Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Interesting Discoveries Concerning Jesus

the universe is expanding outwards, but galaxies in clusters move towards each other. MW and Andromeda will collide. The universe isn't a clockwork, but chaotic. Look at the formation of our solar system, dozends of planets who crashed into each other or got hurled out. Earth was hit by a mars-sized body what formed the moon. Jupiter and Saturn teamed up to send Uranus and Neptune careening trough the asteroid clouds, just look at the moon what it did, and the more massive earth got more of it. Took half a billion years to settle, and look like clockwork. What remained of this mess, was plenty of water and amino acids.

(06-02-2012, 08:16 AM)Ron Lambert Wrote: Quadrat, it has been shown in the laboratory that the rate of radioactive decay can increase over a trillionfold when matter is heated to the plasma state. Since the speed of light in a vacuum is part of the equation that governs radioactive decay, this implies that at some point the speed of light may have been different--such as during the earliest moment of the universe, when matter and energy both exploded into existence. However He may have done it, the Creator clearly intended the universe to be light, not dark, from one end to the other. Just as He created the trees of Eden with apparent age, so He created a universe where the light from the most distant stars had already reached everywhere. As for the Cepheid variables used to give a rough estimate of distances, these are based on several assumptions, any one of which may be wrong.

Yep, speaking of assumptions. He created a universe where the light had already reached everywhere. Brilliant. Your evidence? If you determine the age of a rock you can assume that it has never been plasma since it formed, can't you?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
(05-24-2012, 05:17 PM)Palladin Wrote: First is the fact that on April 3, 33 AD there is a total eclipse of the sun astronomers know of. I knew of that myself and in the Gospel accounts it is stated the earth went dark at noon during Jesus' crucifixion. So, lots of folks in the Christian community have felt this was that day.

Oh gosh, not this yet again. It has been known for centuries that there is no possible date for the crucifixion solar eclipse, even Wikipedia talks about it,

In fact, the situation is more dire than this, Messier Morozov whom I mentioned before was one of the people who rechecked all eclipses mentioned in the ancient history, and pretty much none of them matched. Far the best documented is the one that allegedly happened after the death of Caesar, it was reported by multiple authors, and clearly identified as an eclipse (the crucifixion event could have been a large cloud or another atmospheric event)... and -- big ops here -- no freaking possible.

Here is a link to a short list of some problems that creates an illusion that a shift by a small number of years may resolve the problems.... it does not.
Sodomia delenda est


Are you saying the NASA database is wrong or you don't believe the people stating an eclipse occurred that day shown in the database are being honest?
(08-20-2012, 07:34 PM)Palladin Wrote: MV,

Using the NASA database, there is a total eclipse of the sun that afternoon. Don't know if we can access the data ourselves or not.

Yes, there was (I'm assuming "that afternoon" means April 3, 33). For 4 minutes only. Worse yet, it was a total eclipse, but not in Jerusalem, so it is quite unlikely the one that is described.

Now, NASA database is accessible, here, but does not list it at all. Probably, 0033 Mar 19 is the one (Julian-Gregorian dates), but the crucifixion description does not match Antarctica.. S6

Actually, the best match around the date is click for map.
Sodomia delenda est

The darkness during the afternoon when Jesus was on the Cross could not have been a solar eclipse. Matthew 27:45 describes it as lasting from the sixth hour to the ninth hour.

Why do some people try to explain such things by invoking natural events? Some people want to say that the star that shone the way to Bethlehem for the Kings of the East was a nova. God can certainly use natural events if He wants to. But He is not limited to natural events. He is the Creator, and His Word creates existence itself, and in His hand is our very breath from moment to moment. (See Acts 17:28; Psalms 33, 6, 9; Job 12:10.)
The Judeo-Christian belief system is based on accepting there are physical laws of the universe, set in place so that Mankind can discover and exploit them. It is unlike other religions that hold to whims of the Gods. The sole reason science and resaon has flourished is that those Laws are kniown and testable.

