It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Correcting Misguided Conceptions and Proving the Bibles Authenticity

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
During my time reviewing this forum, I have come to learn just how many skeptics and unbelievers lurk within. These people have made it blatantly evident just how much they despise the Bible, the concept of the Creator, and all who follow in the teachings of Scripture. As a believer and follower of Christ, I would obviously take offense to a lot of the claims and comments made by a decent majority of the members. Nonetheless, it is your right to express your feelings about any form of faith and I would die to defend that right. However, I've noticed how most of you claim that the Word contradicts itself, or all religions are essentially the same, or the Bible is mistranslated, or the Scriptures and books of the Bible aren't authentic, or Jesus Christ is nothing more than a myth. My friends, all of these claims couldn't be farther from the truth. I've created this thread to bring atheists, agnostics, and unbelievers boastful and highly ignorant claims to a screeching halt. When I review some threads and comments by posters regarding religion, I just face palm and deeply sigh at just how uneducated and misguided these allegations really are. These affirmations are consequently wildly believed by a multitude of individuals. Allow me to shed some light on the misinterpretations of the Word and furthermore, bring clarity to the confusion surrounding it. The purpose of this thread is not to discredit Atheists or agnostics for their beliefs, but to correct their misguided views on the Christian faith.

Regarding the information I have provided below, let me say for the record, that it would be pious, presumptuous, and egotistical to assume that this thread provides all the answers to the mysteries of life that each and every one of us has inquired. Furthermore, I make no other assumptions that the provided information will convert, enlighten, nor influence the hearts and minds of any of the individuals who decide to review this thread. However, it is my intention to clarify wild misconceptions about Christian faith. I do pray that the commonly spouted allegations used to attack the Christian faith are silenced in light of the instruction ministered.

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have." 1Peter 3:15

For starters, let us distinguish between the honest skeptic who genuinely seek answers and those who only wish to play mind games, gloat in a power trip and are not truly interested in the truth. When Herod stood before Jesus, he demanded He perform miracles. Jesus did not oblige him, for Herod wasn't honestly interested in any truth, but instead wished to scorn and mock Him. In internet terms, he was nothing short of a troll.

Are Christians ideology of the Bible only based on faith? Not at all. The Holy Bible is the foundation of our faith because it is based on incontrovertible, historical facts. Despite what many skeptics believe, Christianity is a very reasonable faith. There are roughly 2 billion Christians worldwide, so it must be reasonable enough. To us, the Bible is more true than death and taxes, more powerful than an atomic bomb, and more reliable than any manuscript known to man. That's right. The Bibles authenticity and unique credibility beat any other ancient document discovered. We believe that the Bible contains the very words of God. Our faith and our lives are staked on the trustworthiness of the holy Scriptures.

The Bibles Incredible Authenticity

How can we believe ancient scriptures, written 1,000s of years ago are possibly genuine? In all honesty, it is true that the the original documents of the Bible penned and autographed by the original authors, for example, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are no longer extant. However, other ancient writings by authors such as Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and Caesar are also non extant. The original documents all crumbled centuries ago. There are only copies of all the great writings and the Bible is no exception. In judging the accuracy of ancient documents, how close they come to the original autograph depends upon how many copies there are and how close they are to one another. In fact, there are only a handful of copies of most ancient writings. Another important factor in judging the accuracy of ancient manuscripts is the time span between the copies and the original. Here is a list of the time spans of some of our collected ancient documents:

Caesar and his Gaelic Wars: 1,000 after Caesar lived
Demosthenes, the great orator of Greece: 1,200 years after he wrote it
Plato, the great philosopher: 1,300 years
Herodotus: 1,300 years
The Greek dramatists: 1,400 years
Cattalos, the Roman writer: 1,600 years
Homer and his classic The Odyssey: 2,200 years


By these standards of antiquity, the Bible surpasses these documents in credibility. How is this so? We do not have only two, three, or five copies, but 5,750 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. In various other translations, we have 25,000 more copies. Quotations from the New Testament are found in virtually every writing by the early church fathers-those writers living during the first 4 centuries after Christ. We also have the earliest fragment of a manuscript, the John Rylands papyri manuscript, which is a small portion of the gospel of John and is dated A.D. 117-138.Dr. Norm Geisler, a Christian apologist and philosopher, and Dr William Nix note: "Because of its early date and location [Egypt] some distance from the traditional place of composition [Asia Minor], this portion of the gospel of John tends to confirm the traditional date of the composition of the gospel before the end of the first century."

