Did the resurrection of Christ really happen? This proof is formulated as follows: for any structure to exist, continuous expenditure of energy from the outside is required. As soon as the flow of energy from outside stops, the structure collapses

Did Jesus Christ really exist, or is Christianity based on a fictional character like Harry Potter?

For nearly two millennia, most of humanity has believed that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure—a man who possessed exceptional character traits, power over nature, and the ability to lead people. But today some deny its existence.

Arguments against the existence of Jesus Christ, known as the “Jesus Christ Myth Theories,” arose seventeen centuries after Christ lived in Judea.

Ellen Johnson, president of the Organization of American Atheists, summed up the view of adherents of the Jesus Christ myth theory in the program Larry King Live CNN TV channel :

The reality is that there is not an iota of non-religious evidence that Jesus Christ ever lived. Jesus Christ is a collective image of many other gods... whose origin and death are similar to the origin and death of the mythological Jesus Christ.”

The stunned TV presenter asked: “So you don’t believe that Jesus Christ really lived?”

Johnson responded sharply: “The fact is that there was... and there is no non-religious evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed.”

Larry King, the show's host, immediately asked for a commercial break. And the international television audience was left without an answer.

At the beginning of his literary career at Oxford, the scholar C. S. Lewis also considered Jesus Christ to be a myth, a fiction, like many other religions.

Many years later, he was once sitting by the fireplace in Oxford with his friend, whom he called “the most seasoned atheist I have ever known.” Suddenly his friend blurted out: “The evidence for the historical reliability of the Gospel looked surprisingly strong ... it seems that those described in The events probably took place after all.”

Lewis was amazed. A friend’s remark about the existence of real evidence of the life of Jesus Christ prompted him to start looking for the truth himself. He described his search for the truth about Jesus Christ in the book “Mere Christianity” ( Mere Christianity).

So, what evidence did Lewis’s friend discover in favor of the real existence of Jesus Christ?

What does ancient history say?

Let's start with a more fundamental question: What is the difference between a mythical character and a real historical figure? For example, what evidence convinces historians that Alexander the Great was a real historical person? And is there such evidence for Jesus Christ?

Both Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ were portrayed as charismatic leaders. The lives of each were apparently short, and both died at just over thirty years of age. They say about Jesus Christ that he brought peace to people, conquering everyone with his love; Alexander the Great, on the contrary, brought war and suffering and ruled with the sword.

In 336 BC. Alexander the Great became king of Macedonia. This military genius with a beautiful appearance and an arrogant disposition drowned in blood and conquered many villages, cities and kingdoms during the Greco-Persian Wars. They say that Alexander the Great cried when he had nothing left to conquer.

The history of Alexander the Great was written by five different ancient authors 300 years or more after his death. There is not a single account of eyewitnesses of Alexander the Great.

However, historians believe that Alexander the Great actually existed, mainly because archaeological research confirms the narratives about him and his influence on history.

Likewise, to confirm the historicity of Jesus Christ, we need to find evidence of his existence in the following areas:

1. Archeology
2. Early Christian Descriptions
3. Early New Testament Manuscripts
4. Historical influence

Archeology

The veil of time has covered many secrets about Jesus Christ, which only recently saw the light of day.

The most significant discovery is perhaps the ancient manuscripts found between the 18th and 20th centuries. Below we will take a closer look at these manuscripts.

Archaeologists have also discovered numerous sites and relics that are mentioned in the New Testament account of the life of Jesus Christ. Malcolm Moogeridge, a British journalist, believed Jesus Christ was a myth until he saw this evidence during his business trip to Israel while preparing a report for the BBC.

After preparing a report on the very places associated with Jesus Christ that are narrated in the New Testament, Muggerage wrote: “I became convinced that Christ was born, preached and was crucified ... I realized that there really was such a person, Jesus Christ ... ."

But until the twentieth century there was no solid evidence of the existence of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate and the Jewish high priest Joseph Caiaphas. They were both key figures in Christ's trial, which resulted in his crucifixion. The lack of evidence for their existence was an important argument for skeptics in defending the theory of the myth of Christ.

But during archaeological excavations in 1961, a limestone slab was found with the carved inscription “Pontius Pilate - Procurator of Judea.” And in 1990, archaeologists discovered an ossuary (crypt with bones), on which the name of Caiaphas was carved. Its authenticity was confirmed "beyond reasonable doubt".

