There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Colt]

Atheists don't have a leader, that's the beauty of thinking for one's self. It's the religious that are members of a herd and in need of a shepherd.

LoL! You have a leader, his rebellion against the rule of the Father began long ago.

 

[lukethethird]

LoL! You have a leader, his rebellion against the rule of the Father began long ago.

There is no rule of the Father, that's in your head and it's your problem.

 

[dybmh]

Atheists don't have a leader, that's the beauty of thinking for one's self. It's the religious that are members of a herd and in need of a shepherd.

But they've got team jerseys and a mascot:

 

[nPeace]

I feel like I'm in some kind of religious Twilight Zone here. Do either you or Augustus know ANYTHING about how Biblical scholarship works? Or even the law?

There's a very good reason why hearsay is not allowed into court: it's unreliable witness. And that's just 2nd hand testimony. In the case of Tacitus writing about Chrestus a full 100 years later that's what? 200th-hand information? And there's a question if the Chrestus is even a mistaken Christus. I showed you the facsimile of the word, Chrestus and how the "e" in Chrestus was changed to an "i" to make it appear like Christus instead of Chrestus. Who do you think made the change, God? Here it is again for those of you who missed it:

View attachment 78322

I've learned over the years that Christians cannot be persuaded of something no mater how strong the evidence against it is if it contradicts their deeply-held beliefs. It's pointless for me to try to convince you and Augusta that there's simply no evidence for Jesus. As for Tacitus, here's what Bart Ehrman says about reliable witness for something. This is from his debate with WL Craig and it occurs at 23:56 of the video below:

"What evidence do scholars look for when trying to establish probabilities in the past? Well, the best kind of evidence of course consists of contemporary accounts; people who were close to the time of the events themselves."

We have nothing in Tacitus contemporary with Jesus' crucifixion--unless you're crazy enough to try to pass off 200th hand narrative as contemporary. Go for it, nPeace and Augustus. I mean that's what Christians are so good at.

Are all scholars aware of this alleged fraud you speak of?
Can you explain why virtually all credible scholars have rejected the assertion that the Annals of Tacitus are either inaccurate or forged.

The issue originally was never about whether Jesus appeared to 5 or 500 and whether they were disciples or little green men. If you'll look back at my post #922 I raised the issue of Jesus appearing to the 500 because Jesus didn't have any trouble appearing to people outside those associated with the Bible. Jesus could have appeared to 500 or 5000 or 500,000 according to Paul's report and it wouldn't have changed my point.

I know exactly what the issue raised in your post is.

My point was that if Jesus didn't have any trouble appearing to 500 then why didn't he just appear to 50,000 in Rome and tell them that he had been crucified, died and risen for their sins? Wouldn't that have helped facilitate the spread of his gospel?

It's clear what you point is.
I'll make mine clear.

Jesus appeared to people who were putting faith in him.
Is that hard to understand?

Consider...
Jesus did a work during three and a half years... to be continued by his followers.
During that time, Jesus performed works, of which he said... "I have the witness greater than that of John, for the very works that my Father assigned me to accomplish, these works that I am doing, bear witness that the Father sent me." (John 5:36)

In effect, Jesus said, "Look. I am demonstrating - giving you all the evidence you need, to put faith in me, and believe that God sent me."
Yet, people were saying to him, “What are you performing as a sign, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you doing?" (John 6:30)
That chapter, John 6, highlight what Jesus knew about his audience.

So that, on one occasion, in response to they asking for a sign, Jesus said... “A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except... the sign of Jonah the prophet." Matthew 12:39

The point is this.
(Matthew 13:12) . . .whoever has, more will be given him, and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
Those who gained, or grasped what should have been grasped, are given more. They get to see what the unbelieving ones won't see.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Parents give their children more responsibility in measure, based on the level of responsibility they show.
For example, no parent is going to give their son, a BMW, if that son does not show they are responsible enough to look after their own phone... several of which they lost.

Jesus will not perform a sign as a show, to people who demonstrate thy won't believe even if he were to 'do the impossible'.
He lived what he taught.
“Do not give what is holy to dogs nor throw your pearls before swine, so that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open. (Matthew 7:6)

You're asking, "Is it possible Tacitus..." or, "Would it be illogical to think that Tacitus...." and my response is, "Yes, it's possible. Anything is possible. It's possible Jesus appeared to Tacitus and laid out the whole plan of redemption for him."

