Because people continue to lie, I must tell the TRUTH.........
Options
DoUwant2go2Heaven
Members Posts: 10,425 ✭✭✭✭✭
It's really sickening to see the lies that are continually put up here by the misinformed. So here is an article with the link that gives "SECULAR" evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that people just don't want the truth because people don't want life. People want death, destruction, and darkness. Jesus said that, "ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5:40) People don't want life, so they cling to lies. Why? "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19)
This is only an excerpt of the link. Click on the link to receive more information. For those who want truth, you will dig to find it. For those who want to continue in darkness, you will remain ignorant.
"7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." Matthew 7:7-8
THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS CHRIST
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_historicity.html
CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through
the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome,
Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from
26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.
"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the
reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea,
where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44
What this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account:
Skeptic Interjection: Could Tacitus have taken his information from Christian sources?
Answer: Because of his position as a professional historian and not as a commentator, it is more likely Tacitus
referenced government records over Christian testimony. It is also possible Tacitus received some of his
information from his friend and fellow secular historian, Pliny the Younger. Yet, even if Tacitus referenced some
of Pliny's sources, it would be out of his character to have done so without critical investigation. An example of
Tacitus criticising testimony given to him even from his dear friend Pliny is found here: Annals XV, 55. Tacitus
distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of
Jesus was only a rumor or folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified.
Skeptic Interjection: Could this passage have been a Christian interpolation?
Answer: Judging by the critical undertones of the passage, this is highly unlikely. Tacitus refers to Christianity as
a superstition and insuppressible mischief. Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Tacitus' Annals that does
not contain this passage. There is no verifiable evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage.
Skeptic Interjection: Why is this passage not quoted by the early church fathers?
Answer: Due to the condescending nature of Tacitus' testimony, early Christian authors most likely would not
have quoted such a source (assuming Tacitus' writings were even available to them). However, our actual
answer comes from the content of the passage itself. Nothing in Tacitus' statement mentions anything that was
not already common knowledge among Christians. It simply provides evidence of Jesus' existence (a topic not
debated at this point in history) and not his divinity.
Skeptic Interjection: Does the incorrect use of title procurator instead of prefect negate Tacitus' reliability?
Answer: No. Evidence is provided in both secular and Christian works which refer to Pilate as a procurator:
the sake of clarity or, since Judea was a relatively new and insignificant Roman province, Pilate might have held
both positions.
This is only an excerpt of the link. Click on the link to receive more information. For those who want truth, you will dig to find it. For those who want to continue in darkness, you will remain ignorant.
"7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." Matthew 7:7-8
THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS CHRIST
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_historicity.html
CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through
the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome,
Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from
26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.
"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the
reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea,
where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44
What this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account:
- Jesus did exist
- Jesus was the founder of Christianity
- Jesus was put to death by Pilate
- Christianity originated in Judea (With Jesus)
- Christianity later spread to Rome (Through the Apostles and Evangelists)
Skeptic Interjection: Could Tacitus have taken his information from Christian sources?
Answer: Because of his position as a professional historian and not as a commentator, it is more likely Tacitus
referenced government records over Christian testimony. It is also possible Tacitus received some of his
information from his friend and fellow secular historian, Pliny the Younger. Yet, even if Tacitus referenced some
of Pliny's sources, it would be out of his character to have done so without critical investigation. An example of
Tacitus criticising testimony given to him even from his dear friend Pliny is found here: Annals XV, 55. Tacitus
distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of
Jesus was only a rumor or folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified.
Skeptic Interjection: Could this passage have been a Christian interpolation?
Answer: Judging by the critical undertones of the passage, this is highly unlikely. Tacitus refers to Christianity as
a superstition and insuppressible mischief. Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Tacitus' Annals that does
not contain this passage. There is no verifiable evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage.
Skeptic Interjection: Why is this passage not quoted by the early church fathers?
Answer: Due to the condescending nature of Tacitus' testimony, early Christian authors most likely would not
have quoted such a source (assuming Tacitus' writings were even available to them). However, our actual
answer comes from the content of the passage itself. Nothing in Tacitus' statement mentions anything that was
not already common knowledge among Christians. It simply provides evidence of Jesus' existence (a topic not
debated at this point in history) and not his divinity.
Skeptic Interjection: Does the incorrect use of title procurator instead of prefect negate Tacitus' reliability?
Answer: No. Evidence is provided in both secular and Christian works which refer to Pilate as a procurator:
- "But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea... Antiquities XVIII, 3:1
- "Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius..." The Jewish Wars, Book II 9:2
- "Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar..." First Apology XII
the sake of clarity or, since Judea was a relatively new and insignificant Roman province, Pilate might have held
both positions.
Comments
-
__________________________________________________ -
Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders.
And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.
Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD. Jeremiah 9:4-6
Great thread, Brother!
They don't want the truth.......but they will have no choice in the end
There is no opposition to the truth!!!!!!!
Praise Yeshua!!!
PEACE -
lol @ you guys using a Roman devil as your source. Are you really that ? ?
