannyM]

I read through the first half of this forum. When I got to the list of people who never wrote about Jesus I had to make some comments. Hopefully I'm not covering old ground too much.

I looked into this years ago, so I'm going on memory. There are two early copies of Josephus. One is in Greek and has been disputed to some degree, but the other is in Aramaic and is phrased in a way that suggests one author and contains the same basic references. This one is not disputed.

I started going through a list, much like, if not the same, years ago. I finally quite when I started seeing a patern. Many did not live during the lifetime of Jesus, wrote about things like agriculture and one of the individuals had hired one of the others in the list to follow him around and write about his own life. Some, like Philo, did not live in the area. Philo lived in Egypt and died about 20 yrs. after Jesus' ministery. Maybe I'm missing something.

dayage, this link shows the 'list' to be a busted flush...

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remslist.html

[DannyM]

I just wanted to share this. I found this in some notes I made a little while ago. I don't have the book but it is called The Phenomenon of The New Testament (1967) by C.F.D. Moule.

"It is difficult enough for anyone, even a consummate master of imaginative writing, to create a picture of a deeply pure, good person moving about in an impure environment without making him a prig or a prude or a sort of plaster saint.

How comes it that, through all the Gospel traditions without exception, there comes a remarkably firmly-drawn portrait of an attractive young man moving freely about among women of all sorts, including the decidedly disreputable, without a trace of sentimentality, unnaturalness, or prudery, and yet, at every point, maintaining a simple integrity of character?

Is this because the environments in which the traditions were preserved and through which they were transmitted were peculiarly favourable to such a portrait? On the contrary, it seems that they were rather hostile to it."

[robyn hill]

Totally agree Danny. The bible, and new testament specifically since that is what is being discussed right now, is intertwined with so many details that show up in other places, it would take genuis to make sure all i's were dotted and t's were crossed! Not to mention, if it were written merely out of political persuasion, as some sceptics claim, where is the bias? There is no bias or alterior motive whatsoever! In fact, it is purely unselfish! To be this intelligent, and generous, and yet be full of untruths, just doesn't add up. I think if people really study the word they will discover it for themselves. It is those people who make assumptions without actually studying for themselves, who are led to believe the sceptisism out there. That is why I just ask people if they really are "open minded", to make sure they truly study both sides before drawing any conclusions.

[DannyM]

Totally agree Danny. The bible, and new testament specifically since that is what is being discussed right now, is intertwined with so many details that show up in other places, it would take genuis to make sure all i's were dotted and t's were crossed! Not to mention, if it were written merely out of political persuasion, as some sceptics claim, where is the bias? There is no bias or alterior motive whatsoever! In fact, it is purely unselfish! To be this intelligent, and generous, and yet be full of untruths, just doesn't add up. I think if people really study the word they will discover it for themselves. It is those people who make assumptions without actually studying for themselves, who are led to believe the sceptisism out there. That is why I just ask people if they really are "open minded", to make sure they truly study both sides before drawing any conclusions.

I agree Robyn. People start out with the assumption that the NT is nonsense. They are truly hamstrung by their sceptical predisposition. And of course so many of these sceptics are self-confessed "super-rationalists", which turns out to be a highly amusing claim when you look at their built-in bias; a bias that renders their "thinking" anything but rational.

[rare96ws6]

It would be interesting to see some of the more knowledgable Christians here debate the atheists on one of their forums or even here as DannyM suggested below. I enjoy reading the debates between some of the well know theists and atheists, but I think it woul be more fun on a forum such as this, since it is not a staged debate with predetermined questions. Know what I mean?
A few moths ago I posted a few questions and comments here and there on this forum that I was interested in. Some of the questions I read on this atheist forum. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/
It would be fun to see if some of those folks would debate an issue such as this post, either here or there.

Thanks Danny..

No eyewitness to the accounts of Christ? I think this video clearly refutes that....

How Many People Really Saw Jesus Alive? Eyewitness Accounts of Christ

Brother I really don't know how you do all this stuff, but a big, big thank you! You know what, we don't get nearly enough atheists participating on here, but I really do hope that there are many who browse the boards and see all this stuff. And Rich's latest slide show via your link on the "New Page Critique" forum was another masterpiece. We should invade an atheist forum with all this stuff I'll watch that video now...

