Half-Life

Miraculous darkness when Christ died for our sins

* A pagan historian by the name of Thallus, who lived shortly after the resurrection of Christ. In about A.D. 52 he wrote concerning a miraculous darkness that covered the earth at the Passover of A.D. 32 and attempted to explain it as an eclipse of the sun. Julius Africanus, a Christian teacher in North Africa in A.D. 215, wrote concerning this historian's assertions, "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably as it seems to me." Julius contends, and modern astronomers confirm, that the Paschal full moon in which the Passover occurred (the Passover in which Christ was crucified) could not have been eclipsed. Thus, no known natural explanation can be presented to explain the darkness referred to in the Bible as occurring during Christ's crucifixion.

PHLEGON, A FIRST CENTURY HISTORIAN

[As quoted by Philopon]:

"And about this darkness...Phlegon recalls it in the Olympiads (the title of his history)." He says that "Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Christ, and no other (eclipse), it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times...and this is shown by the historical account itself of Tiberius Caesar."

http://bibleprobe.com/300great.htm

How come every time there is proof of the Gospels written by an outside source, atheists immediately pick it apart?

What would constitute as evidence for you guys?

Amaleq13

The holes in the "proof" are too large to ignore for many.

Carrier has already dealt with this subject:

Jacoby and Müller on "Thallus"

Johnny Skeptic

If you mean evidence that God can predict the future, the same telepathic message from God to everyone in the world regarding when and where the next hurricance would occur, month, day, and year. That would tend to discourage dissent instead of needlessly inviting dissent as is now the case.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Acts 14:3

"So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders." (NIV)

John 2:23

“Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did." (KJV)

John 3:2

“The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” (KJV)

John 10:37-38

“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” (KJV)

John 11:43-45

"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him." (KJV)

John 20:30-31

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” (KJV)

In another thread, you said that if God provided additional evidence, that would force people to accept him. Is it your position that the Scriptures that I quoted show that some people were forced to accept Jesus because he provided them with tangible, firsthand evidence when his words alone were not enough to convince them?

It would certainly not have been unfair for Jesus to accurately predict what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, which would surely have caused more people to become Christians. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

Since Jesus made some predictions, Christians cannot get away with claiming that he did not want to use prophecy to try to influence people in future generations.

All Bible prophecies are disputable. I wish to distinguish disputable prophecies from false prophecies. A false prophecy is a prophecy that does not come true. A disputable prophecy does not necessarily have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have needlessly failed to convince the majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year, that would be far less disputable than any Bible prophecy. In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies because 100% disputable prophecies discredit the Bible.

sdelsolray

How about clouds? They make the sky dark.

Peter Kirby

Why do you ask? Should not any proof be immediately picked apart--by an atheist or indeed anyone? Has philosophy given us nothing? Is there no place even for opposition of the advocatus diabolus variety? Have we lost the right to cross-examine any witness?

Evidence would.

Peter Kirby

Keith&Co.

Intersting. If there was a darkness that covered the whole Earth in AD 32, would any other historians be expected to comment on it?

ARE there any other historians that mention the world-wide darkness? No matter what their ideology...?

Johnny Skeptic

If you mean evidence that God can predict the future, if a being telepathically communicated with everyone in the world, and claimed that he was the God of the Bible, and accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year, almost everyone in the world would agree that no human could have made the prediction. In addition, surely some people would become Christians as a result. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

Why does God predict the future? Why doesn't he make prophecies that would convince more people to believe that he exists? If eternity in hell without parole was actually at stake, and if God loves people, one would think that he would do everything that he could in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell.

If a God exists, he would be able to convince more people to love him and accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Half-Life: Why doesn't God make predictions that would convince more people to become Christians? Why does God predict the future?

Half-Life

I don't know the mind of God. How would I?

I don't know WHY he does what he does. I just KNOW he does what he does.

Perhaps I will ask him in Heaven.

However, let's say for the sake of argument God telepathically communicated to every human that he exists.

This would VIOLATE free will of either WANTING to receive God's will or being FORCED to obey God's will.

Half-Life

What are you seriously suggesting?

How many non-apologetic sources would you accept?

If 60% of historians mentioned it, would that be enough?

Or would you then say "Why didn't EVERY historian write it?"

Also, the Bible never says darkness covered the WHOLE EARTH.

It says darkness covered the land. How much land though? We don't know. It covered been only over the cross or field he was crucified.

it could've been the whole town. We don't know.

If it's the former, how could the historians notice unless they were near Jesus?

if it's the latter, you may have a point.