Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Miracle

2009-05-16T00:17:27Z

Foxtrot121:

A '''miracle''' is defined by Merriam-Webster (2009) as:

: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
: ''Christian Science'': a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

Other definitions include:

: a remarkably good event that has no plausible scientific explanation
: an extremely unlikely occurrence consistent with [[faith]] or [[prayer]]
: a joyous happening contrary to all reasonable expectation
: "a violation of the laws of nature" ([[David Hume]])

Though the term "miracle" can often be heard from Christians and non-Christians alike, the entire [[Bible]] only contains one genuine reference to "miracle" and that was a quote of a non-believer (the Pharaoh) in Exodus 7:9 (RSV): "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Prove yourselves by working a '''miracle''',' then you shall say to Aaron, 'Take your rod and cast it down before Pharaoh, that it may become a serpent.'"

Under [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], God is truth and a miracle is nothing more than a "sign" of the truth. "Miracle" is the non-believer's term for what believers properly describe as a "sign", a term that does appear repeatedly in the [[Bible]]. The scholar [[Chad Walsh]] echoes [[C.S. Lewis]]—''Miracles: A Preliminary Study''(1947, Macmillan)—when he states that no other religion bases its ideas upon miracles as much as does Christianity. Its foundation is the [[Incarnation]].<ref> ''C.S. Lewis: Apostle to the Skeptics'', Chad Walsh, Macmillian company, 1949, page 34 </ref>

== Arguments against the Existence of Miracles ==

Skeptics would say that miracles are simply improbable stuff happening and because there are billions of people on the planet, the odds of finding numerous stories of improbable happenings interpreted as miracles increases. This, however, along with many other atheistic arguments invokes a logical fallacy. The Gambler's Fallacy states that the more one tries something, the more likely an event will happen. In reality, if one spins a roulette wheel, the odds of it landing on one number will always be exactly the same every time.

The fact is in order for a skeptic to dismiss miracles, they must literally accuse thousands upon thousands of people of either lying, or hallucinating. The probability of 100 percent of the witnesses matching this descripition is questionable at best. One example would be the documented miracle at Fatima where thousands of people saw the sun explode and then come back together. Skeptics argue that no one outside the area of the town recorded this but this is using the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Also, the probability of thousands of people lying needs to be called into question.

Some skeptics ask why God chooses not to cure amputees but this begins with the false assumption that God has never done this before. The fact is Jesus is historically documented in the Bible as reattaching an ear to a Roman soldier. Also, many of the lepers that Jesus chose to cure also had missing body parts. The amputee argument also ignores how losing a limb is not life threatening. Also, if God chose to cure everyone then no one would ever die and God needs people to die so they can either be placed in Heaven or Hell. Another counter is that the amputee argument ignores the fact that God has inspired doctors to develop the technology for artificial limbs.

==List of miracles approved by the [[Congregation for the Causes of Saints]]==
*Stigmata (and other signs) of [[St. Francis of Assisi]]
*Prophecies and miraculous apparitions of [[Saint_Bernadette|St. Bernadette]]
*Apparition of the [[Blessed Virgin Mary|Mary]] at Fatima on the 13th day of six consecutive months in 1917, starting on 13 May.
*Stigmata, bilocation, levitation and prophecy of [[Padre_Pio|St. Pio of Pietrelcina]] (born Francesco Frocione)
*Blood miracle of St. Januarius (also know St. Gennaro)
*The Virgin of the tears: 1953, Syracuse (Sicily) - A statue of the Virgin Mary produces real human tears.

[[category:Christian Theology]]

Logic

2009-05-16T00:02:26Z

Foxtrot121: /* Deduction and Induction */

[[Logic]] ([[Greek]] λογίζω I reckon, I count, from λόγος a word) is a branch of [[philosophy]] that deals with and attempts to guide the faculty of human reason.

[[Aristotle]] was the first to formalize the practice of reasoning. In particular, Aristotle developed a formalization of the [[syllogism]] and the [[Square of Opposition]]. While [[Modus ponens]] and its complement [[Modus tollens]] were known to the Medievals, it is not clear when these central laws of deduction were first formalized.{{fact}}

The next easily-identifiable major development in logic comes from [[Boole]] in 1847 with the creation of [[Boolean algebra]]. In the 1870's, Peirce introduces a logic of quantifiers, followed by [[Gottlob Frege]]'s 1879 ''Begriffsschift'', which contains the first complete formalization of the propositional calculus. Frege's work was developed in service of his [[logicism|logicist]] project, which was shown to be inconsistent by [[Bertrand Russell]] in 1903 with what is famously called [[Russell's paradox]].

By the 1950's, with the work of many logicians including [[Hilbert]], [[Emile Post]], [[Alfred Tarski]] and [[Kurt Goedel]], most of the major results in first-order logic had been proved, and in the 1960's [[Saul Kripke]] added a completeness proof for [[modal logic]].

Most logical systems are [[bivalent]]; that is, they admit only two truth-values. However, there is a fair amount of work done on non-bivalent systems of logic, especially [[intuitionist logic]] and [[relevance logic]]. In intuitionist logic, "true" and "false" are replaced with "proven true", "proven contradictory", and "not proven". In relevance logic, "neither true nor false" and "both true and false" are added to the standard two truth values. There is some debate about the value of these systems in philosophical circles, and [[Timothy Williamson]] claims to have a proof that any non-bivalent logic can be converted into a bivalent logic.

Formal logic requires, since Frege, a distinction between the [[object language]] and the [[metalanguage]]. The metalanguage is ordinarily a natural language like English or German, while the object language is a symbolic language with a limited alphabet and syntax.

== Informal Logic ==

The art of [[rhetoric]] is sometimes called "informal logic", and the classic [[logical fallacies|fallacies]] are often described as "logical fallacies", though, strictly speaking, most of them are simply emotionally effective ways to build an invalid argument. Generally speaking, "informal logic" consists of "common sense" and a collection of other rather loose rules that people employ while making most decisions and even in debate. It is unstructured, and depends largely on one's view of "the reasonable". The thresholds of what is "reasonable" and what is not, are inexact and subject to change with the receipt of sufficient contrary evidence--and again, what constitutes "sufficiency" in this context might vary from person to person.