On this basis, all of any holy writ are bound by those same laws. All Heavenly actions are processed through those laws.
God reserves the right to intervene and perform miracles, which by definition are things out of the ordinary run of things. To deny this betrays a lack of belief that God actually exists as a real, living Person. Those who try to propose natural-sounding explanations for fantastic events in history and in the Bible may think they are trying to defend the religion of the Bible, but actually they are denying the power thereof. God is not subservient to the natural laws He established and maintains by His own power. They are subject to His will, not vice versa. Nor does God occasionally acting outside of natural processes necessarily invalidate natural law.
Actually, miracles are not even needed; a much better argument would be: "God reserves the right to have natural laws we are not aware of yet." S6
Sodomia delenda est


I think God does enter human history, I just think most stuff is observable, pre planned natural stuff. If there's an eclipse on the month and day Jesus may have been crucified, it stands to reason to assume it may have played a role in the narratives.
No solar eclipse lasts three hours.
Perhaps the soldier's wristwatch wasn't accurate and somebody tried to estimate by the shadows on the ground during an eclipse. In other words, it could have seemed like three hours or more and actually been less. Absent an impartial credible observer, just whose guesstimates are we accepting as fact? It is really hard to take a personal account as accurate, Biblical or not. It doesn't work in contemporaneous police reporting so why does it count more if it is a 2,000 year-old account? The more central to any religion a personal account is, the more it is believed, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or other.

We are built that way, so you must say it is God's design to make us susceptible to error without realizing it is error.
"A total solar eclipse occurred on July 22, 2009. It was the longest total solar eclipse during the 21st century, not to be surpassed until 13 June 2132. It lasted a maximum of 6 minutes and 39 seconds off the coast of Southeast Asia...." Link:,_2009

It would be hard to confuse something that lasts a maximum of about six and a half minutes with something that lasts three hours, no matter how error-prone human perceptions might be.

Since MV pointed this short duration out, I haven't assumed the entire darkout was the eclipse. It just made sense to assume so before I realized how short their duration is.

Obviously another cause was involved.


I see such things like this:

IF they were made up or obviously flawed( 3 hours of darkness compared to 3 minutes for example), the contemporary opponents of the Christians would have had a field day with stuff like this.

The ancient anti Jesus written material I've seen is never based on attacking the validity of the Gospel accounts with the exception of ridiculing things.

Like they'll call Mary a whore, Jesus is a bastard son of a Roman soldier, stuff like that, they never took the time to to show for example that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem or raised in Nazareth( the Roman census was available), that He was not in the line of David( all records were in the temple until 70 AD) or things like we're discussing, etc.

What the ancient folks did not say is impressive at least to my biased view.
Doesn't fly. There weren't many observed solar eclipses that built up any fundamental knowledge of them for contemporaneous opponents to argue what the length of them should be. It just wasn't part of the era's lore. More importantly, the claim of the skies darkening that was caused by God and not needing to be explained would work to the benefit of such stories, and any opponent would not gain traction by saying such claims were not natural. Remember, only the Judeo-Christian religions held that There were Physical Laws of the Universe that were available for public use - not the whims of Gods.
I'm with Wm on this one. Additionally, for all you know they did complain and attack in many ways that never made it to the record.
Sodomia delenda est


I'm not just discussing just this eclipse, any of the gospel account phenomenon are what I am discussing. The failure to counter the authenticity of these accounts was their failure.


Lack of evidence doesn't over ride the evidence we do have.

Anti Jesus folks had several centuries of dominance to make their cases. Many pagans did and so did the rabbinical Jews and their works are available to us. They aren't hidden.

You can read Celsus' & Tacitus' arguments or the Talmud's commentary. Rabbinical Jews had the protection of living in Babylon as well and lots of Talmud is from there. They never made a reasonable case against the authenticity of the accounts.