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

It would be interesting to see some of the more knowledgable Christians here debate the atheists on one of their forums...

«The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.» (Pr 14:6)

What is the point in debating atheists? By and large, they do not seek to understand our relationship with Christ, they mock.

«Stay away from a foolish man, for you will not find knowledge on his lips.» (Pr 14:7)

When it becomes evident that an atheist is not able to discuss intelligently, it is best to walk away. To continue debating or attempt to reason with such a person is pointless as it will defile the Christian and feed the atheist's pride.

FL

[rare96ws6]

Some athiests are interested in learning. I have known a few who have become Christians.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Some athiests are interested in learning.

Very few atheists are interested in learning about Christianity.

I have known a few [atheists] who have become Christians.

Yes, I'm one of them. However, I was a mocker and even though I knew a lot about the Bible (and other «holy» books) this knowledge never brought me to God. The unregenerate nature of atheists is incapable of a relationship with God, period.

FL

[zoegirl]

I think, however, that it is both wise and loving to start off by offering what we have ot atheists, being both rational and reasonable in are arguments.

By assuming that they are mockers and angry, we may unintentially reinforce their view of Christians. We would find out soon enough if they are an open heart. Then you can shake the sand off

[Swimmy]

There are different ways we can tackle this.. As an example, take a Biblical claim and see if it is backed up by other historians, science, or other sources. As an example, Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44... Also addressed in Acts 2:20 (by Peter as a prophecy for Christ), Joel 2:31 and Revelation 6:12.

Apparently there were two events at the death of Christ.

1. A darkness.
2. A red blood moon.

The darkness can easily be explained by a surging of dark clouds or some other miraculous event, but it was most likely clouds that would have appeared about 3:00 pm in the afternoon. These clouds, however, would have to disappear somewhat by nighttime in order to record our next historical event, a red blood moon.

Acts 2:20 ...and the moon to blood (red blood moon), before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.

It appears that during Christ's crucifixion, there was a red blood moon. So let's see if there was an eclipse or something that happened around that time.. Well, it turns out that there was a lunar eclipse with a red blood moon that happened in Jerusalem around 33 AD. By using the astronomical software called "Starry Night" we can see that on April 3, 33 AD, the moon rises as a full red blood moon about 6:00 pm (on the Jerusalem horizon), then about 9:15 pm it goes back to a full moon (looking east) just as depicted in the Gospels and Acts 2:20.

Red Moon eclipsed


Full Moon



As for the darkness (clouds), apparently it was widespread...

But this is also confirmed by sources outside of the Bible. As an example, Phlegon Trallianus records in his history, Olympiades:

"In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [AD 32-33], a failure of the Sun took place greater than any previously known, and night came on at the sixth hour of the day, so that stars actually appeared in the sky; and a great earthquake took place in Bithynia and overthrew the greater part of Niceaea."

Or

Samaritan historian, Thallus, wrote his "Histories." In A.D. 52. Although no copies of him survive but we do have quotes of it from others. Thus Julius Africanus, writing about A.D. 220, refers to the "Histories" and says:

"Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me.."

Here what wiki says on this

Total solar eclipse

Records of solar blackouts exceeding a half hour have been attributed to total solar eclipses. For example, the T'ang Dynasty [7] and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle's accounts of the hour long solar darkness of 879 AD were attributed to the total solar eclipse of October 29, 878 AD.[8] However, a solar eclipse could not have occurred on or near 14th of Nisan, because solar eclipses only occur during the new moon phase, and 14th of Nisan always corresponds to a full moon.

Solar eclipses are also too brief to account for the crucifixion darkness. The length of the crucifixion darkness described by biblical and extra-biblical sources was more than a full order of magnitude for the totality of solar eclipses. Seven minutes and 31.1 seconds has been the established maximum limit of solar eclipse totality.[34] The maximum duration of the total eclipse of November 3, 31 AD, was only one minute and four seconds. The maximum duration of the total eclipse of March 19, 33 AD, was only four minutes six seconds. Neither one had paths of totality passing near Jerusalem. Eclipses lasting at least six minutes, that were close to the crucifixion year, occurred on July 22, 27 AD, for a maximum duration of six minutes and thirty-one seconds and on August 1, 45 AD, for a maximum duration of six minutes and thirty seconds.[35]