Additionally, until 2009, there was no hard evidence that Nazareth, where Jesus lived, existed during his lifetime. Skeptics like Renee Salm considered the lack of evidence for Nazareth to be a death blow to Christianity. In the book “The Myth of Nazareth” ( The Myth of Nazareth) she wrote in 2006: “Rejoice, freethinkers... Christianity as we know it may be coming to an end!”

However, on December 21, 2009, archaeologists announced the discovery of first-century pottery shards from Nazareth, thus confirming the existence of this tiny settlement in the time of Jesus Christ (see “Was Jesus Really From Nazareth?”).

Although these archaeological finds do not confirm that Jesus Christ lived there, they nevertheless support the Gospel account of his life. Historians are noticing that a growing body of archaeological evidence confirms rather than contradicts the narratives of Jesus Christ.”

Early non-Christian descriptions

Skeptics like Ellen Johnson cite "insufficient non-Christian historical evidence" for Jesus Christ as evidence that he did not exist.

It should be noted that about any From the period of the life of Jesus Christ, very few documents have been preserved. Many ancient historical documents have been destroyed over the years by wars, fires, robberies, and simply as a result of dilapidation and the natural aging process.

Historian Blakelock, who has cataloged most of the non-Christian manuscripts from the Roman Empire, says that "virtually nothing survives from the time of Jesus Christ," not even manuscripts from the period of such prominent lay leaders as Julius Caesar. And yet none of the historians question the historicity of Caesar.

And given the fact that he was neither a political nor a military figure, notes Darrell Bock, “it is surprising and remarkable that Jesus Christ was included in the sources we have at all.”

So, what are these sources that Bock is talking about? Which of the early historians who wrote about Jesus Christ was not favorable to Christianity? First of all, let us address ourselves to the enemies of Christ.

Jewish historians- It was most profitable for the Jews to deny the existence of Christ. But they always considered him to be a real person. “Several Jewish narratives mention Jesus Christ as a real person whom they opposed.

The famous Jewish historian Josephus wrote about James, “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ.” If Jesus was not a real person, then why didn't Josephus say so?

In another, somewhat controversial passage, Josephus speaks about Jesus in more detail.

At this time there lived a man named Jesus. He was of good behavior and virtuous. And many of the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate sentenced him to death by crucifixion, and he died. And those who became his disciples did not abandon his teachings. They said that he appeared to them three days after the crucifixion, being alive. Therefore, he was considered the Messiah."

Although some of Josephus's claims are disputed, his confirmation of the existence of Jesus Christ is widely accepted by scholars.

Israeli scholar Shlomo Pines writes: “Even the most ardent opponents of Christianity never doubted that Christ really existed.”

Historian Will Durant, who studies world history, notes that neither the Jews nor other peoples living in the first century denied the existence of Jesus Christ.

Historians of the Roman Empire: early historians of the Roman Empire wrote mainly about what was important to the empire itself. Because Jesus Christ did not play a very important role in the political and military life of Rome, he is mentioned very little in Roman history. However, two famous Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, confirm the existence of Christ.

Tacitus (55-120), the greatest early historian of the Roman Empire, wrote that Christ (in Greek Christus lived during the reign of Tiberius and “suffered under Pontius Pilate that the teachings of Jesus Christ spread all the way to Rome; and Christians were considered criminals, subjecting them to various tortures, including crucifixion.”

Suetonius (69-130) wrote about “Christ” as an instigator. Many scholars believe that it is Jesus Christ who is being referred to here. Suetonius also wrote about the persecution of Christians by the Roman Emperor Nero in 64.

Roman official sources: Christians were considered enemies of the Roman Empire because they worshiped Jesus Christ as their Lord and not Caesar. Below are official Roman sources, including two letters from the Caesars, mentioning Christ and the origins of early Christian beliefs.

Pliny the Younger was an ancient Roman politician, writer and lawyer during the reign of Emperor Trajan. In 112, Pliny wrote to Trajan about the emperor's attempts to force Christians to renounce Christ, whom they "worshiped as a god."

Emperor Trajan (56-117) mentioned Jesus Christ and early Christian beliefs in his letters.

Emperor Hadrian (76-136) wrote about Christians as followers of Jesus Christ.

Pagan sources: some early pagan authors briefly mentioned Jesus Christ and Christians before the end of the second century. Among them are Thallius, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion and Lucian of Samosata. Thallius' remarks on Jesus Christ were written in 52, approximately twenty years after the life of Christ.