== Deduction and Induction ==

Deductive logic is characterized by certainty: in a valid argument, when the premises are true, the conclusion '''must''' be true. The certainty, however, comes at a price. Take a classic argument of deductive logic:

'''Premises:'''
All men are mortal,
Socrates is a man
'''Conclusion:'''
Socrates is mortal

The conclusion is "contained" in the premises. In a sense the conclusion is "known" before it is elucidated. The conclusion, "Socrates is mortal" is also less informative than the premises which imply not just that Socrates is mortal but that a lot of other beings (anyone for whom the term "is a man" applies) are also mortal. As a result deductive logic is not thought to add to knowledge, merely to clarify it.

Inductive logic is ampliative, but is famously less certain. In a good inductive argument, even when the premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. A classic example of an inductive argument is:

'''Premise:'''
All the many swans obversed have been white
'''Conclusion:'''
All swans are white

Before the discovery of Australia the premise was true someone following inductive logic would have reached the conclusion. Given the existence of black swans in Australia, however, that conclusion is false. [[David Hume]]'s 18th-century critique of induction remains a very pressing problem for disciplines like [[science]] which are commonly held to rely on inductive reasoning.

Another example of faulty logic would be when it comes to atheism. Atheists typically use many logical fallacies in an effort to convert people to their religion.

'''Premise:'''
There is no emperical evidence for something.
'''Conclusion:'''
The object does not exist.

This logical fallacy acts as if absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This can be proven to be a faulty supposition because before America was discovered by Christians, one could say there are only four continents based upon the evidence. This would be treated as a fact despite it being proven false later on. Also, this premise ignores the fact that there are multiple types of knowledge. There is empirical knowledge and then there is knowledge one has through faith. An example would be the knowledge that a mother loves her son. This cannot be proven to be a lie, but people have faith that is it true.

== Uses of logic in other disciplines ==
Logic is a necessary discipline in [[philosophy]], because it deals with how we study and interact with the world and with other people in it. Logic and [[mathematics]] are also closely connected, and much of mathematics can be reduced to first-order logic, though Goedel's [[Incompleteness theorem]] shows that not all of mathematics can be so reduced.

In [[computer science]], logic dictates how a machine will follow a set of instructions, including how to test its "world," evaluate it, and act according to that evaluation. Every computer language includes its own version of the language of symbolic logic, except that instead of establishing propositions, a computer following a program is usually choosing between and among different commands to execute.

Logic, and especially formal logic, inform the discipline of [[critical thinking]]--which, by no coincidence, takes its name from the [[Greek]] word for a judge. Indeed, judges and juries in courts of [[law]] must apply logic, both formal and informal, to arrive at their decisions. Formal logic will usually serve to state what obedience to a given body of law requires; informal logic must usually serve a trier of fact charged with deciding whether a given person was in obedience or in violation. The latter principle holds primarily because plaintiff and defendant in a court of law quite often ''do not'' agree on matters of fact.

== See Also ==
* [[Aristotle]], "Organon"
* [[Gottlob Frege]], "Begriffsschrift" and "The Foundations of Arithmetic"
* [[Bertrand Russell]] and [[Albert N Whitehead]], "Principia Mathematica"
* [[Bas van Fraassen]] and [[J C Beall]], "Possibility and Paradox"
* Geoffrey Hunter, "Metalogic"

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Logic

2009-05-16T00:01:49Z

Foxtrot121: /* Deduction and Induction */

[[Logic]] ([[Greek]] λογίζω I reckon, I count, from λόγος a word) is a branch of [[philosophy]] that deals with and attempts to guide the faculty of human reason.

[[Aristotle]] was the first to formalize the practice of reasoning. In particular, Aristotle developed a formalization of the [[syllogism]] and the [[Square of Opposition]]. While [[Modus ponens]] and its complement [[Modus tollens]] were known to the Medievals, it is not clear when these central laws of deduction were first formalized.{{fact}}

The next easily-identifiable major development in logic comes from [[Boole]] in 1847 with the creation of [[Boolean algebra]]. In the 1870's, Peirce introduces a logic of quantifiers, followed by [[Gottlob Frege]]'s 1879 ''Begriffsschift'', which contains the first complete formalization of the propositional calculus. Frege's work was developed in service of his [[logicism|logicist]] project, which was shown to be inconsistent by [[Bertrand Russell]] in 1903 with what is famously called [[Russell's paradox]].

By the 1950's, with the work of many logicians including [[Hilbert]], [[Emile Post]], [[Alfred Tarski]] and [[Kurt Goedel]], most of the major results in first-order logic had been proved, and in the 1960's [[Saul Kripke]] added a completeness proof for [[modal logic]].

Most logical systems are [[bivalent]]; that is, they admit only two truth-values. However, there is a fair amount of work done on non-bivalent systems of logic, especially [[intuitionist logic]] and [[relevance logic]]. In intuitionist logic, "true" and "false" are replaced with "proven true", "proven contradictory", and "not proven". In relevance logic, "neither true nor false" and "both true and false" are added to the standard two truth values. There is some debate about the value of these systems in philosophical circles, and [[Timothy Williamson]] claims to have a proof that any non-bivalent logic can be converted into a bivalent logic.

Formal logic requires, since Frege, a distinction between the [[object language]] and the [[metalanguage]]. The metalanguage is ordinarily a natural language like English or German, while the object language is a symbolic language with a limited alphabet and syntax.

== Informal Logic ==

The art of [[rhetoric]] is sometimes called "informal logic", and the classic [[logical fallacies|fallacies]] are often described as "logical fallacies", though, strictly speaking, most of them are simply emotionally effective ways to build an invalid argument. Generally speaking, "informal logic" consists of "common sense" and a collection of other rather loose rules that people employ while making most decisions and even in debate. It is unstructured, and depends largely on one's view of "the reasonable". The thresholds of what is "reasonable" and what is not, are inexact and subject to change with the receipt of sufficient contrary evidence--and again, what constitutes "sufficiency" in this context might vary from person to person.