This suggests that John wrote this Gospel not 1,000, 1,200, 1,600, or 2,200 years later, but as few as 30 to 35 years. There are numerous papyri manuscripts from the second and third century, some larger manuscripts from the forth century, and so on. No other ancient writing of any kind rests on as solid a foundation as does the Bible. In fact, if we were to throw out the Bible as being textually uncertain, we would have to do away with all ancient history and say we know absolutely nothing about anything that happened in this world before A.D. 1,000 because the Bible rests on a more solid foundation than any secular writing. The time separation between when the New Testament was written and the first complete manuscript copies is only about 300 years at the most. In 1948, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Isaiah from the first century was unearthed. Comparing this manuscript with later copies of Isaiah, it read verbatim with only the slightest variation (and nothing found changed the meaning of the text). Through the centuries, God preserved His Word's integrity.
edit on 29-9-2011 by DanteMustDie because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses to His majesty." 2Peter 1:16

Jesus Christ a Myth?

"The story of Jesus Christ and His miracles are nothing more than fairy tales and folklore." For the record, there are virtually no historians in the world today who would stake their reputation or career on that statement. Now that we've seen how credible and authentic the Word of God proves to be, we can use this source as a viable, trustworthy reference. Besides the historical evidence of Jesus the Bible has to offer on its own, there are non-biblical testimonies written by at least 19 early pagan writers who refer to Jesus Christ as an actual, real life, historical figure. To name a few: Tactius, a great historian of Rome; Suetonius, also a historian; Pliny, the Younger, one of the leaders of the Roman empire; Epictetus; Lucian, Aristides, Galenus, Lampridius, Dio Cassius, Emeritus, Annianus, Marcellinus, Eunapius, and Zosimus. Some even wrote entire works about Jesus, such as Lucian, Celsus, Porphyry, Hieracles, and Julian the Apostate.

Tactius, born in A.D. 55 and the most famous Roman historian, gives a thorough account of Christianity:

-Christ, the founder of the Christian sect, was put to death as a malefactor by Pontius Pilate
-Christianity began in Judea and spread despite Christ's ignominious death
-Christianity encountered hatred and contempt throughout the Roman empire, and vast multitudes of Christians were cruelly put to death in Rome by the hands of Nero as late as A.D. 64
-The Jerusalem temple was destroyed and the Jewish people were subjugated, which was a fulfillment of Christ's prophecy(Josephus also wrote on these events)

Pliny, the Younger, a contemporary of Tactius, wrote a letter to emperor Trajan in A.D. 112. He expressed shear panic that Christianity was rapidly spreading through Asia Minor and made mention both the moral purity and the cruel persecution of these Christians. He also observed several of their beliefs such as worshiping on the first day of the week and their adoration as Jesus Christ as God.

Celsus, a Greek philosopher and the first great anti-Christian writer, penned the second-century book, A True Discourse, dismissing Christianity. Even Celsus, who greatly despised the Christian faith, bears witness to the antiquity of the apostolic writings and refers to the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John with eighty allusions and quotations from the New Testament. Here are some particulars Celsus wrote about the Christian belief in Jesus Christ:

-He was born of a virgin in the a village of Judea
-He was adored by wise men
-His birth was followed by the death of infants ordered by Herod
-He took flight to Egypt where Celsus supposes he learned the charms of Magicians
-After returning from Egypt he resided in Nazareth
-He was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him as a voice was heard from Heaven
-He elected disciples
-He cured the lame and the blind
-He raised people from the dead
-He was betrayed by Judas
-He was denied by Peter

He even refers to Christ's passion, crucifixion, and resurrection. He regards all these events as history and in no way paints Jesus as a mythological figure. Celsus, as anti-Christian as he was, knew he wouldn't be intellectually credible otherwise, and regards Jesus Christ as a historical figure.

