Was there really a Big Bang? New refutations. Horde-Russian relationships and mutual influences

The figure of False Dmitry I still causes a lot of controversy. Rumors and speculation surrounded the liar even during his lifetime, and the historical memory of him is also far from clear.

Fool

In the popular consciousness, False Dmitry is an unambiguously negative character, because it was he who brought the interventionists to Rus'. For this reason, his appearance and moral character are not presented in the most favorable light. But if the descriptions of his appearance are true: the imaginary Dmitry was not handsome: his nose is wide, there are warts on his face, his hands - one longer than the other - are, however, stately built - then his moral qualities are not just distorted, but are often turned inside out.

So, for the common man, False Dmitry is a kind of fool, a puppet in the hands of the Polish king, Marina Mnishek with her father and the Russian boyars led by Shuisky. But in reality the king was not a stupid person. Contemporaries noted that his eyes were intelligent and expressive. He was an excellent psychologist and a brilliant artist: False Dmitry quickly managed to win over and even make the crowd fall in love with him and then skillfully manipulated public opinion. The moment of his meeting with his mother, nun Martha - genuine, as it seemed, sincerity - convinced his contemporaries that the king was real.
He was able to deceive not only ordinary Russian people, but also Polish dignitaries, experienced in diplomacy, Jesuits and even the Pope, skillfully dodging the promises he made.

Ignorant

Since he is stupid, he is also ignorant. A runaway monk, undressed, picking up fragmentary knowledge. And everyone seemed to understand from the very beginning that he was not a king at all and deceived him, taking advantage of ignorance.

In reality, Dmitry surprised many of his contemporaries with his erudition: he often quoted the Bible to the point. I read it myself and encouraged those close to me to read in every possible way. He turned the Boyar Duma into the Senate and himself actively participated in its meetings. The imaginary Dmitry even dreamed of universal education - at the beginning of the 17th century. Even on the way to Moscow, he said: “As soon as, with God’s help, I become king, I will now start schools so that the whole state will learn to read and write; I will found a university in Moscow, I will begin to send Russians to foreign lands, and I will invite smart and knowledgeable foreigners to myself.”

Cowardly

Usually False Dmitry is considered an adventurer and, although he is reckless (after all, he encroached on the kingdom), he is cowardly.
The facts indicate not only that the impostor sacredly believed his identity with the son of Ivan the Terrible, but also that he was a brave man. He was the first of the kings not to climb onto the horse, having first stood on the bench provided, but boldly jumped onto it. He actively participated in the royal hunt. He himself poisoned the most dangerous animals, even bears. Dreaming of dealing with the enemy, who was constantly harassing the southern lands with constant raids, with the Crimean Khanate, he was actively preparing for war. Apparently, Demetrius himself was going to lead the campaign. In preparation, he organized troop reviews, which at the same time became both training and entertainment.

Pampered and lazy

False Dmitry loved balls, loved fun and dancing - it’s true. But it is incorrect to imagine that, having achieved reign, he indulged in debauchery and bliss. The new tsar not only fulfilled his duties: he, unlike his predecessors, for example, walked around the city after dinner and talked with merchants and townsfolk. A hundred years before Peter I, False Dmitry won the hearts of artisans by working with them on an equal basis, and when he was pushed or even knocked down, he did not get angry and behaved simply.

I wanted to give the country to the Poles

The next persistent myth is that False Dmitry is a traitor, a defector, and it was he who brought the Poles to Russia and thus began the cruel Time of Troubles.

He, indeed, while staying in Poland and preparing only for a campaign against Moscow, promised the King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Sigismund III to “return” the Seversk land and Smolensk. And he allegedly wanted to write off Novgorod and Pskov to his future wife. But, having become king, he began to behave independently of Sigismund, demanding that he call him the invincible Caesar. As for the lands, the tsar directly announced to the Polish ambassador: their transfer to the king was impossible.
Relations between Sigismund and False Dmitry after the latter's accession became strained, if not hostile. At a time when the boyars, led by Vasily Shuisky, were preparing a conspiracy against the tsar, in Krakow they were thinking about overthrowing the objectionable Sigismund and placing a young Russian sovereign on his throne.