== Deduction and Induction ==

Deductive logic is characterized by certainty: in a valid argument, when the premises are true, the conclusion '''must''' be true. The certainty, however, comes at a price. Take a classic argument of deductive logic:

'''Premises:'''
All men are mortal,
Socrates is a man
'''Conclusion:'''
Socrates is mortal

The conclusion is "contained" in the premises. In a sense the conclusion is "known" before it is elucidated. The conclusion, "Socrates is mortal" is also less informative than the premises which imply not just that Socrates is mortal but that a lot of other beings (anyone for whom the term "is a man" applies) are also mortal. As a result deductive logic is not thought to add to knowledge, merely to clarify it.

Inductive logic is ampliative, but is famously less certain. In a good inductive argument, even when the premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. A classic example of an inductive argument is:

'''Premise:'''
All the many swans obversed have been white
'''Conclusion:'''
All swans are white

Before the discovery of Australia the premise was true someone following inductive logic would have reached the conclusion. Given the existence of black swans in Australia, however, that conclusion is false. [[David Hume]]'s 18th-century critique of induction remains a very pressing problem for disciplines like [[science]] which are commonly held to rely on inductive reasoning.

Another example of faulty logic would be when it comes to atheism. Atheists typically use many logical fallacies in an effort to convert people to their religion.

'''Premise:'''
There is no emperical evidence for something.
'''Conclusion:'''
The object does not exist.

This logical fallacy acts as if absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This can be proven to be a faulty supposition because before America was discovered by Christians, one could use say there are only four continents based upon the evidence. This would be treated as a fact despite it being proven false later on. Also, this premise ignores the fact that there are multiple types of knowledge. There is empirical knowledge and then there is knowledge one has through faith. An example would be the knowledge that a mother loves her son. This cannot be proven to be a lie, but people have faith that is it true.

== Uses of logic in other disciplines ==
Logic is a necessary discipline in [[philosophy]], because it deals with how we study and interact with the world and with other people in it. Logic and [[mathematics]] are also closely connected, and much of mathematics can be reduced to first-order logic, though Goedel's [[Incompleteness theorem]] shows that not all of mathematics can be so reduced.

In [[computer science]], logic dictates how a machine will follow a set of instructions, including how to test its "world," evaluate it, and act according to that evaluation. Every computer language includes its own version of the language of symbolic logic, except that instead of establishing propositions, a computer following a program is usually choosing between and among different commands to execute.

Logic, and especially formal logic, inform the discipline of [[critical thinking]]--which, by no coincidence, takes its name from the [[Greek]] word for a judge. Indeed, judges and juries in courts of [[law]] must apply logic, both formal and informal, to arrive at their decisions. Formal logic will usually serve to state what obedience to a given body of law requires; informal logic must usually serve a trier of fact charged with deciding whether a given person was in obedience or in violation. The latter principle holds primarily because plaintiff and defendant in a court of law quite often ''do not'' agree on matters of fact.

== See Also ==
* [[Aristotle]], "Organon"
* [[Gottlob Frege]], "Begriffsschrift" and "The Foundations of Arithmetic"
* [[Bertrand Russell]] and [[Albert N Whitehead]], "Principia Mathematica"
* [[Bas van Fraassen]] and [[J C Beall]], "Possibility and Paradox"
* Geoffrey Hunter, "Metalogic"

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Logic

2009-05-16T00:00:49Z

Foxtrot121:

[[Logic]] ([[Greek]] λογίζω I reckon, I count, from λόγος a word) is a branch of [[philosophy]] that deals with and attempts to guide the faculty of human reason.

[[Aristotle]] was the first to formalize the practice of reasoning. In particular, Aristotle developed a formalization of the [[syllogism]] and the [[Square of Opposition]]. While [[Modus ponens]] and its complement [[Modus tollens]] were known to the Medievals, it is not clear when these central laws of deduction were first formalized.{{fact}}

The next easily-identifiable major development in logic comes from [[Boole]] in 1847 with the creation of [[Boolean algebra]]. In the 1870's, Peirce introduces a logic of quantifiers, followed by [[Gottlob Frege]]'s 1879 ''Begriffsschift'', which contains the first complete formalization of the propositional calculus. Frege's work was developed in service of his [[logicism|logicist]] project, which was shown to be inconsistent by [[Bertrand Russell]] in 1903 with what is famously called [[Russell's paradox]].

By the 1950's, with the work of many logicians including [[Hilbert]], [[Emile Post]], [[Alfred Tarski]] and [[Kurt Goedel]], most of the major results in first-order logic had been proved, and in the 1960's [[Saul Kripke]] added a completeness proof for [[modal logic]].

Most logical systems are [[bivalent]]; that is, they admit only two truth-values. However, there is a fair amount of work done on non-bivalent systems of logic, especially [[intuitionist logic]] and [[relevance logic]]. In intuitionist logic, "true" and "false" are replaced with "proven true", "proven contradictory", and "not proven". In relevance logic, "neither true nor false" and "both true and false" are added to the standard two truth values. There is some debate about the value of these systems in philosophical circles, and [[Timothy Williamson]] claims to have a proof that any non-bivalent logic can be converted into a bivalent logic.

Formal logic requires, since Frege, a distinction between the [[object language]] and the [[metalanguage]]. The metalanguage is ordinarily a natural language like English or German, while the object language is a symbolic language with a limited alphabet and syntax.

== Informal Logic ==

The art of [[rhetoric]] is sometimes called "informal logic", and the classic [[logical fallacies|fallacies]] are often described as "logical fallacies", though, strictly speaking, most of them are simply emotionally effective ways to build an invalid argument. Generally speaking, "informal logic" consists of "common sense" and a collection of other rather loose rules that people employ while making most decisions and even in debate. It is unstructured, and depends largely on one's view of "the reasonable". The thresholds of what is "reasonable" and what is not, are inexact and subject to change with the receipt of sufficient contrary evidence--and again, what constitutes "sufficiency" in this context might vary from person to person.