Charles Darwin, as many of us know, developed the theory of evolution, which had an enormous impact on not only how humans look at their origins, but how they understand life and reality. Once a Christian himself, he abandoned his belief and even stated he could not believe in Jesus or the Bible, yet later in his life, he once wrote for a newspaper in London:



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
"They forget or will not remember those who minimize the work of missionaries in pagan countries. They forget or will not remember the human sacrifices and the power of an idolatrous priesthood; a system of profligacy unparalleled in another part of the world; infanticide, a consequence of that system; bloody wars where conquers spared neither women nor children-that all of these have been abolished in all the savage islands. And that dishonesty and temperance and licentiousness have been greatly reduced by Christianity. In a voyager, to forget those things is base ingratitude. For should he chance to be at point of a shipwreck on some unknown coast, he will most devoutly pray that the lesson of the missionary may have reached thus far."

Will Durant, one of the greatest historians of this century, and to my knowledge not a Christian, puts the matter of Christ's historicity to rest in his third volume entitled Caesar and Christ:

"The contradictions [in the Gospel] are of minutiae [trivial detail], not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so serve that by them a hundred ancient worthies- e.g Hammurabi, David, Socrates-would fade into legend."

H.L Mencken, a brilliant, volatile journalist, Atheist and evolutionist, despised Christianity, or any religious sect for that matter, yet in 1930, he wrote a work entitled Treaties of the Gods and wrote:

"The historicity of Jesus is no longer questioned seriously by anyone, whether Christian or unbeliever. So when I tell you it's not questioned by historians or skeptics, here is a famous skeptic telling you that it is no longer questioned seriously by anyone...Unless the whole New Testament is rejected as moonshine, it seems to be certain that many persons saw him after his supposed death on the cross, including not a few who were violently disinclined to believe in his resurrection. Upon that theory, the most civilized section of the human race has erected a structure of ideas and practices so vast in scope and so powerful in effect that the whole range of history shows nothing parallel."

In short, no scholar or historian worthy of their title doubts whether Jesus of Nazareth really existed.

Now that we've covered the Bibles credible authenticity and officially perceived Jesus Christ as a living, breathing historical figure, this only leaves me with a question for skeptics:
Can we agree to disagree? I'm not asking you to follow Christ, but merely to acknowledge His existence and the antiquity of the Bible.

I relish the opportunity to altercate philosophies and ideologies with some of the great minds on ATS.

I will continue to edit and list other references for this information. I was inspired by the author of Skeptics Answered, D. James Kennedy.
edit on 29-9-2011 by DanteMustDie because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2011 by DanteMustDie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I don't doubt he existed, but I think his story was embellished just a little bit. I mean if you are a repressed jew living under the roman boot heel, would you rather follow the son of God, or just some crazy carpenter that spoke out against the romans. As for the bible, the fact that the council of Nicaea picked and chose which books they would follow and which would be burned, tells me there is nothing authentic about it. If it was organically culled together from the texts it would be a different story, but it wasn't. Christianity post council of Nicaea was Rome's attempt to keep the power of their empire intact, and it worked out pretty well for them I would say. If you really wanted to prove the bible's authenticity you would have gotten God's original shorthand manuscript.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
This is great, I have been thinking about making a post similar to this thanks for sparing me the trouble..



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I agree with DarkKnight...I have no qualms about him existing. It's the stories of his "miracles" that I don't believe. I just don't see how someone can walk on water, raise a person from the dead, turn water into wine and it not be recorded anywhere else, or replicated for that matter in the two thousand years that follow.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
GREAT POST! I have been contemplating posting something similar here, but I don't think I could have done it as concisely and elequently as you have.

I also note, no comments yet by the scoffers.....yet.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
To each his own, I personally don't believe in jesus or god. I believe in the sun but that is because of my heritage. i don't condemn anybodies beliefs....but then i don't understand why we have no remains for him we have remains for king tut but none for jesus and his people? where did they go? did they turn to dust?