Overall, for 150 years after the death of Jesus Christ, he was mentioned as a real historical person by nine early non-Christian authors. It is surprising that Christ is mentioned by non-Christian authors as many times as Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor who was in power during the life of Jesus Christ. Counting both Christian and non-Christian sources, Jesus Christ is mentioned forty-two times, compared to only ten mentions for Tiberius.

Historical Facts about Jesus Christ

The following facts about Jesus Christ were recorded in early non-Christian sources:

• Jesus Christ was from Nazareth.
• Jesus Christ led a wise and virtuous life.
• Jesus Christ was crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar during the Jewish holiday of Passover and was considered the king of the Jews.
• According to the belief of his disciples, Christ died and rose from the dead three days after death.
• The enemies of Christ recognized his extraordinary deeds.
• The teachings of Christ quickly found many followers and spread all the way to Rome.
• The disciples of Christ led a moral life and revered Christ as God.

“This general description of Jesus Christ corresponds exactly to the description in the New Testament.”

Gary Habarmas notes: “In general, about a third of these non-Christian sources date back to the first century; and most of them were written no later than the middle of the second century.” According to Encyclopedia Britannica, these "independent narratives confirm that in ancient times even opponents of Christianity had no doubt about the historical authenticity of Jesus Christ."

Early Christian Descriptions

Jesus Christ is mentioned in thousands of letters, sermons, and commentaries of early Christians. In addition, already five years after the crucifixion of Christ, his name begins to be mentioned in the Words of Faith.

These non-biblical descriptions confirm b O most of the details of the life of Christ contained in the New Testament, including his crucifixion and resurrection.

Incredibly, more than 36 thousand such complete or partial descriptions have been discovered, some dating back to the first century. From these non-biblical descriptions, the entire New Testament can be reconstructed, with the exception of a few verses.

Each of these authors writes about Christ as a real person. Proponents of the Christ myth theory dismiss them as biased. But they will still have to answer the question: How to explain the fact that so much was written about the mythical Jesus Christ within just a few decades after his death?

New Testament

Skeptics like Ellen Johnson also reject the New Testament as evidence of the life of Christ, considering it “not impartial.” But even most non-Christian historians consider the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament to be strong evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ. Michael Grant, an atheist and historian at the University of Cambridge, believes that the New Testament should be considered as much evidence as other evidence from ancient history:

If in examining the New Testament we use the same criteria as in examining other ancient narratives containing historical material, we cannot deny the existence of Jesus Christ any more than we can deny the existence of a large number of pagan characters whose historical authenticity is never questioned.

The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are the main accounts of the life and preaching of Jesus Christ. Luke begins his Gospel with the words to Theophilus: “Since I personally carefully studied everything from the very beginning, I also decided to write to you, my dear Theophilus, my story in order.”

The famous archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, initially rejected the historical authenticity of Christ in the Gospel of Luke. But he later admitted: “Luke is a first-class historian... this author must be placed on a par with the greatest historians... Luke's narrative from the point of view of reliability is unsurpassed.”

The earliest accounts of the life of Alexander the Great were written 300 years after his death. How soon after the death of Christ were the Gospels written? Were the eyewitnesses of Christ still alive, and did enough time pass for the legend to be created?

In the 1830s, German scholars claimed that the New Testament was written in the 3rd century, and thus could not have been written by the disciples of Christ. However, copies of manuscripts discovered by archaeologists in the 19th and 20th centuries confirm that these accounts of Jesus Christ were written much earlier. See the article “But is it all true?”

William Albright dates the New Testament Gospels to the period "between about 50 and 75 AD." John A. T. Robinson of the University of Cambridge places all the books of the New Testament in the period 40-65 CE. This early dating means that they were written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses, that is, much earlier, and therefore could not be either a myth or a legend, which take a long time to develop.

After reading the Gospels, C.S. Lewis wrote: “Now, as a textual historian, I am quite convinced that...the Gospels...are not legends. I am familiar with many great legends and it is quite obvious to me that the Gospels are not such."

The number of New Testament manuscripts is enormous. There are more than 24 thousand complete and partial copies of the books of which it is composed, which far exceeds the number of all other ancient documents.

No other ancient historical figure, whether religious or secular, has as much material to support his existence as Jesus Christ. Historian Paul Johnson notes: "If, say, Tacitus' accounts survive in only one medieval manuscript, the number of early New Testament manuscripts is astonishing."