-
Still no proof huh? More christians claimin theres proof and relyin on reiligious texts as backup, alright brother good job.
-
The True Flesh wrote: »Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders.
And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.
Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD. Jeremiah 9:4-6
Great thread, Brother!
They don't want the truth.......but they will have no choice in the end
There is no opposition to the truth!!!!!!!
Praise Yeshua!!!
PEACE
"Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the LORD are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein." Hosea 14:9
My brother in Christ True Flesh! Good to see you my friend. I see the hand of ? residing on you mightly. Excellent scripture. The truth will always triumph! ? bless you brother. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Still no proof huh? More christians claimin theres proof and relyin on reiligious texts as backup, alright brother good job.
"Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." Isaiah 6:9-10 -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »"Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." Isaiah 6:9-10
So you think im blind and deaf toward ? and think I need to open my heart and accept him before its too late and the Devil has me in clutches? -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »
"Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the LORD are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein." Hosea 14:9
My brother in Christ True Flesh! Good to see you my friend. I see the hand of ? residing on you mightly. Excellent scripture. The truth will always triumph! ? bless you brother.
Way to ignore my posts. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »So you think im blind and deaf toward ? and think I need to open my heart and accept him before its too late and the Devil has me in clutches?
Your already in the clutches of the enemy. Until you receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you will continue to be a ? of the enemy. -
Way to ignore my posts.
You didn't even read my original posts. Your talking about "roman devils". Your going to remain ignorant. But hey thats your choice. -
You know if I ever convert back to bein a Christian RUGOIN ill make sure i put you down as a referral when I die.
-
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »You didn't even read my original posts. Your talking about "roman devils". Your going to remain ignorant. But hey thats your choice.
First of all, What say you about that Demonology book that your precious Kin James wrote?
And secondly...DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »
CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through
the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome,
Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from
26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.
That Roman Devil... the only damn guy in your whole post. You got short term memory loss or something? Stop smoking ? . -
So you PROVE something true with a Bible full of FABLES and LIES?
WOw. -
so because an article you found on the internet says all thats truth, you believe it?
i could easily find a site that counters that which would be just as credible -
DarcSkies777 wrote: »So you PROVE something true with a Bible full of FABLES and LIES?
WOw.
Prove the bible is full of fables and lies. -
Prove the bible is full of fables and lies.
Prove that it is full of fact and actual accounts. -
Prove that it is full of fact and actual accounts.
I believe the burden of proof rest on you. -
k, ile answer your question.
Fact-
Due to the Council of Nicaea
There had to be an agreement of whether or not Jesus was to be recognized as Gods' TRUE SON.
The Bible if was written and composed of actual account writings should have simply already outlined that YES Jesus is Divine.
-It wasnt-
So because all of these bishops, deacans, and priests. Oh and let me point out this is durring a time of when Crusades were quite popular and MOST Bishops, Deacans, and Priests were infact WARLOARDS who owned a sizable amount of land within the Roman empire. Decided or decreed or all thought that hey, Yes lets make Jesus the undenounced Son of ? , as he is Devine and a Prophet.
If the Bible hadnt been edited or revised or even summarized in some spots i would agree that the bible is true. as most of the accounts in it are. BUT because of the hand of man, WHO wrote the bible through the will of ? the bible is not all fact and actual accounts.
And no I dont question my faith but i sure as ? dont believe every ? thing i see or 'ahem' dont see for that matter. -
k, ile answer your question.
Fact-
Due to the Council of Nicaea
There had to be an agreement of whether or not Jesus was to be recognized as Gods' TRUE SON.
The Bible if was written and composed of actual account writings should have simply already outlined that YES Jesus is Divine.
-It wasnt-
So because all of these bishops, deacans, and priests. Oh and let me point out this is durring a time of when Crusades were quite popular and MOST Bishops, Deacans, and Priests were infact WARLOARDS who owned a sizable amount of land within the Roman empire. Decided or decreed or all thought that hey, Yes lets make Jesus the undenounced Son of ? , as he is Devine and a Prophet.
If the Bible hadnt been edited or revised or even summarized in some spots i would agree that the bible is true. as most of the accounts in it are. BUT because of the hand of man, WHO wrote the bible through the will of ? the bible is not all fact and actual accounts.
And no I dont question my faith but i sure as ? dont believe every ? thing i see or 'ahem' dont see for that matter.
1. Fact - The council of nicea (325 ad) DID NOT convene to address the canon of scripture. The muratorian fragment (170 AD) is the oldest known list of scripture.The council did convene to agree that Jesus was the Son of ? , however this is sort sided. There was a heretical movement within christianity started by Arius, called Arianism which denied the divinity of Jesus. Christians had already acknowledged the divinity of Jesus, as do the scriptures (John 1:1, 1 John 5:7).
2. Well actually the crusades first started in the 11th century. The crusades would have been impossible in 325ad seeing as how Islam didn't start until the 7th century. So this would be more in the realm of fiction not fact.
