Pretty Cool. Now if they could just pinpoint the birth... http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_778195.html?menu=news.quirkies Two Romanian astronomers say their research shows Christ died at 3pm on a Friday, and rose again at 4am on a Sunday. Liviu Mircea and Tiberiu Oproiu claim to have pinpointed the exact time and date of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. The pair, from the Astronomic Observatory Institute in Cluj, Romania, say Jesus died at 3pm on Friday, April 3, 33 AD, and rose again at 4am on Sunday, April 5. They used a computer programme to check biblical references against historical astronomical data. They said the New Testament stated that Jesus died the day after the first night with a full moon, after the vernal equinox. Using data gathered on the stars between 26 and 35 AD they established that in those nine years, the first full moon after the vernal equinox was registered twice - on Friday, April 7, 30 AD, and on Friday, April 3, 33 AD. They were convinced the date of the crucifixion was 33 AD, and not 30 AD, because records showed a solar eclipse, as depicted in the Bible at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, occurred in Jerusalem that year.
Its interesting how they are beginning to use scientific methods to figure out not only facts about the life of Jesus, but some of the miracles from the Bible (ie) parting of the Red Sea, The great flood, plagues, and Noah's Ark (the satellite pictures are interesting), and The Star of Bethelem. Its all theory of course, but its fun to think about all classic stories of that time.
So by using scientific methods to explain stories from the bible, you're admitting that they aren't miracles from god at all. They're just random occurences that couldn't be explained at the time.
Let me clarify because I don't want at all to come across as anti-religon. It is just very interesting to me to here some of the amazing events that would have happened to cause events such as the parting of the Red Sea. Who is not to say a miracle did not cause the almost impossible conditions naturally it would take to allow crossing the Red Sea after it had split and created a path. I hope my point is clearer now... KC
Just because you do not take the story of Jesus to be historical fact (like me), that doesn't mean there is nothing to gain from it. In fact, that is probably the best way to approach it. Joseph Campbell put it this way: "Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble." But I do think Jesus was a real dude.
Who says that scientifc occurences aren't miracles from God? I see scientific things like birth the immune system other stuff that's pretty amazing and miraculous. The problem is when people try and attribute acts of God to only mean supernatural mumbo jumbo. God allowing his works to occur within the framework of science is logical. Science and God are not mutually exclusive.
There is now: http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbbar2806f1.html http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/ http://www.geocities.com/fatherbloom/ossuaryjames.html
6 more, none with a question mark. http://www.latimer.org.nz/morecomment.asp?CoID=11 http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/ossuary.html http://www.iamnext.com/spiritual/enigmas/ossuary.html http://exn.ca/stories/2003/03/11/52.asp http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/141/11.0.html http://www.evidence.info/authenticity/ossuary.html I'm not trying to get into a theological debate with anyone, but just pointing out that evidence has been found that proves the existance of Jesus.
From an historical perspective, Christianity would be a much more remarkable phenomenon if Jesus were to have never existed.
Jesus did exist. Somebody came up with the concepts of turning the other cheek, loving your enemy etc. Whatever his name was, or whether the details of what is written in the New Testement or factual, partly factual, or never happened, the concepts involved were conceived by someone. Whoever did that no matter what his name was at the time, is for all intents and purposes Jesus.
Could somebody be Rod and Todd and tell me how they parted the red sea, and all them great ol bible tales.
The first century Romans to which you are referring is the historian Tacitus. Tacitus was born after Jesus alleged death and wrote his histories another fifty years plus after that. In his histories there are now two passages which refer to Jesus. One is clearly a forgery, while the second shorter passage is also likely to be a forgery. BTW, the early Christian Church founders did quite a bit of editing when they transcibed documents.
Whoa...the Tacitus quotes which you claim to be forgeries were in fact passed on to us by the Alhamids and Egyptians, as well as others. The statement that you made claiming them to be forgeries is supposition at most. And what about Josephus?