Historical influence

Myths have almost no influence on history. Historian Thomas Carlyle says: “The history of mankind is nothing but the history of great men.”

There is not a single state in the world that owes its origin to a mythical hero or god.

But what is the influence of Jesus Christ?

Ordinary citizens of Ancient Rome learned about the existence of Christ only many years after his death. Christ did not command armies. He didn't write books or change laws. The Jewish leaders hoped to erase his name from the memory of people, and it seemed that they would succeed.

However, today only ruins remain of ancient Rome. And the powerful legions of Caesar and the pompous influence of the Roman Empire sunk into oblivion. How is Jesus Christ remembered today? What is it lasting influence?

• More books have been written about Jesus Christ than about anyone else in the entire history of mankind.
• States took his words as the basis for their structure. According to Durant, “The Triumph of Christ marked the beginning of the development of democracy.”
• His Sermon on the Mount established a new paradigm of ethics and morality.
• In memory of him, schools and hospitals were founded, and humanitarian organizations were created. More than 100 great universities—Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Oxford, as well as many others—were founded by Christians.
• The increased role of women in Western civilization has its roots in Jesus Christ. (Women in the time of Christ were considered inferior beings and were hardly considered human until his teachings gained followers.)
• Slavery in Britain and America was abolished due to Christ's teaching about the value of every human life.

It is amazing that Christ could have such an impact after just three years of ministry to people. When world history researcher H. G. Wells was asked who had the greatest influence on history, he replied: “First in this rank is Jesus Christ.”

Yale University historian Jaroslav Pelikan stated that “regardless of what everyone personally thinks of him, Jesus of Nazareth was the dominant figure in the history of Western civilization for almost twenty centuries... It is from his birth that most of humanity traces the calendar, it is his name millions of people say in their hearts and it is in his name that millions of people say prayers."

If Christ did not exist, then how could a myth change history so much?

Myth and reality

While mythical gods are portrayed as superheroes who embody human fantasy and desire, the Gospel portrays Christ as humble, compassionate, and morally blameless. His followers present Christ as a real person for whom they are ready to give their lives.

Albert Einstein said: “It is impossible to read the Gospel without feeling the real presence of Jesus Christ. Every word is imbued with it. There is no such presence of life in any of the myths... No one can deny either the fact that Jesus Christ existed or the beauty of his words.”

Is it possible that the death and resurrection of Christ were borrowed from these myths? Peter Joseph in his film Zeitgeist, presented to viewers on the YouTube website, made this bold argument:

In reality, Jesus Christ was...a mythical figure....Christianity, like all deity belief systems, is the biggest deception of the age .

If we compare the Gospel Christ with the mythological gods, the difference becomes obvious. Unlike the real Jesus Christ in the Gospel, mythological gods are presented to us as unrealistic, with elements of fantasy:

• Mithras was supposedly born from a stone.
• Horus is depicted with the head of a falcon.
• Bacchus, Hercules and others flew to heaven on Pegasus.
• Osiris was killed, cut into 14 pieces, then put back together by his wife Isis and brought back to life.

But could Christianity copy the death and resurrection of Christ from these myths?

It is clear that his followers did not think so; they deliberately gave their lives preaching the truth of Christ's resurrection. [Cm. article “Did Christ Really Risen from the Dead?”]

Moreover, “narratives of the death and resurrection of God, very similar to the story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, appeared at least 100 years after the described resurrection of Christ.”

In other words, the descriptions of the death and resurrection of Horus, Osiris and Mithras were not part of the original mythologies, but were added after the Gospel accounts of Jesus Christ.

T.N. D. Mettinger, professor at Lund University, writes: “Modern scientists are almost unanimous in the opinion that there were no dying and resurrected gods before Christianity. They all date after the first century."

Most historians believe that there is no real parallel between these mythological gods and Jesus Christ. But, as K.S. notes. Lewis, there are several common themes that resonate with man's desire to be immortal.

Lewis recalls his conversation with J. R. R. Tolkien, author of The Lord of the Rings trilogy ( The Lord of the Rings). “The story of Jesus Christ,” said Tolkien, “is the story of a myth fulfilled: a myth... distinguished in the great degree by the fact that it actually took place.”

F. F. Bruce, a New Testament scholar, concludes: “Some writers may flirt with the idea of ​​a Christ myth, but not because of historical evidence. The historical existence of Christ for an unbiased historian is the same axiom as the existence of Julius Caesar. Theories that Jesus Christ is a myth are not propagated by historians."