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SerialVelocity
I agree with DarkKnight...I have no qualms about him existing. It's the stories of his "miracles" that I don't believe. I just don't see how someone can walk on water, raise a person from the dead, turn water into wine and it not be recorded anywhere else, or replicated for that matter in the two thousand years that follow.

Have you ever heard of Satan?



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Dezero
 


Yes I have heard of Satan and have seen no proof of his existence either.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkKnight76
 


Too much is made of the Council of Nicea. Because of "The Da Vinici Code" too many think this was the big "conspiracy" to fake the Bible, twist it, etc. The movie's portrail of the council is largely fiction. In actuallity it was more of an editorial meeting.

First there were several councils. I haven't read much on it recently, so I might be mistaken but it can basicly be viewed it as a means to catagory and catalogue the writings on a factual basis and attain a consensous on what was and wasn't part of the expanding Christian faith. There was also discussion of early doctrine and to establish canon. With the exception of the Torah, there wasn't an official Bible yet. Just a collection of books, letters, histories, commentaries, etc. An attempt was made to collect those into one volume...the modern Bible (mostly in the later councils).

Yes some writings were left out. Others were later added into the Apocrypha of the Catholic Bible, but are not in modern translations. (Interestingly one of the bigger ones is the 3 books of the Macobes (sp)?. A great history of greek influence on the region about 100years prior to Christ and attempts by Hebrews to combat the growing hellinization brought about by Alexander the Great). Interesting stuff, but not really relating to the main theme of man's message from GOD. I don't recall anything being destroyed in studying this, and of course if it was we might not know. Other then if you had your info destroyed, and it invaladated the whole thing, someone would likely have popped up with a copy later. The vast majority of writings I beleive are still available, but to my knowledge they don't invalidate anything, just provide commentary.

Now I am motivated to go back and reread info on the council's. But nevertheless, that's often thrown into discourse but not widely understood.
edit on 29-9-2011 by SrWingCommander because: SP and additions



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Nice to see the balance redressed from time to time.

Some years ago I had some discussions along the same lines here:

New Testament documents - are they reliable?

Here's the full text of the book which formed the basis of some of the discussion:

The New Testament documents: are they reliable? (By FF Bruce)




posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DanteMustDie
 


You are fighting phantoms.

Your rational opposition gives a fig about the bible's postulated inner coherence (as 34.000 different christianities already have settled THAT problem), and also gives a fig about the fake-methodologies christians rather desperately use to give the basic doctrines some semblance of rationality.

What we, your opposition concentrate upon, is your approach and relationship to what's commonly called 'reality', and before you can can claim any respectabilty in that area, you need to present more than propagandistic, uninformed circle-arguments.

Question: The computer you're sitting with now, is not a result of rational procedure??

Is it: "It's 'god' what done it?"

We're talking the basic principles of 'reality'-seeking. Not what mythological manuals say.

Flying spaghetti monster, give me strength to meet repetitive singlemindedness. (This is the pastafarian equalent to saying: 'Sinners' will go to hell')



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



The argument can be reduced to this: A book was written. Are the claims valid? It has been demonstrated that the book itself is a valid writing and modern copies are accurate.. You may debate the book's claims or beleive the contents to be a fairy tale. But many of the opposition want to go back and claim the book wasn't even written...or written/copied incorrectly, altered, etc. You continue to argue the first point, which in academia is pretty much settled.

Essentially we are on the subhject of the claims. There is substantial archeological and historical findings to assertain that at least SOME of the claims are factual. Including the personage of Jesus Christ. The OP was essentially posting that the Book itself insofar as the writtings are correct (as in what was written then is what we have now) and the main persona of the Book (Jesus Christ), was a real person.

You may not beleive the claims, but lets stop being intellectually dishonest by saying the book was tampered with, and the person didn't exist; this is the OP point.
edit on 29-9-2011 by SrWingCommander because: spelling and add content.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by DanteMustDie
 


You are fighting phantoms.

Your rational opposition gives a fig about the bible's postulated inner coherence (as 34.000 different christianities already have settled THAT problem), and also gives a fig about the fake-methodologies christians rather desperately use to give the basic doctrines some semblance of rationality.