Astronomer Mark Kidger compared the apocryphal Gospel of Peter passage with historical eclipses.[36] He indicated the total eclipse of November 24, 29 AD had the greatest geographical proximity to the site of the crucifixion. He determined its path of totality had passed slightly north of Jerusalem at 11:05 AM (see the NASA diagram of the path of totality for that eclipse [9]) Kidger indicated the maximum level of darkness at totality was just 95% for the eclipsed over Jerusalem. His research indicated that level of darkness would have been unnoticeable for people outdoors. His calculations indicated the eclipse had been total in Nazareth and Galilee for one minute and forty-nine seconds. Kidger concluded the population in Jerusalem lacked the necessity and the time to light their lamps for that total solar eclipse.[36] Their behavior, as described in the Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, had been caused by a considerably longer period of darkness.

According to Pollata, the Greek word, ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ¸ (it-became),[37] indicates the onslaught of darkness had transpired too rapidly for a solar eclipse.[38] It takes approximately an hour for the darkness to reach the beginning of totality.[39] The Greek phrase, ΣΚΟΤΟΣ ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ¸ (darkness came about) appears in the crucifixion accounts of the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209, and the Codex Sinaiticus.[40] Most English versions of the Bible do not describe a sudden darkening.

Some[citation needed]have explained the crucifixion darkness in terms of heavy cloud cover. Another possible natural explanation is a khamsin dust storm that tends to occur from March to May.

Jesus' crucifixion took place around Passover, the middle of the lunar month and the time of a full moon. Solar eclipses naturally take place only at the time of the new moon. For this reason, medieval commentators viewed the darkness as a miraculous event rather than a natural one. Humphreys' and Waddington's reconstruction of the Jewish calendar, associating the crucifixion with a lunar eclipse rather than a solar eclipse, has been used to infer the date of the crucifixion.[41]
[edit] Lunar eclipse

Humphreys and Waddington of Oxford University reconstructed the Jewish calendar in the first century AD and arrived at the conclusion that Friday April 3 33AD was the date of the Crucifixion.[33] Humphreys and Waddington went further and also reconstructed the scenario for a lunar eclipse on that day.[41] They concluded that:

"This eclipse was visible from Jerusalem at moonrise. .... The start of the eclipse was invisible from Jerusalem, being below the horizon. The eclipse began at 3:40pm and reached a maximum at 5:15pm, with 60% of the moon eclipsed. This was also below the horizon from Jerusalem. The moon rose above the horizon, and was first visible from Jerusalem at about 6:20pm (the start of the Jewish Sabbath and also the start of Passover day in A.D. 33) with about 20% of its disc in the umbra of the earth's shadow and the remainder in the penumbra. The eclipse finished some thirty minutes later at 6:50pm."

Moreover, their calculations showed that the 20% visible of the moon was positioned close to the top (i.e. leading edge) of the moon. The failure of any of the gospel accounts to refer to a lunar eclipse is, they assume, the result of a scribe wrongly amending a text to refer to a solar eclipse.[30]:150

In Acts 2:20, the Apostle Peter refers to a "moon of blood" in the context of a prophecy from Joel. A "moon of blood" is a term also commonly used for a lunar eclipse because of the reddish color of the light refracted onto the moon through the Earth's atmosphere. Commentators are divided upon the exact nature of the this statement by Saint Peter. The investigation by Humphreys and Waddington concluded that the moon turned to blood statement probably refers to a lunar eclipse, and they showed that this interpretation is self consistent and seems to confirm their conclusion that the crucifixion occurred on April 3, 33.[41]

Using his approach to computing "celestial glare", Bradley Schaefer opposed the views of Humphreys and Waddington with respect to the visibility of the lunar eclipse, since his computations of celestial glare would not allow a visible lunar eclipse during the Crucifixion.[42][43] Ruggles also supported Schaefer's views.[44] However, using different computational mechanisms, based on the approach originally used by Isaac Newton, John Pratt and later Bradley Schaefer separately arrived at the same date for the Crucifixion as Humphreys and Waddington did based on the lunar eclipse approach, namely Friday, April 3 33 AD.[45]

Gaskel argued a lunar eclipse during the day of the crucifixion could have received significant attention.[46]
[edit] Miracle

Because it was known in medieval times that a solar eclipse could not take place during Passover when there is a full moon, it was considered a miraculous sign rather than a naturally occurring event.[47] The astronomer Johannes de Sacrobosco wrote, in his The Sphere of the World, "the eclipse was not natural, but, rather, miraculous and contrary to nature".[48]

Of course it is odd that if these events were impossible to see such as the lunar eclipse. Then how did everybody on the day it occurred know about it? Including outside sources.