And there was such a man

So, what do historians think - was Jesus Christ a real person or a myth?

Historians consider both Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ to be real historical figures. And at the same time, there is much more handwritten evidence about Christ, and in terms of the time of writing, these manuscripts are hundreds of years closer to the period of Christ’s life than the historical descriptions of the life of Alexander the Great to the corresponding period of his life. Moreover, the historical influence of Jesus Christ far exceeds that of Alexander the Great.

Historians provide the following evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ:

• Archaeological discoveries continue to confirm the historical existence of the people and places described in the New Testament, including recent confirmations of Pilate, Caiaphas, and the existence of Nazareth in the first century.
• Thousands of historical documents speak of the existence of Jesus Christ. Within 150 years of Christ's life, 42 authors mention him in their narratives, including nine non-Christian sources. Tiberius Caesar is mentioned by only nine secular authors during the same period; and only five sources report the conquests of Julius Caesar. However, not a single historian doubts their existence.
• Both secular and religious historians recognize that Jesus Christ has impacted our world like no other.

After researching the theory of the Christ myth, the greatest historian of world history, Will Durant, came to the conclusion that, unlike mythological gods, Jesus Christ was a real person.

Historian Paul Johnson also states that all serious scholars accept Jesus Christ as a real historical person.

Atheist and historian Michael Grant writes: “In general, modern methods of criticism cannot support the theory of a mythical Christ. “Leading scientists have repeatedly answered this question and are removing the very posing of the question.”

Perhaps the historian G. Wells said the best thing among non-Christian historians about the existence of Jesus Christ:

And there was such a man. This part of the story is hard to make up.

Did Christ really rise from the dead?

2012 JesusOnline Ministries. This article is a supplement to Y-Jesus Magazine, published by Bright Media Foundation & B&L Publications: Larry Chapman, Editor-in-Chief.

Stay up to date with upcoming events and news!

Join the group - Dobrinsky Temple

There is no official data about this experiment, the US Navy does not comment on numerous notes in the press, and yet most researchers of world secrets and mysteries are confident that on October 28, 1943, the US Navy actually conducted an unusual experiment..
It is believed that during a top-secret experiment by the American military, the destroyer Eldridge, along with a crew of 181 sailors, allegedly disappeared and then appeared tens of kilometers from the site of the experiment. Surprisingly, post-war sailors who served on the Eldridge always denied the events described below. However, the existing detailed description of the experiment, which emerged several years after it was carried out, suggests that the events were still genuine.

GHOST SHIP

What happened 70 years ago? If we summarize all the information available today, it turns out that American sailors tried to generate powerful electromagnetic fields on a military destroyer, thanks to which light and radio waves would be forced to go around the ship. That is, in fact, the goal of the experiment was to create an invisible ship, a kind of “Flying Dutchman”, invisible to the eyes and radars of the enemy.

However, according to numerous publications in the post-war tabloid press, the experiment immediately did not go as planned. On July 22, 1943, a ship in dock, after turning on the equipment, was first enveloped in a greenish light, and then completely disappeared from sight right up to the waterline.

After turning off the electromagnetic current generators and the appearance of the ship, it turned out that some sailors were literally fused into the metal hull of the ship, others were very sick, and a strange glow emanated from others. It would seem that after such terrible consequences, repeating the experiment was out of the question. But no. After all, there was a war going on, and the leaders of the American Navy assumed that the generators were configured incorrectly and decided to repeat the experiment.

In the fall, October 28, 1943, apparently rightfully fearing unpleasant surprises, the destroyer Eldridge was taken out to the roadstead and the electromagnetic installation was turned on again. But this time, too, the experiment went awry. The ship was shrouded in a strange glow and then disappeared, this time completely. Soon, however, he appeared, but not at the place of the experiment, but in Norfolk, Virginia. According to the Western press, numerous witnesses saw him there.

Then the ship, in an unknown way, re-materialized at the site of the experiment. It was truly creepy to look at the sailors of the ship; out of the entire crew of almost two hundred people, only 21 sailors returned unharmed. Several dozen people found themselves fused into the structure of the ship, some of the sailors died from burns and electric shock. But even those who seemed unharmed behaved inhibited, often fell into prostration, and one sailor even walked through the wall in front of his family and disappeared.

ENDS IN THE WATER
An experiment with such fantastic results should have been kept in the secret archives of the United States for many decades. So how did the world community learn about it, and in such great detail? The notorious freedom of speech was to blame.