== Deduction and Induction ==

Deductive logic is characterized by certainty: in a valid argument, when the premises are true, the conclusion '''must''' be true. The certainty, however, comes at a price. Take a classic argument of deductive logic:

'''Premises:'''
All men are mortal,
Socrates is a man
'''Conclusion:'''
Socrates is mortal

The conclusion is "contained" in the premises. In a sense the conclusion is "known" before it is elucidated. The conclusion, "Socrates is mortal" is also less informative than the premises which imply not just that Socrates is mortal but that a lot of other beings (anyone for whom the term "is a man" applies) are also mortal. As a result deductive logic is not thought to add to knowledge, merely to clarify it.

Inductive logic is ampliative, but is famously less certain. In a good inductive argument, even when the premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. A classic example of an inductive argument is:

'''Premise:'''
All the many swans obversed have been white
'''Conclusion:'''
All swans are white

Before the discovery of Australia the premise was true someone following inductive logic would have reached the conclusion. Given the existence of black swans in Australia, however, that conclusion is false. [[David Hume]]'s 18th-century critique of induction remains a very pressing problem for disciplines like [[science]] which are commonly held to rely on inductive reasoning.

Another example of faulty logic would be when it comes to atheism. Atheists typically use many logical fallacies in an effort to convert people to their religion.

'''Premise:'''
There is no emperical evidence for A
'''Conclusion:'''
A does not exist

This logical fallacy acts as if absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This can be proven to be a faulty supposition because before America was discovered by Christians, one could use say there are only four continents based upon the evidence. This would be treated as a fact despite it being proven false later on. Also, this premise ignores the fact that there are multiple types of knowledge. There is empirical knowledge and then there is knowledge one has through faith. An example would be the knowledge that a mother loves her son. This cannot be proven to be a lie, but people have faith that is it true.

== Uses of logic in other disciplines ==
Logic is a necessary discipline in [[philosophy]], because it deals with how we study and interact with the world and with other people in it. Logic and [[mathematics]] are also closely connected, and much of mathematics can be reduced to first-order logic, though Goedel's [[Incompleteness theorem]] shows that not all of mathematics can be so reduced.

In [[computer science]], logic dictates how a machine will follow a set of instructions, including how to test its "world," evaluate it, and act according to that evaluation. Every computer language includes its own version of the language of symbolic logic, except that instead of establishing propositions, a computer following a program is usually choosing between and among different commands to execute.

Logic, and especially formal logic, inform the discipline of [[critical thinking]]--which, by no coincidence, takes its name from the [[Greek]] word for a judge. Indeed, judges and juries in courts of [[law]] must apply logic, both formal and informal, to arrive at their decisions. Formal logic will usually serve to state what obedience to a given body of law requires; informal logic must usually serve a trier of fact charged with deciding whether a given person was in obedience or in violation. The latter principle holds primarily because plaintiff and defendant in a court of law quite often ''do not'' agree on matters of fact.

== See Also ==
* [[Aristotle]], "Organon"
* [[Gottlob Frege]], "Begriffsschrift" and "The Foundations of Arithmetic"
* [[Bertrand Russell]] and [[Albert N Whitehead]], "Principia Mathematica"
* [[Bas van Fraassen]] and [[J C Beall]], "Possibility and Paradox"
* Geoffrey Hunter, "Metalogic"

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Historicity of Jesus

2009-05-15T23:50:15Z

Foxtrot121:

The '''historicity of Jesus''' focuses on whether [[Jesus]] existed as a real historical person, or whether he is simply a mythological imagination. There has recently been a liberal move in academia in the last century to discredit the Truth of the Bible and God's word and the attacks of whether or not Jesus really existed fit into this onslaught. This article will show that the evidence for the existence of Jesus is overwhelming. In other words, for someone to argue that Jesus never existed (and thus is merely a myth) is to place himself against not only the field of scholarship and the historical record, but even against reason and common sense.

== Sources ==
=== Overview ===
The sources for the historical existence of Jesus are many. First, there are four biographies – the [[gospel]]s of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – written either by eyewitnesses, or by authors who had access to eyewitnesses. Some scholars have speculated that earlier sources (such as a Passion narrative) were written within a few years of Jesus’ death by members of the [[Jerusalem]] Church and were later incorporated in the gospels. There is also a collection of letters by [[Saint Paul]], who wrote from the late 40s to the mid 60s (when he was martyred). These letters include early creedal professions and hymns whose origins have been traced to within a few years of Jesus’ death and coming from the Jerusalem community. There are also other letters written by the apostles or disciples, including [[Saint Peter]] himself. A history of the early Church, the Acts of the Apostles contains information on Jesus’ earthly life, including internal source material such as the preserved preaching of Peter. Important testimony is also found in late first and early second century writings of the [[Early Church Fathers|Apostolic Fathers]]. Jesus’ earthly life was even mentioned by some pseudo-Christian and non-Christian writings, including the Romano-Jewish historian [[Josephus|Josephus Flavius]] – all to be discussed below.

Obviously, the bulk of the information comes from Christian sources. This is to be expected. The common temptation to radically fissure the sources into Christian / non-Christian categories (with the former then being dismissed) is a practice foreign to historical methods. Historians certainly identify an author’s context, motivations, aims, and the like, but to dismiss a source (or whole group of sources) merely because the author(s) was personally invested in his subject is unjustified. For example, the only detailed source for the Roman general Agricola’s conquest of Britain was written by [[Tacitus]], his son-in-law, who was obviously personally interested in the career of his subject, and the glorification of Rome in general. But Tacitus’s invaluable work has formed the basis for historical reconstructions of the conquest, proving to be a wealth of information – and these reconstructions depend principally on just this one written source. As summarized by Craig L. Blomberg, “…if we can reconstruct reasonably accurate history from all kinds of other ancient sources, we ought to be able to do that from the gospels, even though they too are ideological.”<ref>quoted by [[Lee Strobel]], ''The Case for Christ'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), p. 31.</ref>

Critics say that because the Bible and other religious sources have events such as a talking serpent and a talking donkey, this should be cause for the rest of the text to be called into question, but this is faulty logic. First off, many view these events as parables that were never meant to be literally true by the original authors, but even if these events were supposed to be literal and it turned out they never happened, this does not automatically mean that every other thing in the text is also false.

