NON-BIBLICAL Evidence for the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ

Biblical evidence:

(Matthew 27:45) From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land.

(Matthew 27:51-54) At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

These Bible verses are the fulfillment of Amos's prophecy (750 BC)

(Amos 8:8-9) “Will not the land tremble for this, and all who live in it mourn? The whole land will rise like the Nile; it will be stirred up and then sink like the river of Egypt. “In that day,” declares the Sovereign LORD, “I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.

Non-biblical evidence:

- Thallus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_(historian)

(Source: biblehistory.net) The first reference found outside of the bible mentioning this darkness which fell over the land during the crucifixion of Christ, comes from a Samaritan historian named Thallus, who wrote around 52 A.D. His work was quoted by another early historian by the name of Julius Africanus who researched the topic of this darkness and wrote the following:

"Upon the whole world there came a most fearful darkness. Many rocks were split in two by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. It seems very unreasonable to me that Thallus, in the third book of his histories, would try to explain away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun. For the Jews celebrate their Passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the death of our Saviour falls on the day before the Passover. But an eclipse of the sun can only take place when the moon comes under the sun, how then could an eclipse have occurred when the moon is directly opposite the sun? (Scientifically it is impossible to have a full moon on the same day that there is an eclipse of the sun.)

Another first century historian who also mentions this darkness was Phlegon who wrote a history entitled the "Olympiads. Julius Africanus mentioned a quote taken from the Olympiads which said: "Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth . . . It is evident that he did not know of any such events in previous years."

[from the sixth hour to the ninth: The sixth hour in Jewish time would have been 12 p.m.]

Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen in his work ‘Against Celsus’ Book 2: "The darkening of the sun took place at the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus was crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon, I believe, has written an account in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles."

Source: http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/crucifixion_darkness.htm

- Letters:

The purported Letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius claimed the darkness had started at the sixth hour, covered the whole world and, during the subsequent evening, the full moon resembled blood for the entire night. The Gospel of Peter stated that the darkness began at midday, covered the whole of Judaea, and led people to go about with lamps believing it to be night.

In letters written under the name Dionysius the Areopagite the author claims to have observed a solar eclipse from Heliopolis at the time of the crucifixion. According to the Orthodox Church in America, Dionysius, who is mentioned in Acts 17:34, was from Athens and received a classical Greek education. He studied astronomy at the city of Heliopolis, and it was in Heliopolis, along with his friend Apollophonos where he witnessed the solar eclipse that occurred at the moment of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ by Crucifixion. The connection between the events was surely realized by him at a later date. But even so, at the time of the eclipse he said, "Either the Creator of all the world now suffers, or this visible world is coming to an end."

Source: http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/Crucifixion_eclipse::sub::Early_Christian_Texts

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html

 

You just look so desperate with these threads. Are you trying to convince yourself or other people?

Because if you are trying to convince others, you are going about it the wrong way. People who come on webmaster forums to push their religious beliefs on others are fools.

 

The real fools are those who ignore facts that prove them wrong, and refuse to see the truth because they don't want to believe it, and because it is easier to remain ignorant.

 

I don't try to claim to know what happened thousands of years ago on a particular day so it would be hard to prove me wrong.

What I do know is that in your post above you rely on the words of men and treat them as unquestionable fact. I would be more impressed if you just said you had faith that it happened a certain way, rather then trying to pretend that a bunch of unverifiable crap are somehow facts supporting you. That you feel the need to rely on this stuff is a sad testament to your actual faith that it happened. You seem to need the crutch. Isn't the point that even if there were no evidence that it happened as written in the bible, that you would still believe it? So then why put on this silly show? It is not necessary and makes it seem like your faith in God and the Bible relies on weak facts.

 

I think why Angelic does this is because in the past few years there has been a frenzy of veiled attacks against Christianity in the form of history related theories . This theories where given extensive media coverage although they where only backed by more theories . However National Geographic ran extensive documentaries showcasing there and giving them credibility by proxy .

Angelic is simply putting a counterpoint to this flurry of attacks , nothing more or less . At best his post only demonstrates that some pretty unique events occurred during that time , they don't confirm the entire Bible , but only some details .

 

this "silly" show is directed towards silly atheists who deny the existence of the HISTORICAL JESUS and want non-biblical evidence for His existence. If you are one of those silly atheists, discuss; If you are a believer, then this thread is not for you.

 

Then I go back to my first point, that this is a poor way to convince any atheist of anything. If that is your purpose, I think, as I said, you are going about it in the wrong way.

There are things that draw people to religion and things that turn them away. This type of thread turns atheists away, so I think if you keep your true goal in mind, you will find that this does not serve your purpose or your God. What you rely on as "facts" is precisely what atheists doubt. What atheists can never argue with is your faith, and thus, your faith is the part they want to understand. An argument over facts is never going to come out in your favor, because the mere fact you are arguing frames the existence of God as something that could be disproved by facts.

 

No-one can be more silly than you if you are looking to 'discuss' with 'silly' atheists..

and I may be silly, but I'm not bloody silly to argue your silly post.. So sillio.. I mean, adios..

 

"there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth"

On Passover? Since when can there be an eclipse of the sun when the moon isn't between the Earth and the sun? The physics of light was different back then?

Oh, letters aren't evidence, they're assertions.