Encroached on the Orthodox faith

And they also say that False Dmitry hated the Orthodox faith and wanted to make Catholicism the state religion. And he himself was an apostate.
Dmitry, indeed, was baptized in Poland - he converted to Catholicism. Indeed, he did not have good feelings for the monks, taking away from the monasteries all their wealth, which a century earlier they had so long and so persistently defended from the non-covetous. He considered monks to be slackers.
However, there was no question of changing the state religion. False Dmitry's answers to the Pope, who reminded the Moscow sovereign of the promise made a year earlier, were vague. He did not refuse directly, but said that he would not build Catholic churches to the detriment of the Orthodox. He ignored the Pope's complaints regarding the abundance of Protestants in Muscovy.
Indifferent to religion, the tsar obviously understood that Orthodoxy is one of the pillars of Russian society, and it is dangerous to encroach on it. And at the same time, he was tolerant of other faiths in a modern way.

He is Grigory Otrepyev

Finally, the last well-established rumor that the fugitive monk of the aristocratic Chudov Monastery, Grigory (in the world Yuri) Otrepiev, was introduced as Tsar Dmitry. Of all the others, this hypothesis seems to be the most plausible, but it also has serious shortcomings that do not allow us to identify Tsar Demetrius with Grishka, who was anathematized even under Boris Godunov.
Firstly, False Dmitry himself, in order to dispel doubts, showed the people the true Grigory Otrepyev. When he was no longer needed, he was exiled to Yaroslavl for drunkenness. Since Otrepiev was not a simple monk, but a clerk of the Chudov Monastery, the secretary of the patriarch, he could easily be distinguished from his double. And the deception would inevitably be exposed in Moscow or another city.
Secondly, he spoke Polish too well, rode, shot, and danced to be a monk, devoted to obedience from his youth.
Thus, the identification of Grishka Otrepyev and False Dmitry is most likely false.

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 Bok 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 takes 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

Does God Really Exist – Evidence? Sooner or later, every thinking person asks himself this question. If you are thinking about this, you are not alone. After all, this question has been the main question of philosophy from ancient times to this day (“What comes first? Consciousness or matter?”).

Based on the answer to the question “Does God exist?” The world of people is divided into 3 categories:

• Some people are believers– believe that God exists and they do not need evidence of his existence.
• Others are atheists- believe that the world is material and do not believe in the immaterial God, as the main Designer and Creator of this world.
• Still others are agnostics- believe that discussing the question of whether God really exists is pointless, since it is impossible to prove the existence of something that cannot be “touched” or “seen.”

One way or another, but the answer to the question of whether to believe or not to believe in the existence of God is influences our entire future life. You will learn exactly how this influence occurs in this amazing 3-minute video.

Proof of the existence of God. VIDEO

So, today, both believers and non-believers believe that it is impossible to rationally prove the existence of God. Only the reasons for thinking so are different for both.

Believers believe that God reveals himself only in purity of heart, and not with the help of a proud and arrogant mind. Non-believers believe that only science is objective and once it is impossible to measure and record the fact of God’s existence, it means he does not exist.

But few people know that since the times of medieval philosophy there is a tradition and practice of proving the existence of God. The philosopher and scholastic theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote works in which he provided 5 proofs of the existence of God. Also, proof of the existence of God was given in his works by the philosopher of those times, Anselm of Canterbury.

Strictly speaking, the question, “Is consciousness or matter primary?” is the fundamental question of philosophy. This question can be formulated in other words like this: “Is there a God?”, “Who created matter?”, “What happened before the big bang?”, “Could life on Earth have arisen by chance? and so on.

If you want to know in detail all 16 proofs of whether God really exists, derived by philosophers, you can contact to this article. This list includes, among other things, 5 Proofs for the Existence of God by Thomas Aquinas.

Here I will give only a few of them - the most indisputable and obvious evidence of the existence of God from life itself, noticed by Aristotle and other philosophers.

"Existential proof" of the existence of God

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.

Let's look at examples. To build a house, you will spend energy on designing it, building it, and then maintaining the house. If you stop maintaining the house, it will fall into disrepair. One more example. If you want to have your own garden, you will need to spend energy preparing the land and planting plants. As soon as you stop putting in your work, your energy, the weeds will destroy your garden.