That said, the evidence from non-Christian sources, even taken alone, is more than enough to establish the minimal claim of Jesus’ existence and influence.

=== Holy Gospels ===
The four biographies of the life of Jesus written during the first century A.D. are known as the Gospels of [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]], [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]], [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]], and [[Gospel of John|John]]. These works contain the most detailed information about the life of Jesus. Perhaps the best-known material would be Jesus’ birth, [[crucifixion]], [[resurrection]], and [[ascension]] into Heaven. The gospels contain all sorts of other information, naming Jesus’ close companions, identifying locations where his teachings were given or miracles were performed, describing Jewish customs in detail, referencing the topography of [[Jerusalem]], etc.

While it is impossible to examine the gospels in detail here, it will suffice to show that they clearly presented themselves as historical documents, describing historical events in a falsifiable way and within a specific historical setting known to their audience. The three [[synoptic gospels]], Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were written before A. D. 70, with a much earlier date possible concerning Matthew. Their textual relations with one another, and their authorship, are complex topics, but a general summary based on the witnesses of history will prove useful. As the Church Fathers recorded, the Gospel of Matthew was written by [[Matthew the Apostle]], who was an eyewitness to the events he described. Mark was a follower of [[Peter the Apostle]], and he also had access to other sources, including Matthew’s Gospel, and probably Luke’s. Luke was a follower of [[St. Paul|Paul]], who would have had access to disciples of Jesus, and even his relatives, through connections with [[Antioch]] and ultimately Jerusalem. John’s Gospel was written last, around A. D. 90, by a disciple of the Lord and eyewitness to the events, referred to as the [[John the Apostle|‘beloved disciple’]] in the text. Thus, the gospel writers were either on the spot themselves, or they had access to people who were.

===Pauline Epistles===
A collection of letters written by Saint Paul also discuss Jesus. Paul was not himself an eyewitness of Jesus until after the resurrection, but, besides whatever knowledge the Lord gave to him in his glorified state, Paul also knew Jesus’ disciples, especially Saint Peter. Paul’s letters are pastoral writings meant to address the needs of particular Christian communities, and as such they are not aimed at providing biographical narratives of Jesus’ life. Nonetheless, they do mention Jesus, especially his death and resurrection, but also the Last Supper, and they quote Jesus or reference his teachings. At times Paul qualified his own teachings by stating, “I say, not the Lord”, indicating that he knew Jesus’ teachings.

=== Ancient Creeds ===
Many of Paul’s letters, and other New Testament epistles, contain quotations from early creeds or creedal hymns. Scholars suppose that some of these creeds date to within a few years of Jesus' death, and were developed within the Christian community in Jerusalem. The great value of these texts as sources is elaborated upon by O. Cullmann, in his, ''The Earliest Christian Confessions'' trans. J. K. S. Reid (London: Lutterworth, 1949), and also G. R. Habermas, ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'' (College Press, 1996). Much of the data below is taken from the latter.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 reads, "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." This contains a Christian creed of pre-Pauline origin.<ref>Neufeld, ''The Earliest Christian Confessions'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) p. 47; Reginald Fuller, ''The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives'' (New York: Macmillan, 1971) p. 10; Wolfhart Pannenberg, ''Jesus – God and Man'' translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90; Oscar Cullmann, ''The Earlychurch: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology'', ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 64; Hans Conzelmann, ''1 Corinthians'', translated James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress 1969) p. 251; Bultmann, ''Theology of the New Testament'' vol. 1 pp. 45, 80-82, 293; R. E. Brown, ''The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus'' (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 81, 92</ref> The antiquity of the creed has been located by many Biblical scholars to less than a decade after Jesus' death, originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.<ref>see Wolfhart Pannenberg, ''Jesus – God and Man'' translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968)p. 90; Oscar Cullmann, ''The Early church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology'', ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 66-66; R. E. Brown, ''The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus'' (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 81; Thomas Sheehan, ''First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity'' (New York: Random House, 1986 pp. 110, 118; Ulrich Wilckens, ''Resurrection'' translated A. M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977) p. 2; Hans Grass, ''Ostergeschen und Osterberichte'', Second Edition (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962) p96; Grass favors the origin in Damascus.</ref> Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text,"<ref>Hans von Campenhausen, "The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb," in ''Tradition and Life in the Church'' (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) p. 44</ref> whilst A. M. Hunter said, "The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability."<ref>Archibald Hunter, ''Works and Words of Jesus'' (1973) p. 100</ref>

Other relevant creeds which predate the texts wherein they are found that have been identified are 1 John 4:2:,"This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God",<ref>Cullmann, ''Confessions'' p. 32</ref> 2 Timothy 2:8, "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, this is my Gospel",<ref>Bultmann, ''Theology of the New Testament'' vol 1, pp. 49, 81; Joachim Jeremias, ''The Eucharistic Words of Jesus'' translated Norman Perrin (London: SCM Press, 1966) p. 102</ref> Romans 1:3-4, "…regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.",<ref>Wolfhart Pannenberg, ''Jesus – God and Man'' translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) pp. 118, 283, 367; Neufeld, ''The Earliest Christian Confessions'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) pp. 7, 50; C. H. Dodd, ''The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) p. 14</ref> and 1 Timothy 3:16, "He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory," an early creedal hymn.<ref>Reginald Fuller, ''The Foundations of New Testament Christology'' (New York: Scriner's, 1965) pp. 214, 216, 227, 239; Joachim Jeremias, ''The Eucharistic Words of Jesus'' translated Norman Perrin (London: SCM Press, 1966) p. 102; Neufeld, ''The Earliest Christian Confessions'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) pp. 7, 9, 128</ref>