At first, the secret, as expected, was reliably guarded, but in 1955, the American writer Morris Jessup, author of the book “Arguments in Favor of UFOs,” received a strange message from a certain Carlos M. Allende, who, in his own words, served on the ship "Andrew Furset", part of the convoy of the destroyer Eldridge during the experiment. It was Allende who told the writer, and with him the whole world, about the amazing experiment that he had to witness. Having received unique information, many Western researchers immediately rushed to search for the logbooks of the Eldridge and Andrew Furset, but, as it turned out, they were lost during the war. The surviving sailors remained silent.

At the same time, versions began to appear around the experiment, like mushrooms after rain, one more surprising than the other.. Some argued that the technology tested during the experiment was derived from Einstein's unified field theory; someone was sure that during the experiment they checked some calculations of Nikola Tesla himself. But be that as it may in fact, completely reliable information does not exist today.

The only indirect evidence that the sailor from the Andrew Furset was telling the truth is the fact that the writer who first talked about the experiment and tried to find new data about it was found in 1959 in his own car in a coma and could not be taken to the hospital. made it in time. Researchers who followed in Jessup’s footsteps, as Western tabloid publications claim, indeed not only looked for, but also found eyewitnesses of the appearance of “Eldridge” in Norfolk. Someone also dug up evidence showing that Einstein worked for the US Navy during the war.

“DUCK” OR COVER OPERATION?

So did the Philadelphia experiment really exist or not? In the 1990s, skeptical researcher Robert Goerman tried to put the final point in this riddle. Since all the information about the experiment actually came from a sailor from the Andrew Fureset named Carlos Allende, the researcher first decided to find out who this man really was. It turned out that the letters to the ufologist writer were written by someone named Carl Allen, a man suffering from a mental disorder. Robert Goerman deduced this fact from the style of writing the letter telling about the experiment: the letters were of different sizes, the ink in the letter was used in different colors, the lines jumped.

Further - more: it turned out that neither "Eldridge" nor "Andrew Fureset" were in Philadelphia during the specified time periods when the experiment was supposedly carried out. And in general, the Andrew Furset was never in the Eldridge convoy. Surprisingly, even physicists refuted the very idea of ​​the possibility of such an experiment, since, according to them, during the war, indeed, the US Navy conducted experiments to protect the bottom of ships from mines with magnetic detonators by creating a special circuit around the ship’s hull that formed an electromagnetic field . Moreover, this technology was strictly secret during the war years, and later several notes about it appeared in popular science publications. Obviously, it was there that Karl Allen got his fantasy about a fantastic experiment.

THE MILITARY IS IN THE KNOW. OR THE RAINBOW PROJECT

And yet, despite the damning facts that refute the reality of the Philadelphia experiment, it remains feeling of some understatement. All the denials are very similar to a cover operation organized by the US military. After all, if the whole story with the experiment is the ravings of a madman, then why was it necessary to remove the writer who was looking for the truth a little more than ten years after the possible date of the experiment, when it was still possible to find something? And why did the critical researcher appear only in the nineties, and not earlier?

There are more questions than answers. But here is what has become known about the mysterious experience these days.

It turns out that the experiment was, at least, well known about the participation of the largest physicists of the 20th century in it. If we discard the sensational reports of the tabloid press with a large number of corpses embedded in metal and sailors passing through walls, and pay attention to the biographies of the world's leading physicists, whose names are associated with this experiment, then the whole story appears in a completely different light.

It began long before the events described, in 1912, when the mathematician David Gilbert substantiated the existence of multidimensional space. In 1926, he spoke about his theory to John von Neumann, also a mathematician, famous for his ability to direct theoretical research into practical directions. After some time, Neumann met a certain Levinson, who discovered the “Levinson time equations.” It was the ideas of these scientists that formed the basis of the project to create the invisibility of a large object. Scientists began practical testing of the mysterious theory in the thirties of the 20th century at the University of Chicago under the leadership of Dean John Hutchinson.

Later, the famous Nikola Tesla. The research turned out to be so promising that by 1936 several groups of researchers had been merged together under the general leadership of the same Tesla. And in 1940, the first practical experiment took place at the US Navy base in Brooklyn, although at that time without a team on board. The objective of the experiment was to create an “electromagnetic bubble” around the ship, which would divert enemy radar radiation from the ship, changing the external electromagnetic field around a given object.