How easy would it have been before 70 AD to show Jesus and David were not related? That alone would have stopped Jesus in His tracks.

Surely had they, we'd have an oral tradition within the Jewish community the rabbinical Jews would have eventually documented or it seems reasonable to me we would.
Any historian will tell you that history gets tighter and more verified the farther out it is. You may think that contemporaneous reports always trump second-hand research, but the real truth is that it takes a long time for truth to come out. "Winners create history", is an aphorism that is accurate. Sometimes it takes time to uncover farudulent "settled" history.

Look at Columbus. In schoolbooks kids are taught that he was denied funds because the Church though the Earth was flat and he would sail off the edge. That was a lie, and it seems historians are the only ones who know that. In the next hundred years, the facts may be taught hoinestly, and everyone may know better.

I think that's valid, but, many argue the fact that the 4 canonical gospel accounts came out anywhere from 30-60 years after Jesus' day makes them non authentic.

I disagree, but, that's an opinion I see expressed a lot.

It's your perspective that decides.

Since I am pre disposed to see it positively, I assume IF they were inauthentic, Peter in particular would have immediately written an account with his name attached and no one else would have as he was the "party leader" so to speak. No confusion or competition, no surface contradictions, unified voice, one leader, Peter the appointed guy.

He wouldn't have used the various motifs that are used either, such as females being the first primary eyewitnesses, bodily resurrection wouldn't have been addressed to the pagan world as the very thought was anathema to all of them, his messiah would have been a super uber King David/Judas Maccabees military buttkicker, his messiah wouldn't have gone and gotten killed by pagans and Peter himself would not be seen as the buffoon he is in the accounts,etc.

If one studies ancient Jewish history in Jesus' era, you can find that there were several of these "type" messiah candidates followed by huge masses because that's what the Jewish people wanted so bad both before and after Jesus within roughly 100 years either way.

I just finished a book looking at the Jesus story from a historicity view with the various non confessional explanations juxtaposed with the confessional view and the other side really has little to offer.

Each needs the 12 and Paul and James to have had a psychological impairment visions that led them into the false idea that Jesus was resurrected.

To me, that's more unbelieveable than believing there is a God who entered human history to right our wrongs and in His due time will cause "the great reversal". Especially when you understand 2cd temple Judaism, there was no concept of their messiah getting killed or resurrected, let alone willingly to bring forth the general restoration of Israel which is what they were eyeballing.
(08-24-2012, 09:51 AM)Palladin Wrote: Since I am pre disposed to see it positively, I assume IF they were inauthentic, Peter in particular would have immediately written an account with his name attached and no one else would have as he was the "party leader" so to speak. No confusion or competition, no surface contradictions, unified voice, one leader, Peter the appointed guy.

Well, you are assuming that Peter was aware of these other accounts and there is no reason to take this for granted.

Peter's Account, which I'm sure you have read (or if not, should have S6 ), for the most part is consistent with the other Gospels; the only real difference is that Peter puts more blame on Herod and less on Pilate... at one point this might have been a big doctrinal issue, but it does not feel this way today.


Lack of evidence doesn't over ride the evidence we do have.

Anti Jesus folks had several centuries of dominance to make their cases. Many pagans did and so did the rabbinical Jews and their works are available to us. They aren't hidden.

Anti Jesus folks had no reasons to dissect Christian Mythology. In Roman Empire every group had a right to worship their gods and believe in their miracles, it would be strange to see anyone attacking others' myths at the time. Now, attacking Christians as a criminal cult would have been totally legit... and I distinctly remember the talk about the Christians starting forest fires (or something like this) S6
Sodomia delenda est

Well, if I had an eclipse and an earthquake at the same time when I'm passing over, I would also by the meshia of a new religion for the next 2000 years.

Question of luck. 80 billion humans have been living on Earth since the beginning of humanity, there are odds that it happened at least to one person down here.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)