=== Early Church Fathers ===
Early Christian sources outside the New Testament also mention Jesus and the historical details of his life. Important texts from the Apostolic Fathers are, to name just the most significant and ancient, Clement of Rome’s ''Letter to the Corinthians'' (''c.'' 100), Ignatius of Antioch’s many epistles (''c.'' 107-110), Justin Martyr’s second century apologetic works, and others. But perhaps the most significant Patristic sources are the early second century references of Papias and Quadratus (of Athens). They both mention disciples of Jesus – eyewitnesses who testified to his life and miracles – who were still alive at the time they wrote. Papias, in giving his sources for the information contained in his (now lost) gospel commentaries, stated:
: ''…if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders — [that is,] what [according to the elders] Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying.''<ref>translation by Richard Bauckham in his ''Jesus and the Eyewitnesses'' (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 15-16.</ref>
Thus, while Papias was collecting his information (''c''. 90), Aristion and the elder John (who were Jesus’ disciples) were still alive and teaching in Asia minor, and Papias gathered information from people who had known them.<ref>Richard Bauckham, ''Jesus and the Eyewitnesses'' (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 15-21.</ref> Another Father, Quadratus, who wrote an apology to the emperor Hadrian, stated:
: ''The words of our Savior were always present, for they were true: those who were healed, those who rose from the dead, those who were not only seen in the act of being healed or raised, but were also always present, not merely when the Savior was living on earth, but also for a considerable time after his departure, so that some of them survived even to our own times.''<ref>Quoted in Eusebius, ''Ecclesiastical History'' 4.3.2, translation by Richard Bauckham in his ''Jesus and the Eyewitnesses'' (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 53.</ref>
By “our Savior” Quadratus means Jesus, and by “our times” he presumably refers to his early life, rather than when he wrote (117-124), which would be a reference contemporary with Papias.<ref>Richard Bauckham, ''Jesus and the Eyewitnesses'' (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 53l.</ref>

Other early Christian texts mention Jesus is in detail. The Didache, for example, is a collection of teachings based on the apostolic witness, which itself was based on Jesus’ doctrine. Many of these texts, however, are too late (dating to the second half of the second century) to be used as proper historical sources, at least not without much caution, and they cannot establish the same claim to eyewitness authority as can the other writings mentioned above.

=== Pseudo-Christian Sources ===
An early [[heretical]] section known as [[gnosticism]] produced texts that purported to contain information about Jesus, generally his (enigmatic) sayings. They are very dubious sources, dating to the second half of the second century at the earliest, and lacking a historical connection to the disciples (despite their claims). They are perhaps most useful in reminding us of how good the earlier (and orthodox) gospels are, by presenting us with an example of what an inaccurate source concerning Jesus really looks like. Furthermore, the gnostic texts show a general disinterest in the historical details of Jesus’ life, and they fail to present a standard historical narrative, giving only a list of sayings framed in the structure of an alleged secret revelation.

Nonetheless, certain [[Gnostic]] texts do mention Jesus in the context of his earthly existence, and some scholars have, with great caution, sought to glean certain bits of information about Jesus from them.<ref>James M. Robinson, ed., ''The Nag Hammadi Library in English'' (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1977) and especially his essay in Hedrick and Hodgson, ''Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity'' (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986); R. E. Brown, "The Christians Who Lost Out" in ''The New York Times Book Review'', 20 January 1980 p. 3; Koester in Robinson, ''Nag Hammadi in English'', vol. 2 pp. 4, 47, 68, 150-154, 180.</ref> The relevance for us in not so much the conclusions of these scholars, but the fact that, in a minimal and contingent way, they help dispel the notion that Jesus never existed as a historical figure. Examples of such texts include the ''Gospel of Truth'', ''Treatise on Resurrection'', and the ''Apocryphon of John'', the latter of which opens with the following:
: ''It happened one day when John, the brother of James – who are sons of Zebedee – went up and came to the temple, that a Pharisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him: "Where is your master whom you followed?" And he said to them: "He has gone to the place from which he came." The Pharisee said to him: "This Nazarene deceived you all with deception and filled your ears with lies and closed your hearts and turned you from the traditions of your fathers."''<ref>''Apocryphon of John'' 1:5-17</ref>

=== Greco-Roman Sources ===
Greco-Roman sources of the time show little to no interest in the religious movements of the backwater and troublesome Jewish province of Judea, or even the Near East in general. Perhaps the exception would be Josephus, a Romano-Jewish historian who was interested in recording Jewish history, especially the political conflicts that lead to the military downfall of zealous Jewish nationalistic movements. Though not centrally concerned with religious developments, Josephus did mention Jesus, and other Christians such as James and the Precursor of the Lord, St. John the Baptist (who may be considered Christian since he accepted Jesus as the Christ, though he would be beheaded long before Jesus’ death and glorification). Furthermore, other writers do mention Jesus as well, and their passages will be examined below.

The sum total of this material establishes that Jesus existed, and that he was a significant figure who made a marked religious impact. His Messianic claims, his reputation and following, his crucifixion, and the controversy between him (and his followers) and the Jewish authorities are all supported by these texts. Furthermore, it may be that more dramatic occurrences, such as his miracles and even resurrection, are witnessed by Josephus – though these greater claims about the Greco-Roman material are certainly open to debate. Without a doubt, the best material concerning Jesus remains the gospels and other New Testament texts, as well as the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers. But these Greco-Roman sources provide important secondary testimony and, even taken alone, are enough to refute the view that Jesus is merely a mythological imagination.

====Josephus====
[[Josephus|Flavius Josephus]] (c. A.D. 37 – 100) was a Jew and a Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavian dynasty. Josephus is unusual in that, while he was Jewish, he was loyal to the Roman political powers. In A. D. 93 he wrote his ''Antiquities of the Jews'', a work recording the history of the Jews. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. The second mentioning is the shorter, and will be discussed first. It is a completely disinterested comment made in passing, where, when talking about James, Josephus specifies which James he means by identifying his subject as James "the brother [or kinsman] of Jesus, who was called Christ".<ref>Josephus ''[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/ant-20.htm Antiquities 20:9.1]''</ref> Scholars have found little or no reason to doubt the authenticity of this passage and have, by and large, accepted it as genuine.<ref>Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990–91</ref>

More notably, an earlier mention of Jesus is made in a passage that has come to be called the ''Testimonium Flavianum'':
:''About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvelous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.''<ref>Josephus ''[http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm Antiquities 18.3.3]''</ref>