By 1941, Tesla received the green light from the authorities for the full-scale development of the experiment, which was dubbed the “Rainbow Project”, and not at all the “Philadelphia Experiment”, as he was later called in the newspapers. The project was managed by the National Defense Research Committee and the Bureau of Physical Development of the US Department of Military Scientific Institutions. Tesla was given a ship, which he equipped with special coils, but the scientist was very hesitant about the participation of people in the experiment, foreseeing irreversible detrimental consequences for their health. Therefore, the scientist delayed the final tests as best he could.

Von Neumann also heated up the situation, persistently suggesting that the experiment should begin with a team on board. The military took Neumann's side, Moreover, during preparation for the experiment, Tesla died, and there were no longer any obstacles to conducting the experiment.

HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED

In the summer of 1942, the Eldridge was laid down. The destroyer was equipped with two huge electromagnetic generators, then a third was added, but they did not have time to connect and synchronize it before the start of the experiment. On July 20, 1943, the experimental installations were turned on. Crew members were on board. The desired effect has been achieved! The invisibility lasted fifteen minutes. However, after the end of the experiment, the sailors experienced headaches, nausea and mental disorders. Of course there were no horrors described by the tabloid press, but the deterioration in the health of the sailors was obvious. After improving the equipment, on August 12, 1943, the Eldridge was taken to the roadstead and the experiment was repeated.

Well aware that the crew was in grave danger, Neumann reduced the power of the experimental installations, wanting to ensure that the ship was invisible only to radar, reducing the danger to the health of the ship's crew. However, something went wrong and the ship, enveloped in a blue glow, disappeared from sight, and then appeared in Norfolk, hundreds of miles from the research site. When the ship "returned", the experiment was considered a success from a military point of view, but it was a pity to look at the crew.

It is unknown what happened to them during the interdimensional transition, but some of the sailors lost the ability to walk without leaning on the walls, while others were in a state of constant horror. After this, the Rainbow project was closed, Dr. John von Neumann was transferred to work in the Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb.

The Evolution of God [God through the eyes of the Bible, the Koran and science] Robert Wright

Was there really a “break with the Jews”?

There is one more thing that we do not know, and the question has literally never been raised: whether Muhammad's break with the Jews really occurred, and if so, whether it was really as dramatic as is generally believed.

According to conventional wisdom, (a) the Jews resisted Muhammad's theological ideas by noticing contradictions between their Scriptures and his teachings; (b) Muhammad finally abandoned the idea of ​​​​converting the Jews and announced this with a sharp change in the ritual aspect: if earlier Muslims in Medina prayed, turning their faces to Jerusalem, now they face Mecca; (c) one by one he expels the Jewish tribes from Medina, and the last “expulsion” turns out to be so bloody that it is more like extermination.

But much of this narrative draws on the Islamic oral tradition that developed after Muhammad's death; the references in the Qur'an seem vague. The key verse that oral tradition associates with the last violent conflict tells of certain “People of the Book” who helped the enemies, eventually “you [Muhammad] killed one part of them and took the other captive. He [God] gave you their land as an inheritance.”

This passage may indeed, as is widely believed, refer to a specific incident involving the Jews, but it could also refer to Christians, since the term "people of the Book" is applied to both. In any case, the Islamic tradition is known for its creative approach to associating cryptic Quranic verses with specific historical events. Sometimes a single verse is confidently attributed by several Muslim thinkers to completely different sets of circumstances. Perhaps the accepted interpretation of this passage is an example of such creativity?

A good reason to suspect this would appear if, several decades after the death of Muhammad, there were influential Muslims who benefited from the idea of ​​\u200b\u200benmity between the prophet and the Jews. One such Muslim may have been Umar ibn al-Khattab, who became the leader of the Islamic state in 634, two years after the death of the prophet.

In 638, Umar conquered Jerusalem. History works say so directly: Muslims conquered Jerusalem from the Christian Byzantine Empire and made it a stronghold of their faith, and a few decades later they built the Dome of the Rock mosque over the ruins of the Jewish temple, which the Romans destroyed five hundred years earlier. But these historical accounts also rely in part on oral tradition, so they should not be taken entirely on faith. There are ancient documents written by people who do not belong to the Islamic tradition, and these documents indicate something completely different.

