TruthCounsellor

Never said I believed it. It was offered merely to "expand horizens."

But Yeah, I know... that's too painful an experience for most to participate in.

TC
(Not to say the message of your T-Shirt itself isn't true.)

Toto

Sorry, you're not "expanding horizons." You are seeking a naturalistic explanation for Biblical accounts that were never meant to be straight history or astronomy. Unlikely and improbable explanations like this were an attempt by Protestant Rationalists to try to salvage Biblical inerrancy in the face of modern science. Almost everyone has given up on that attempt, which violates the literary qualities of the Bible while not salvaging the science.

It didn't happen. Deal with it.

TruthCounsellor

Which didn't? The "massive sunspots"? (As if I care whether they did or didn't...)

Or, did you mean to claim that the darkening of the sun didn't happen? (To which I'd say... Ha! If you chose not to believe that, so what?)

What do you believe that makes you think that "your believing" is more effectual than "my believing"?

TC

Derec

But you failed to mention the most obvious flaw with that hypothesis (and all similar ones): why is the untimely eclipse/extreme sunspot activity only seen by the author of Matthew while there were so many astronomically inclined people in the Roman World who recorded nothing out of the ordinary?

bornagainskeptic

I thought I'd bring up the whole 'bible eclipse' story because last Sunday night ("Easter Sunday") I saw a program on tele in which they claimed they could calculate the date Jesus died as April 5, 33 CE. They claimed to be able to back this up because there was a LUNAR eclipse that day. But I don't think the Gospels refer to lunar eclipses or 'blood moons' in the immediate context of Jesus's death.
As for solar eclipses, in Mark (16:33) and Matthew (27:45) it is said 'when it was noon darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon'. I thought that, if you stretched it, this could possibly mean it was just very cloudy for three hours. But the Luke version (23:44-45) says "It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, while the sun's light failed [or, 'the sun was eclipsed']'. So the Luke version definitely shows the Gospels try to claim there was a solar eclipse, which we know was very unlikely. I agree with Jack the Bodiless that the eclipse story is good evidence the Gospels were written decades later. I reckon the authors of the Gospels either 1) vaguely remembered the solar eclipse of 29 AD (thanks to Godless Wonder for that post about the eclipse dates) and decided to incorporate it into their story to make Jesus seem like a miracle man; and/or 2) the Gospel authors decided to use their trick of getting Old Testament 'prophecy' into the Jesus story, using OT passages such as Joel 2:31. Joel 2:31 says "The sun shall be turned to darkness" - interesting that the Gospels also refer to 'darkness'.

Sheshbazzar

The New Testament records many "miracles", why all this straining to prove that the darkness at mid-day was some "natural phenomena"?
(there is nothing in the record that requires it to be interpreted, "it was an eclipse". this is an "explanation", being forced upon the text.)
And if, and after, you find, or finally settle on some "plausible explanation", will all of the other "miraculous" claims then suddenly become more believable?

If the stories are mostly fabricated, developing or supporting an "ironclad theory" about the circumstances of a single celestial event by the Atheists, would only lend further credence to the claims of the Fundies.
Believers do not require a natural explanation for everything written, and unbelievers, even were everything given a natural explanation, still would not believe the stories.
The phenomena exist, (whether they happened in reality, or only in writing as plot devices) to give a greater force (as indications of Divine involvement and intervention) to the stories, and the stories for the purpose of affecting the course of human history and destiny.
Thus the actuality of the events is always subordinate to the effects of the stories upon humanity. We, therefore are as effectively manipulated whether we choose to label ourselves as believers, or as unbelievers.

TruthCounsellor

There is evidence suggesting that Jesus Christ was born Sept.11, 3 BC. There is also disagreement as to exactly how long his ministry may have been. (Some believing that it was as short as 6 or 7 months.) So, it may be that the 29 AD eclipse might actually be "on the mark."

TC

Jack the Bodiless

In most circumstances, I agree with this: I see no need to search for a "natural explanation" of the Star of Bethlehem, for example (and searching for a "natural explanation" for a worldwide Flood would be ridiculous).

But the eclipse is different, because we know that this unusual, noteworthy event really did occur in that region within a few years of the right date (or maybe even a few months, if 29 AD was the "correct year").
What evidence? And this would be incompatible with both Matthew and Luke (too late for Herod, too early for Quirinus). It would also require a Passover in November...

spin

As Herod died in 4 BCE and according to Matt. the magic family went off to Egypt to avoid Herod's wrath, then obvious Jesus according to Matt. was born in 4 BCE or earlier. Herod we are told ordered the deaths of all the male children around Bethlehem that were two years or younger, suggesting that Jesus could have been born as early as 6 BCE. 3 BCE is right out.

Also, John has Jesus going up to Jerusalem three times for the passover, ie three different passovers, so his ministry according to that gospel was at least two years long, assuming the minimal case of starting on a passover.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Only to clarify the point I was making, not whether there was an eclipse in that region around that time, but rather that the Gospels only record a period of darkness from the sixth hour unto the ninth hour; nowhere does it say or indicate that that darkness was caused by an "eclipse", in fact the three hour duration would argue against such a interpretation.
(how many three hour long eclipses have been recorded in human history?)
Thus the three hour darkness at mid-day was a "miracle", just as was "Joshua's long day", the Star of Bethlehem, the Worldwide Flood, the Talking Snake, the Three Million ex-Slaves Wandering Forty Years in the Desert without leaving any signs of their sojourn, or men Three Days Dead coming back to life, and hundreds of other things "impossible".
Given the context of the entire corpus of Scripture, with all of its "impossible"
scenarios, to attempt to find or to force a naturalistic explanation upon The Three Hours of Darkness is not acceptable.