Most scholars accept the authenticity of the majority of the passage.<ref>John Drane ''Introducing the New Testament'' (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986) p. 138; also, James H. Charlesworth, ''Jesus Within Judaism'' (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988) p. 96</ref> However, certain parts have been called into question, especially those which conform with the Christian creed. These doubts are not based on the manuscript record, which is consistent, nor on the language, which is stylistically harmonious with Josephus.<ref>Henri Daniel-Rops, ''Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries'' p. 21; J.N.D. Anderson, ''Christianity: The Witness of History'' (London: Tyndale, 1969)p. 20; F.F. Bruce, ''New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?'' (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1967) p. 108.</ref> Concerning the ''Testimonium Flavianum'', Habermas wrote, "There is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence for these statements about Jesus, thus making it difficult to ignore."<ref>G. R. Habermas, ''The Historical Jesus'' p. 193</ref> And there are even a few scholars who support the authenticity of the entire passage.<ref>Daniel-Rops, ''Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries'' p. 21</ref>

Nonetheless, the fact that Josephus, by all accounts an adherent to Judaism, would so openly proclaim Jesus to be the Messiah who rose from the dead has been hard for many to accept, especially given Josephus’s later statement, which reservedly said only that Jesus was “called” the Christ. Likewise, the fact that some of the early Church Fathers did not employ this text, even when quoting from Josephus, has contributed to the doubts. However, this is (with one exception) an argument from silence, and some (later) Fathers did know the passage. The exception is Origen, who wrote that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Though it is important not to take this one utterance too far, it does raise a legitimate question about the authenticity of the entire passage. Whatever the case, it is in no sense necessary to affirm the entirety of the passage in order to establish that Josephus did indeed record Jesus as a historical person, a claim that virtually every scholar (opinions about the integrity of the passage aside) would agree with. Indeed, the brief reference, concerning James, alone is enough to establish not only that Jesus was a real historical person, but that he had a significant impact, since Josephus could clarify which (of the many) people named James he was talking about merely by pointing to his relation with Jesus.

==== Tacitus ====
Tacitus was a Roman historian who, writing c. A. D. 116, included in his ''Annals '' a mention of Christianity and Jesus Christ. In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome in A. D. 64, he wrote:
:''Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and the most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.''<ref>Tacitus, ''Annals'' 15.44.</ref>
Tacitus was obviously hostile to Christianity and thus had no desire to give credence to the claims of the faith. Nonetheless, he identifies “Christ” (Latin ''Christus'') as the origin of the religion, and even mentions his crucifixion at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Tacitus's source was likely an imperial record, and it has been speculated that this may even have been one of Pilate's reports to the emperor.<ref>F.F. Bruce, ''Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament'', (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 23.</ref> No scholar doubts the authenticity of the passage, in part because, as R. E. Van Voorst noted, it would be most improbable that a Christian would have interpolated "such disparaging remarks about Christianity".<ref>Robert E. Van Voorst, ''Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'' (Eerdmans, 2000), p. 43.</ref>

==== Suetonius ====
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, a Roman historian, wrote in A. D. 112 his ''Lives of the Twelve Caesars''. In his biography of the Emperor Claudius, he mentioned riots that had broken out in the Jewish community in Rome in 49, stating "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [other manuscripts read ''Christus'', that is, “Christ”], he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome". (The riots and expulsion of the Jews was also recorded in Acts 18:2). Though some manuscripts read “Christus”, the original text may have read “Chrestus”, a possible spelling error or spelling variant intending to mean “Christ”.<ref>Francois Amiot, ''Jesus A Historical Person'' p. 8; F. F. Bruce, ''Christian Origins'' p. 21</ref> The term ''Chrestus'' also appears in some later texts as a reference Jesus.<ref>see his translation of Suetonius, ''Claudius'' 25, in ''The Twelve Caesars'' (Baltimore: Penguin, 1957), and his introduction p. 7, cf. p. 197</ref> Obviously, the riots occurred some years after Jesus’ death and ascension, and so the precise meaning of the passage is open to speculation.

==== Thallus ====
Thallus, whose identity is difficult to determine, is known to have written a history from the Trojan War to his own time, which was sometime in the first or early second century. His work has been lost. However, an important reference to it was made by Sextus Julius Africanus. Julius Africanus, writing around 221, described the darkness and earthquakes which occurred when Our Lord was crucified (mentioned in the gospels). He cited Thallus as a non-Christian who gave testimony to these events:
:''On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun.''<ref>Julius Africanus, ''Extant Writings'' XVIII in ''Ante-Nicene Fathers'', ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) vol. VI, p. 130</ref>

==== (lost) Acts of Pilate ====
The Acts of Pilate is a lost text, purportedly an official document (of the ''commentaii principis'') from Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius reporting events in Palestine. It was mentioned by [[Justin Martyr]], in his ''First Apology'' (''c''. A. D. 150) to [[Antoninus Pius]], [[Marcus Aurelius]], and [[Lucius Verus]]. Justin said that his claims concerning Jesus' crucifixion, and some miracles, could be verified by referencing the official record, the "Acts of Pontius Pilate".<ref>Justin Martyr, ''First Apology'' 48</ref> With the exception of Tertullian, no other writer is known to have mentioned the work, and Tertullian's reference says that Tiberius debated the details of Jesus' life before the Senate, an event that is almost universally considered absurd.<ref>see Tertullian, ''Apology'' V.</ref> However, Tertullian may not have been well informed about the work’s genuine contents, and doubts about the supposed debate need not necessarily extend to the Acts of Pilate itself.

There is a later apocryphal text, undoubtedly fanciful, by the same name, which was likely inspired by Justin's reference. It is highly unlikely that Justin's reference was to the known apocryphal text.<ref>For a discussion, see Daniel-Rops, ''Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries'', p. 14</ref> And it would be unlikely that Justin would cite a document, one he claimed to be official and kept in the imperial archives, that was known to be fallacious or non-existent in a letter written to the emperor designed to defend Christianity. Nonetheless, it is impossible to conclude any certain position about the text, given the obscure nature of the evidence.