Our entire world, including not only the Earth and the Solar system, but also the entire Universe and the microcosm, is much more complex than a house and a garden. So why do such complex structures still exist? Undoubtedly, due to the fact that they were created by Someone and have been maintained by Him since then.

“The Anthropic Principle of the Universe” as proof of the existence of God

Most likely, you have noticed that recently, science and religion, which were in conflict for a long time, have recently begun to come closer again. After all, research, for example, in the field, shows that the world is not as “material” as we previously imagined it to be.

But let's return to the Anthropic principle of the Universe. Modern science suddenly found out that the emergence of life on Earth, as well as the development of civilization, became possible only thanks to paradoxical to an unlikely combination of extremely harsh conditions. Among them:

And many more proportions and interconnections of our complex world coincided. Scientists say that the interconnectedness of all these factors is such that the possibility of their coincidence is completely excluded.

"Cosmological proof" of the existence of God

This proof was formulated by Aristotle and was later used by the medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas as one of the 5 proofs of the existence of God. Most often it is formulated as follows:

Every thing in this world, including the Universe, has a reason for its existence and it is impossible to continue the chain, the sequence of reasons indefinitely. Eventually we will come to the First Cause.

Today not only philosophers, but also other scientists talk about it (“What happened before the Big Bang?”). The answer to the question “What is the first cause of the Universe?” suggests itself. This is God, he is not material, but “ideal”, “spiritual”, like a thought, and is rather not the Cause, but the Creator of the Universe and its Laws.

Is there a God - the opinions of scientists

Moving further and further into the microcosm and macrocosm, scientists are increasingly saying that science and religion do not contradict each other at all. Previously, before science and religion diverged, many scientists, such as Newton, were theologians.

Summary

I would really like the article “Does God Really Exist – Evidence” to be useful to you. The main conclusion that can be drawn by carefully observing the world around us is that Someone created and decorated this world for us. This Someone constantly supports him and without Him the world could not exist for even a moment.

I wish you all joy in learning new things and inspiration in all your endeavors!

There are two polar and, in their own way, justified points of view on the topic of the existence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Rus'. One claims that the yoke was centuries-old and cruel; the second says that the yoke could not exist by definition.

Modern researchers of the past discuss this part of Russian history mainly in polemics with, perhaps, the most cited ideologist of denying the existence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, the famous historian Gumilyov.

Rationale

The main concept of Lev Nikolaevich, on which he built his theory of the relationship between Rus' and the Golden Horde until the 13th century, includes the hypothesis of non-hostile, and in some ways even allied coexistence of the Tartars and Slavs. As Gumilyov believed, the Tatar-Mongols helped the Russian princes resist the expansion of the Livonians, and this alliance was mostly military, not political.

In his book “From Rus' to Russia,” Lev Nikolaevich outlined his position on this issue as follows: Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich was interested in military support from the Mongols in order to restrain the onslaught of the West on Rus' and pacify the internal opposition; for all this, Nevsky would not regret any payment, even a large one.

To substantiate the theory of the alliance of the Horde and the Russian princes, Gumilyov cited in his book an argument about the salvation of Novgorod, Pskov and Smolensk in 1268 and 1274 - supposedly these cities escaped capture only due to the presence of hundreds of Tatar horsemen among their defenders. In turn, Lev Nikolaevich continues, the Russians helped the Tatar-Mongols in conquering the Alans.

The tax that Rus' paid to the Tatars, according to Gumilyov, was a kind of amulet and a kind of guarantor of the security of Russian lands. In addition, the Tatars did not enslave our lands ideologically and politically; Rus' was not a provincial appendage of the Mongol ulus, Gumilyov emphasized.

In modern language, there were no “NATO bases” on our territory (Tatar-Mongol troops were not stationed). The Horde, as Gumilyov argued, did not even think of establishing permanent power in Rus'. Moreover, during one of Nevsky’s visits to Batu, the Golden Horde “grew” into the Orthodox episcopate.

The Bishop of Sarsky, as Gumilyov wrote, was not faced with any obstacles at the Khan’s court. Moreover, when Islam began to establish itself among the Horde, the Russian Orthodox Church was not subjected to religious persecution.

“Kill with fire and sword”

Opponents of Gumilyov's theory refer to chronicles describing those cruel times. In particular, the well-known opponent of Lev Nikolaevich, Chivilikhin, quotes from documents of the 11th century telling about the mass murders of Russian princes by the Tatars: Dmitry of Chernigov (for his adherence to Orthodoxy), John of Putivlsky with his family, Alexander Novosilsky.