What we, your opposition concentrate upon, is your approach and relationship to what's commonly called 'reality', and before you can can claim any respectabilty in that area, you need to present more than propagandistic, uninformed circle-arguments.

Question: The computer you're sitting with now, is not a result of rational procedure??

Is it: "It's 'god' what done it?"

We're talking the basic principles of 'reality'-seeking. Not what mythological manuals say.

Flying spaghetti monster, give me strength to meet repetitive singlemindedness. (This is the pastafarian equalent to saying: 'Sinners' will go to hell')


You think there are so many denominations of Christians by chance? That is why it is the truth. If Satan wishes to deceive people would it not be easier to first divide the people.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Good op, but
Its not exactly an unbiased approach and you need to address more fully what attacks are made upon the authenticity of the , bible.
Nicea is identified as a place and an act you are now in the position of having to defend . It is in fact unrelated to the authenticity of the various component books , but different authorship .

A more concentrated approach where you specify 'each' book , not 'the' book (which has become a composite product) may have more effect . Isaiah and the dead sea scrolls > you included a perfect example , but explore the particulars further . The books of Isaiah , Jeremiah , Ezekiel , and Job , are like mini-bibles all to themselves , not to mention proverbs , psalms and the revelation . They all have determined authenticity , and for example the first 3 (the major prophets) are historically, and prophetically, interlinked too .

The trouble I personally have with your assertion is that , no matter how hard you try , you cannot legitimise or authenticate the obvious departure from the precendent examples of the old testament . Even though nearer in the past , I view Paul as an imposter , his epistles as the work of manipulation and deception . No wonder the Niceans picked his account , in virtual solidity the new testament is filled with his diatribe . it suited the empire to the ground .
And put in perspective the council of nicea did not have alot of choice as to which books of the old testment to include . In choosing if they were going to have a religion with any validity at all , bar the lies of Paul , they had to include the gospels and of course Isaiah et al , right back to Genesis , as well..



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dezero

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by DanteMustDie
 


You are fighting phantoms.

Your rational opposition gives a fig about the bible's postulated inner coherence (as 34.000 different christianities already have settled THAT problem), and also gives a fig about the fake-methodologies christians rather desperately use to give the basic doctrines some semblance of rationality.

What we, your opposition concentrate upon, is your approach and relationship to what's commonly called 'reality', and before you can can claim any respectabilty in that area, you need to present more than propagandistic, uninformed circle-arguments.

Question: The computer you're sitting with now, is not a result of rational procedure??

Is it: "It's 'god' what done it?"

We're talking the basic principles of 'reality'-seeking. Not what mythological manuals say.

Flying spaghetti monster, give me strength to meet repetitive singlemindedness. (This is the pastafarian equalent to saying: 'Sinners' will go to hell')


You think there are so many denominations of Christians by chance? That is why it is the truth. If Satan wishes to deceive people would it not be easier to first divide the people.



Invertedly:

The uniformity of basic* science/logic/pragmatic/rational-reasoning/philosophical conclusions must then be a sign of 'god's' approval of this (as diversity is a sign of the 'devil').

In your peculiar 'logic' meaning, that 'god' actually is on the side of science etc, and against you.

Ofcourse this is all non-sense, but it's non-sense on your terms.

* Please notice the word basic.
edit on 29-9-2011 by bogomil because: typo



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I believe in God and Jesus, but I would never call myself a christian. There are plenty of honest God-fearing people who sincerely seek the truth an will not settle for man's traditions and religious catch phrases. Todays church leaders and majority of church attenders are no better than politicians. They do not follow any of the teachings that Christ taught. Because of self righteous, superior attitudes the church unknowingly supports genocide, sanctions, slavery, greed and is severely brainwashed. The teachings of Christ that the "church" ignores and even goes against:
Live by the sword, die by the sword
Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord
Turn the other cheek
Love thy neighbor
Greater love hath no man then to lay down his life for a friend
Wealthy people must sell belongings they dont need and share with the poor

Church teaching
Slaughter the enemy
Respect and support corrupt military/govt
Love only those you choose, unless its in public
Make as much money for as litte as possible
Look down your noses at anyone who is homeless, addicted, on welfare extc



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by Dezero

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by DanteMustDie
 


You are fighting phantoms.