[Author Anita Meyer]

This is REALLY a great thread, thanks for sharing!

If I may add some things to this thread, I talk about most of this stuff in my book that indicates strong evidence for Jesus' existence. I have encountered people who completely deny the existence of Jesus and claim that He was just a made up story.

I read through this whole thread and see that I could add something of significance here to Jesus' existence.

I see that the Talmud was mentioned, but little was said about it. You will find that most Jews will not deny the existence of Jesus, even Einstein admitted that He existed. This is because the Talmud has recorded the crucifixion of Jesus.

The Talmud is a book of Jewish law that consists of a collection of ancient Jewish writings that make up the basis of Jewish religious law. However, the Talmud is not a part of the “word of G-d“, it is only a collection of rabbinical statements and arguments. Many of these legal discussions go back to the first century BC and are also recorded in the Talmud from Rabbis that lived in Israel during the time of Jesus. And it is within these recorded discussions that we find the Rabbis discussing Jesus. Not only in the Talmud is the documentation of Jesus found, but also in documents called the Baraitha and Tosefta, which are supplements to the Talmud.

The Talmud actually mention Jesus by name, and even mentions the crucifixion, (Sanhedrin page 43a). Within this passage the Rabbis are discussing how a convicted criminal (Jesus) was to be executed. It says, for 40 days before the execution of Jesus took place a Harold went out delineating that if they find Him innocent, they discharge him, but if not, He goes forth to be stoned seeing that He committed the offense. Jesus' charge was that He practiced sorcery, was a beguiler, and enticed Israel to apostasy. Apostasy as in driving Israel to the renunciation or abandonment of the Jewish faith. The Talmud authorities do not deny that Jesus worked signs and wonders, but they looked upon them as acts of sorcery. We find the same thing mentioned in the New Testament where the Pharisees speak in similar terms about Him. Mark 3:22 - And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. Matthew 9:34 - But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils. Matthew 12:24 - But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. Therefore Jesus did work signs and wonders, but they had to explain it away by saying that He did it by the powers of sorcery.

And this is the interesting thing… here we have even more proof that there indeed did exist a man named Jesus, and He was crucified - clearly documented within the rabbinical sources of the Jewish Talmud that plainly gives an account and admits with clear admission that He was indeed hung (by crucifixion) by a decision of a Jewish court and on the eve of Passover (which was a Friday - Preparation day). Not only does the Talmud admit to this, but it also clearly refers to Jesus being connected to royalty. The Hebrew phrase “mekurav le malcut“ means connected to royalty. It admits that He was influential, He was connected/related with/to the government/Kingdom specifically from the household of David, (the Davidic lineage). What's even more interesting concerning the Jewish Talmud… found within Sanhedrin 97a we find a chronological timeline for the earths age (of 6,000 years old) as well as the an affirmation that the Messiah has already come some 1900 years ago. The Talmud reads something like this: The world is to stand for 6,000 years... 2,000 in confusion and void, 2,000 with the law, and for 2,000 the time of the Messiah (that was already some 1,900 years ago).

In conclusion… the Talmud contains an important cross-reference that shows the biblical account of Jesus and furthermore that it is consistent to what the New Testament tells us, which cannot be denied by the Jews (or anyone else for that matter) even in the darkest hours of Christianity.

By the way all this is mentioned in my book.

[Gman]

By the way all this is mentioned in my book.

Thanks Anita.. What is the name of your book?

[smiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdvjJrKd1do

The strongest case for the historicty of the resurrection I've seen so far.

[Author Anita Meyer]

Thanks Anita.. What is the name of your book?

Hello Gman, the name of my book is called: The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator by Anita Meyer.

Here are some links:

Publishers link:
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthp ... guage.html

A segment explaining what the Primordial Language is:
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthp ... nation.pdf

You can also find me here at the Atlantis Rising forum:
http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ul ... 7;t=000151

Or you can just do a Google search on me.