The oldest document containing a coherent account of early Islam is the Armenian chronicles of the 660s, attributed to the historian and priest Sebeos. He calls Muhammad an “Ishmael” merchant and preacher who knows the story of Moses and who appears to the Jews as acting “at the command of God.” He manages to convince the Jews with this report. They unite with the Arabs "under the rule of one man." Muhammad then persuades them to reconquer their common homeland, the Promised Land. “Go and take the country that God gave to your father Abraham, and no one will be able to withstand you in the fight, for God will be with you.”

As a historical narrative, this document is flawed. It ingeniously combines biblical traditions about the genealogy of the Ishmaelites with an orderly account of early Islamic history. However, the fact remains that it was written no later than three decades after Umar recaptured Jerusalem from the Greek Christians of the Byzantine Empire, and it portrays the Jews and Muslim Arabs as a united front. “There are the tribes of Ishmael... All who remained of the children of Israel joined them, and they formed a strong army. Then they sent ambassadors to the Greek emperor with the words: “God gave this land as an inheritance to our father Abraham and his descendants; We are the children of Abraham, you have owned our country for a long time, give it back in peace, and we will not invade your land, otherwise we will take away what you took with interest."

This prospect is confusing: contrary to Islamic tradition and the Western history built on it, Jerusalem was not conquered by a Muslim army, but by an alliance of Muslims and Jews. But as strange as it may sound, there are reasons to take this scenario seriously. It is especially useful to clarify a puzzling detail in an earlier document, Greek, from the 630s, which speaks of “a prophet who appeared among the Saracens.” (“Saracen” is the Greek name for the Arabs, later for the Muslims.) This prophet claims to “hold the keys of paradise” - it seems that he is talking about Muhammad - but at the same time proclaims “the coming of the anointed one who is coming.” Why on earth would Muhammad or any other Islamic leader adopt the Jewish idea of ​​only the imminent coming of the Messiah? Maybe the whole point is that in fact his alliance with the Jews lasted long after the supposed “break” with them?

These discrepancies between traditional Islamic evidence and the oldest written non-Islamic sources were highlighted in the book Hagarism published in 1977 ( Hagarism), written by two young scholars of Islam, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. The position they put forward was radical: in fact, Islam began as a movement in which Jews, adherents of apocalypticism, participated, and only long after the conquest of Jerusalem did this movement acquire religious characteristics that distinguished it from Judaism. According to this scenario, the Koran was actually compiled in the 8th century, not the 7th century - as an attempt by the new Abrahamic faith to claim deep roots, that is, an attempt to present the new religion as ancient.

The book was received coolly in the scientific world and was not successful. But it is not necessary to accept all the arguments of Crone and Cook on faith in order to pay attention to the data they provide that requires explanation: why does an early Byzantine document, which clearly refers to Muhammad, describe his supporters as allies of the Jews, united in the desire to recapture Jerusalem? Maybe because it's true? And perhaps, after the conquest, when the “break with the Jews” finally occurred, Muhammad’s successor Umar sought to justify this break by attributing to Muhammad a more violent antagonism with the Jews than actually existed?

Of course, the conquest of Jerusalem by the combined forces of Jews and Muslims presented a natural opportunity for quarrel. The Jews could count on the restoration of the Temple, destroyed by the Romans five hundred years earlier. If the Muslims chose to build a mosque on the ruins of the Temple, the quarrel could escalate. Indeed, the same Armenian document from the 660s describes a dispute between Jews and Arabs over the site of the Temple, when the Jews began to rebuild the Temple and the Arabs drove them away. If the well-known story is true, if an army of Muslims, who had long broken with the Jews, marched towards Jerusalem and captured it, it is difficult to imagine why the Jews in Jerusalem needed to start a dispute that was obviously losing for them.

Even if Islamic tradition and conventional Western history chose too early a date for the "break with the Jews," which actually occurred after Muhammad's death, it is unlikely that the entire conflict between Muhammad and the Jews of Medina was fabricated. This conflict is mentioned in too many Quranic verses, in addition, there was a conflict in relations with Christians, which seems quite logical. Given Muhammad's ambitions, relations with Christians and Jews must have experienced many ups and downs during the ten years he spent in Medina.

In any case, it is worth remembering that the Quran was not yet a canonical, established text when Umar came to power. Long after his death and half a century after the death of Muhammad, Muslim coins were minted with sayings from the Koran, which in at least some cases differed from the text considered canonical. So Umar and other influential Muslims had time to choose the final version from the differing Koranic verses. Presumably any accompanying thematic formation of the Qur'an was intended to suit the needs of the people who directed that formation.