Your rational opposition gives a fig about the bible's postulated inner coherence (as 34.000 different christianities already have settled THAT problem), and also gives a fig about the fake-methodologies christians rather desperately use to give the basic doctrines some semblance of rationality.

What we, your opposition concentrate upon, is your approach and relationship to what's commonly called 'reality', and before you can can claim any respectabilty in that area, you need to present more than propagandistic, uninformed circle-arguments.

Question: The computer you're sitting with now, is not a result of rational procedure??

Is it: "It's 'god' what done it?"

We're talking the basic principles of 'reality'-seeking. Not what mythological manuals say.

Flying spaghetti monster, give me strength to meet repetitive singlemindedness. (This is the pastafarian equalent to saying: 'Sinners' will go to hell')


You think there are so many denominations of Christians by chance? That is why it is the truth. If Satan wishes to deceive people would it not be easier to first divide the people.



Invertedly:

The uniformity of basic* science/logic/pragmatic/rational-reasoning/philosophical conclusions must then be a sign of 'god's' approval of this (as diversity is a sign of the 'devil').

In your peculiar 'logic' meaning, that 'god' actually is on the side of science etc, and against you.

Ofcourse this is all non-sense, but it's non-sense on your terms.

* Please notice the word basic.
edit on 29-9-2011 by bogomil because: typo

Where did you get the idea that diversity is a sign of the devil?
I was merely pointing out that the devil attempts to divide people by deception of their own beliefs. A lot of Christians are blocked from seeing truth purely by their inability to be honest with themselves.
Most people who have a dislike of something will take the first negative thing they see regarding this subject and lap it up without investigating fully. This is classic when it comes to atheists in particular.

Your hatred towards Christianity or organized religion is what is actually blocking you from discovering the truth.
Did you ever think of that?
I'm perplexed that so many conspiracy theorists on this site are not Christians. When so many people who expose these thing's are Christians.

My cousin recently told me he doesn't believe in God. He read The God delusion and now he's a converted atheist. I asked him if he investigated Christianity read the bible or prayed for direction before he came to his conclusion, he said no.
And there we have it, he didn't want to believe in the first place. He lives his life of self indulgence and he doesn't want God to intrude on his enjoyment. It is really simple when you look at it.
The truth is always simple, that is why atheists usually have above average intelligence, because the theory is too complex for the simple mind.
Ravi Zacharias sums it up pretty well in this video



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 



Nicea is identified as a place and an act you are now in the position of having to defend . It is in fact unrelated to the authenticity of the various component books , but different authorship .



As for the bible, the fact that the council of Nicaea picked and chose which books they would follow and which would be burned, tells me there is nothing authentic about it.

That is all myth. There is no documentation whatsoever proving this allegation. There are many primary materials left from the Council Nicea, none of which states them even addressing the books of the Bible, much less discarding them. There were 20 canons passed by the Council of Nicea, and none mentioned the books. There's a letter from Eusebius back to his church at Caesarea, preserved in The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus and in Athanasius' Defense of the Nicene Definition, letters from Constantine and the council passing on it's decisions to the churches, and even a description of the proceedings in the writings of Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea. To suggest the books were discarded or altered is historically inaccurate.


.but then i don't understand why we have no remains for him we have remains for king tut but none for jesus and his people? where did they go? did they turn to dust?

Jesus ascended into Heaven after his resurrection. His disciples didn't even have proper burials. King Tut had a tomb.


What we, your opposition concentrate upon, is your approach and relationship to what's commonly called 'reality', and before you can can claim any respectabilty in that area, you need to present more than propagandistic, uninformed circle-arguments.

The point I was making was Jesus' historical presence and the antiquity of the Bible. I can in no way prove Jesus was the Son of God, or his miracles, for the record. The spiritual aspect of the Bible was not mentioned in my thread, so there's little point in mentioning it.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join