How about some real evidence? Like the fact that the site upon which Nazareth sits was at most a small farming community (not even a village) the first century? Maybe only one family lived there. So Jesus couldn't have come from even a village named Nazareth - let alone a city that people in Jerusalem would have heard of, since it didn't exist until the fourth century, when some people settled on what "surely" must have been "the city" that Jesus came from? Like the fact that older sources called him Nazoraios, not Nazarene? (Meaning not "one who comes from a place called Nazareth", but "truth"?) Like there being absolutely no reference to a man named Yeshua bin Yosuf until late in the second century? (Paul's "Jesus" was just an aspect of God.) And Matt 2:23 is total nonsense according to Judges 13:5 (a Nazarite - a branch of Jesse).

See The Myth of the Historical Veracity of Jesus, Did Jesus exist and Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built. Only those who know nothing about actual history believe the myth.

 

@Rukbat
Did you even read my post? Your comment makes no sense as a response to mine.
My post clearly stated that it was NOT a normal eclipse of the sun; Instead, it was a miraculous eclipse signifying God's judgment.

A letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar is not an evidence??? Ah maybe these guys never existed as well lol.

(The sixth hour in Jewish time would have been 12 a.m.)

What about Thallus and Phlegon? Both were HISTORIANS and wrote about this darkness and the earthquake that accompanied:

Have fun with these sites:
JuliusCaesarNeverExisted.com
CleopatraNeverExisted.com
AlexandertheGreatNeverExisted.com
NobodyEverExisted.com

 

Sorry, the sixth hour is 12 p.m. (noon), not 12 a.m

 

Around 110 AD the Roman historian Tacitus wrote "Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius..."

The historian Josephus wrote "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ..."

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus in 121 AD in his "Lives of the Twelve Caesars" wrote: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he [Emperor Claudius ] expelled them from Rome".
(note that "The New York Times Manual of Style" did not exist during Roman times. Creative spelling was common when referring to people in recent history)

The Gospels, particularly Luke, contain many historical and cultural references, all of which have been proven to be true.

No one can doubt that there is significant and irrefutable evidence of the spread of "Christianity" first within the Roman Empire and then to the rest of the world. "Christianity" has openly credited it's origin to the namesake origin of the religion, "Jesus Christ". You won't find a sociologist anywhere that would credit the unusually rapid spread of a movement named for it's namesake that will claim the namesake was a fictitious person. No sociological phenomenon or theory explains this.

As far as atheism - there are two kinds of atheists. The first are people who sincerely have an intellectual doubt as to the existence of God - they are identified by their intellectual obsession with facts and details. The second are rabid bigots who use the excuse of atheism to cover their religious bigotry - they are identified by their direct insults towards any person who claims to be religious and a dismissive attitude towards historical evidence.

 

Hey alt east their posting this in the proper section, Politics & Religion

 

I'm trying to figure out what a darkness, eclipse, or any other meteorological or weather phenomena has to do with Jesus. This whole thread seems to me like saying, "Look, somebody wrote about a strange cloud formation in 1962. Its settled then. Aliens really did land in New Mexico!"

 

A man named Jesus may have existed, to atheists that is as unimportant as the claim that a man named carl may have existed. You really do have all of your work ahead of you.

In all honesty, do you not think a darkening of the sky that covered the whole world would have been recorded by more than one person? Imagine that happening today, it would be the equivalent to it being reported by a single local radio station. This frankly bizarre rationalisation comes across as utter desperation on your part. If this is the best you can do, you should have a bit of a rethink.

Darkening of the sky, rocks being split, a red moon... sounds like a volcanic eruption to me. It's tragic that you're willing to humiliate yourself in such a spectacular way to try and justify your fixation with a magic sky daddy.

 

"Look, DIFFERENT HISTORIANS wrote about a strange DARKNESS (FROM 12PM TO 3PM) AND AN EARTHQUAKE THE DAY JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED. It's settled then. THE BIBLE IS TRUE!"

... because the Bible records the same thing: A strange darkness (from 12pm to 3pm) and an earthquake when Jesus died on the cross.

 

Either you are blind or YOU DON'T WANT to see; Thallus, Phlegon, Dionysius, Tacitus, ... are more than one person I think...

How do you explain that different historians wrote about an earthquake and 3 hours of darkness from 12pm to 3pm (the hours Jesus was on the cross) on Passover the year 33 AD??

Note that the darkness could not be a normal eclipse of the sun, as Passover falls at full moon; scientifically it is impossible to have a full moon on the same day that there is an eclipse of the sun. How do you explain that?

 

So by that logic, if several people in London reported hearing tinkling bells and lights in the sky in 1904, would that provide us the proof that we need to know the story of Peter Pan was true? After all, the book (Pan) says Tinkerbel left a glowing trail of pixie dust and made a tinkling sound.

When you opened a thread claiming "NON-BIBLICAL Evidence for the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ", I think it would be reasonable to expect at a minimum a written account dating from the era that at least mentions Jesus by name. Its just a damn shame no such account exists until nearly 400 years later.

Here is something that probably hasn't crossed your mind. We have all this documentation from the first and second century AD by Thallus, Phlegon, and Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus Augustus with not even a mention of the name 'Jesus'. Now if you were part of the First Council of Nicaea, assembling the bible, all those other historical documents that have survived to this very day would also be right there at your finger tips. I don't imagine it would make any sense at all to borrow a few facts from the history books of the day, and insert them into your new religious manifesto, would it? No, I'm way off base here. You are right. It has to be proof of Jesus.

 

Not true. Jesus is mentioned in historical writings THAT AREN'T CHRISTIAN as far back as the first century.
Josephus wrote: "Jesus was a wise man and was called the Christ..."
Julian the Apostate, Pliny, Lucian, and others mention Jesus in their writings:
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0601.htm

What do we know about Jesus from non-biblical sources:
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0201.htm