=== Jewish records ===
Rabbi Akiba, before his death in A. D. 135, recorded oral traditions, especially of a legal nature, in what is known as the Mishnah. This, together with commentaries called the “Gemaras”, constitute the Talmud. ''Sanhedrin'' 43a, which dates to the earliest period of composition (Tannaitic period) contains the following:
:''One the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.''<ref>''The Babylonian Talmud'', translated I. Epstein (London: Soncio, 1935), vol. 3, ''Sanhedrin'' 43a, p. 281</ref>

The reference is certainly laconic, and at first the details seem incompatible with what is known about Jesus’ death. However, once it is observed that the phrase “hanged” was a manner of speech that was used to signify crucifixion (as in “hanged from a tree”), the passage may be interpreted as providing important support for Jesus’ death, around the Passover, in part because of accusations of blasphemy (enticing Israel to apostacy) and because of his wonderworkings (taken as sorcery, i.e. the product of devilish aid – an accusation recorded in the gospels). The act of stoning is not directly paralleled in the gospels, though John’s gospel does record such an attempt. It is important not to push this harmonization too far, especially because it misses the point, which is to observe a plausible Jewish record of key feature’s of Jesus’ life.

== Proponents of the Myth argument ==
A few academics, notably not including historians or biblical scholars, have asserted that Jesus never existed and that he is simply a mythological imagination. These include G. A. Wells (a professor of German), Earl Doherty (who does not hold a doctoral degree), Robert M. Price (a systematic theologian), Michael Martin (a philosopher), Timothy Freke (who holds no postgraduate degree), and Peter Gandy (who holds no doctoral degree). By such parenthetical comments this article does not intend to be uncharitable to the academics or others who hold to this position, but it is no disparagement to observe what it true: that these scholars are not historians or biblical scholars. Neither is it unfair to observe how this has, at times, impeded the quality of work produced. For example, in their work ''The Jesus Mysteries'', Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy used as cover art an image of an amulet of “Orpheus crucified” (their position being that Jesus was a mythological figure patterned after Osiris-Dionysus) which has been proven to be a forgery.<ref>"In his review of this book in ''Gnomon'', 1935, 476, Kern recants and expressed himself convinced by the expert opinion of Josef Keil and R. Zahn (''AGGELOS, Arch. f. neutest. Zeitgesch. und Kulturkunde'', 1926, 62 ff.) that the Orpheoc Bakkikos gem is a forgery." W. C. K. Guthrie, ''Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement'', 2nd ed. (London: Methuen, 1952), p. 278, n. to p. 265. This problem was identified by James Hannam; see his comments on his [http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2004/07/some-news-and-thoughts-on-crucified.html Blog]</ref>

The mythological view has been rejected by the historical community. Michael Grant stated that the view derives from a lack of application of historical methods:
:…''if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.''<ref>M. Grant, ''Jesus: An Historian's Review'', pp. 199-200</ref>

Perhaps the scholarly opinion of the position is best summed by Robert E. Van Voorst:
:''The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.''<ref>Robert E. Van Voorst, ''Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.</ref>

==Notes==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

[[Category:Jesus]]

Big Bang theory

2009-05-15T23:39:44Z

Foxtrot121:

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]

The '''Big Bang theory''' is the current dominant scientific theory explaining the acceleration of matter throughout the Universe. Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html WMAP Cosmology 101: Age of the Universe]</ref> (although this number has changed several times throughout recent history). It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body). Pensiaz and Wilson were awarded a [[Nobel Prize]] in 1978 for their work.

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. In other words, the Big Bang describes the expansion of space and time. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

It should be noted that the Big Bang theory has received criticism because it ignores the theory of an oscillating universe. Also, no first cause from the Big Bang has ever been successfully identified. Futhermore, critics of the Big Bang point out that not everything in the universe is actually moving apart from everything else as some galaxies have collided with other galaxies in the past.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

Scientists refer to the exact moment the Big Bang began as t=0 ("t" standing for "time"). At this time, all of the matter in the universe - in fact, the universe itself - was contained within a single point (a single point in mathematics is infinitesimally small). A burst of energy known as the Big Bang issued forth, and the universe began. <ref>http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm</ref> 1.0×10<sup>-43</sup> seconds later, the force of gravity separated from the other forces. <ref>http://www.ccsf.edu/Departments/History_of_Time_and_Life/content/BigBang.htm</ref>
In 2006, researchers used the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (launched by NASA in 2001) to measure variations in the cosmic microwave background (a "faint glow which permeates the universe"). According to these measurements, the universe is estimated to be about 13.7 billion years old, "give or take a few hundred-thousand years".
<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188142,00.html</ref>

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
The Big Bang Theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> It was Hoyle who sarcastically coined the term during a radio broadcast.

In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224482.900</ref>

The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Big Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

== The Horizon Problem ==
The [[horizon problem]] is an argument against the Big Bang theory.
As [[Jason Lisle]] explains:
{{quoteBox|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current [cosmic microwave background] CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], ''Creation'' 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>}}

Recognizing this difficulty, physicist [[Alan Guth]] put forth a possible solution he named [[cosmic inflation]].
According to this theory, during the universe's first 10<sup>-35</sup> of a second, a period of extremely rapid, exponential inflation occurred, expanding the universe by a factor of at least 10<sup>26</sup>.
It would be the equivalent of taking a pea and expanding it to the size of our solar system in a time less than a millionth of a blink of an eye.
If this occurred, it would mathematically allow for the uniformity of the [[CMBR]] - the vast distances were in thermodynamical contact before the rapid inflation.<ref>Castelvecchi, Davide, [http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000045 The Growth of Inflation] ''Symmetry'', 1(2), December 2004, p.12-17</ref><ref>Hinshaw, Gary, [http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24768 WMAP data put cosmic inflation to the test], 3rd May, 2006 (PhysicsWorld.com).</ref>
The mechanism that would cause this sudden expansion is not known.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref>

He also talks further about the many theories that have been proposed to counter the Big Bang Theory due to it concluding there is a beginning or orgin of creation. These additional theories have been broken down to still revert to a beginning. This in essence proves a divine power or creator which frustrates the many scientist that are trying to prove that God does not exist including well known scientist Steven Hawking. Secular scientists have continued for years to create new theories of how our universe was created and all have fallen short to the Big Bang theory.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]