3. You see the great thing about people who make the assertion that the bible was edited cannot show by whom and what was there before. the fact of the matter is that of all the books from antiquity the bible is the most well sourced. There are in fact 47,000 originals of the bible. If we applied the same obtuse standard to ancient historical works then we should completely disregard ancient history. So because ? chose to use man to pen the bible that means the bible isn't true? Thats pretty faulty logic and I'd love you to qualify that logic with reasonable arguments.
4. Well then you have no faith. The bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. so if you don't believe things simply because you can't see them, you are without faith. -
1. Fact - The council of nicea (325 ad) DID NOT convene to address the canon of scripture. The muratorian fragment (170 AD) is the oldest known list of scripture.The council did convene to agree that Jesus was the Son of ? , however this is sort sided. There was a heretical movement within christianity started by Arius, called Arianism which denied the divinity of Jesus. Christians had already acknowledged the divinity of Jesus, as do the scriptures (John 1:1, 1 John 5:7).
2. Well actually the crusades first started in the 11th century. The crusades would have been impossible in 325ad seeing as how Islam didn't start until the 7th century. So this would be more in the realm of fiction not fact.
3. You see the great thing about people who make the assertion that the bible was edited cannot show by whom and what was there before. the fact of the matter is that of all the books from antiquity the bible is the most well sourced. There are in fact 47,000 originals of the bible. If we applied the same obtuse standard to ancient historical works then we should completely disregard ancient history. So because ? chose to use man to pen the bible that means the bible isn't true? Thats pretty faulty logic and I'd love you to qualify that logic with reasonable arguments.
4. Well then you have no faith. The bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. so if you don't believe things simply because you can't see them, you are without faith.
okay ille take this with the points you put down.
1. Yes you are correct about the council of nicaea... i Think you may have misread what i wrote or you just like to agree with what i said with quotes.
2. Typo my bad, i had meant to write conquests... and yes they took place... all around the time of Late Antiquity... The Eastern Roman Empire was sure as ? warring in the NAME OF ? .
3. I did not say that it is gods wrong to have chosen man to pen his work. what i did say was that down the line the works were changed and its true there are accounts of monks who first started translating the bible from one language to another putting thier own emphasis in certain parts. We can use a couple more big names just like your Arius, King James, Joseph Smith, aaaannnd pretty much every other spin off religion from the Roman catholic church.
4.you are in no position to question my faith, as i dont question yours.
The simple point i was trying to make was that because man has in fact had opportunity to put his 2cents into the bible he has. -
okay ille take this with the points you put down.
1. Yes you are correct about the council of nicaea... i Think you may have misread what i wrote or you just like to agree with what i said with quotes.
2. Typo my bad, i had meant to write conquests... and yes they took place... all around the time of Late Antiquity... The Eastern Roman Empire was sure as ? warring in the NAME OF ? .
3. I did not say that it is gods wrong to have chosen man to pen his work. what i did say was that down the line the works were changed and its true there are accounts of monks who first started translating the bible from one language to another putting thier own emphasis in certain parts. We can use a couple more big names just like your Arius, King James, Joseph Smith, aaaannnd pretty much every other spin off religion from the Roman catholic church.
4.you are in no position to question my faith, as i dont question yours.
The simple point i was trying to make was that because man has in fact had opportunity to put his 2cents into the bible he has.
1. Conquests when? Early christians were rampaged by persecution from the Romans and Jews. Constantine may have legalized christianity but that surely didn't stop their persecution. And then when the roman empire fell and became the roman catholic church, the persecution of the christians was still as strong as ever. The eastern roman empire also tried to restore the old roman empire in the name of the pagan gods. What is you're point?
2. This is where understanding the different lines of biblical texts comes in the codex vaticanus and sinaiticus also known as the alexandrian texts (which is where the non-KJV line of bibles come from) and u have the textus receptus (or the majority texts) and that line of scripture was preserved and kept solid throughout the ages. Yes catholic monks did change parts of the bible, changed the latin vulgate, added books etc etc. Yes I kno that. However the recieved text was not in their hands. It would be a great topic of study should you decide to look into these things.
3. You yourself said you don't believe what you don't see, in plain terms you have no faith. Simple observation.
4. The bible has not been edited, there is absolutely no proof of that simple speculation and rhetoric. -
I believe the burden of proof rest on you.
lol uh no... You can't write a book, claim it to be true, and then say the burden of proving you wrong is on us.... that's just.... no. -
lol uh no... You can't write a book, claim it to be true, and then say the burden of proving you wrong is on us.... that's just.... no.
I didn't write the book, however you are the one questioning the validity of said book however and in doing so you are supposed to make arguments with supporting facts. Now if you are incapable thats one thing but don't act brand new to the whole process. -
I didn't write the book, however you are the one questioning the validity of said book however and in doing so you are supposed to make arguments with supporting facts. Now if you are incapable thats one thing but don't act brand new to the whole process.
But you believe it to be literal and true to the way the church interprets it. -
But you believe it to be literal and true to the way the church interprets it.
yes I do, but if you are going to say this or that is fake u have better have an argument to support that claim. And what is 'the church' and how do they "interpret it"?