According to Chuvilikhin’s interpretation, the Tatar-Mongols killed everyone they suspected of being unreliable. The second half of the 13th century, Gumilyov’s opponents believe, is northeastern Rus', practically devastated after the Tatar raids, a scorched earth.

The Battle of Kulikovo, according to Gumilyov, was led to by the “putsch” in the Mamai Horde and the subsequent rupture of the alliance agreement between the Horde and the Russians. Opponents of this theory have a more prosaic justification: simply, “anti-Igot” sentiments gradually accumulated among the princes, which ultimately contributed to the unification of the Slavs to deliver a decisive blow and the subsequent defeat of the Horde troops at the Battle of Mamaev.

On Easter days it sounds from everywhere: “Christ is risen!” But do we really believe what we say? And what do we believe? Can biblical history be trusted? After all, if Christ really lived among people and suffered martyrdom, then there should also be evidence of His resurrection?

If ask people on the street about whether they believe in the reality of the resurrection of Christ, their opinions will differ. And people themselves admit that this happens due to a lack of information, ignorance: “We don’t know, we were taught that way.” Same time today among historians there is no one who would deny, at a minimum, the historicity of Jesus, since a number of historical data confirm his existence.

The only question is, believe whether they are on His Resurrection.

What evidence is there for the truth of the Bible?

There are many different testimonies regarding the reality of the Bible. From how the Bible changes people's lives, showing its real power, to the fact that it was actually written by different people over two thousand years. In four different languages ​​and on three different continents. These people did not know each other, but the Bible is a single narrative about the relationship between man and God.

Finally, we have a huge number of ancient texts, from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Testament to surviving copies of New Testament texts. The latest archaeological find is fragments of the Gospel of Mark - a text from the 70th year of our era. They all confirm the authenticity of the biblical texts that have reached us. These texts existed during the lifetime of eyewitnesses to the life of Christ.

Is it possible that the disciples actually stole Christ's body and there was no Resurrection?

This idea arises immediately, and it is an attempt to somehow explain the absence of a body. But we understand that quite a lot of time has passed, and highly motivated and powerful bosses could well have conducted an investigation: found where this body was taken, forced those who were present to speak.

If it were possible to imagine the body, then the conversation would stop. But the continuation of this story in the Book of Acts is very interesting. Peter and John are summoned to the Sanhedrin for questioning, and they will not be accused of perjury - they are forbidden to talk about it. That is, if they could be accused of lying and under the law of Moses and executed, then there would be no problem. But the members of the Sanhedrin themselves understand that everyone around them knows that this is true. And that’s why they say to the apostles: “We forbid you to tell about this.”

If we assume that Christ was not resurrected, then why were the disciples ready to die for this idea?

Yes, a person can follow a lie in order to achieve something. The disciples of Jesus proclaimed His resurrection as they went to their death, and this was proof of the truth of what they said. As Tertullian said: “The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church.”

Written Documents about the Life of Jesus begin with the Gospel and end with the testimonies of non-biblical non-Christian historians - Jews, Romans. Atheist historians cast doubt on the fact of His resurrection, but do not deny that disciples of Jesus saw Him risen. Because there is simply no other explanation for the changes in the lives of students.

One idea is that the students had hallucinations. But hallucinations happen when a person is full of hope and expects something, while evangelical historians describe that they were depressed and disappointed. In addition, the hallucinations were the same at different times and in different places and, as the Scripture says, in five hundred people at the same time! Even atheists admit that the disciples saw Him risen. But at the same time, did they really see Him? This facet of the incomprehensible remains.

Subscribe:

Is it necessary to remember the resurrection of Christ every day, on weekdays?

The resurrection of Christ gives hope for eternal life. That God is with us, that we are not abandoned, that our life has meaning. No matter what happens in our lives, God is always with us, God is present in this world through us - He created man to be His presence in this world.

We must understand that the resurrection of Christ is a historical fact that happened two thousand years ago. Therefore, every day is for us a day of serving the Lord. And whatever we do at work or at home, we do for the Glory of God.

President of the Christian Scientific Apologetic Center Sergei Golovin