That was not my question. Not if it's possible, but do you object to what's actually in the records.

But do we have any written evidence Tacitus drew upon earlier histories? You say, "Tacitus consulted this person and that person. He also turned to the Senate's records." Do we have those records today? Did they survive? If those records are extant and they are the ones Tacitus used, then obviously we have extra-Biblical historic records that mention Jesus and the Christians. Why aren't we discussing those records right now? If you know of these records, nPeace then please squash this debate right now and show them to us. I'll shut my mouth right this minute and never speak of Jesus not existing again if you can simply produce the Senate records you think Tacitus used to write his passage about the Christians and Chrestus.

Go for it.

Thank you. Have a heart.

Tacitus was able to draw upon earlier histories that contained material from the public records, official reports, and contemporary comment.
Among other sources Tacitus consulted Servilius Nonianus
Marcus Servilius Nonianus (died in 59 AD) was a Roman senator, best known as a historian. He was ordinary consul in 35 as the colleague of Gaius Cestius Gallus. Tacitus described Servilius Nonianus as a man of great eloquence and good-nature. He wrote a history of Rome which is considered the major contribution on the topic between the works of Livy and Tacitus, and which was much referred to by later historians, but was later lost. A number of anecdotes regarding him survive and help to give an understanding of Roman life in the first century.

Titus Livius ; 59 BC – AD 17), was a Roman historian. He wrote a monumental history of Rome and the Roman people, ..., covering the period from the earliest legends of Rome before the traditional founding in 753 BC through the reign of Augustus in Livy's own lifetime. He was on familiar terms with members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and a friend of Augustus, whose young grandnephew, the future emperor Claudius, he exhorted to take up the writing of history.

Tacitus consulted BASSUS, AUFIDIUS, a Roman historian, who lived in the reign of Tiberius. His work, which probably began with the civil wars or the death of Caesar, was continued by the elder Pliny, who, as he himself tells us, carried it down at least as far as the end of Nero’s reign. The Bellum Germanicum of Bassus, which is commended, may have been either a separate work or a section of his general history. The elder Seneca speaks highly of him as an historian, but the fragments preserved in that writer’s Suasoriae (vi. 23) relating to the death of Cicero, are characterized by an affected style.

Tacitus consulted Marcus Cluvius Rufus was a Roman consul, senator, governor, and historian who was mentioned on several occasions by Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Josephus and Plutarch.
Cluvius Rufus was an important historian whose writing and testimony, though now lost, certainly shaped modern understanding of first century Rome.

You are free to respond.
Are you a man to your word?

 

[nPeace]

Of course Biblical archeologists don't think that, they read The Bible into everything and they know what side their bread is buttered on. Read what religiously neutral archeologists have to say about Biblical archeologists and their "discoveries."

No. Unless you also decide that Biblical archaeologist are only those who are not religious.
Is that biased thinking what you are suggesting?

 

[F1fan]

Ummmm, because they do not accept anything non-material.

Have you demonstrated that a non-material anything exists? Has anyone?

At best non-material means imaginary, so how is it a fault to not accept the non-material as real?

You never explained how this is a limitation.

No..... the point is, if a question includes a premise, then the answer does not need to prove the premise is true.

All premises have to be true already.

Well, maybe your observations are wrong, and those questions presumed.

Theists can't manage to show I'm wrong, or any other critical thinker, so why would I assume their supernatural assumptions are true and my skepticism is wrong? You tell me why theist fail miserably to demonstrate there is any Gods, angels, demons, devils, and any other suvernatural being they so easily claim exists?

 

[Audie]

Are all scholars aware of this alleged fraud you speak of?
Can you explain why virtually all credible scholars have rejected the assertion that the Annals of Tacitus are either inaccurate or forged.


I know exactly what the issue raised in your post is.


It's clear what you point is.
I'll make mine clear.

Jesus appeared to people who were putting faith in him.
Is that hard to understand?

Consider...
Jesus did a work during three and a half years... to be continued by his followers.
During that time, Jesus performed works, of which he said... "I have the witness greater than that of John, for the very works that my Father assigned me to accomplish, these works that I am doing, bear witness that the Father sent me." (John 5:36)

In effect, Jesus said, "Look. I am demonstrating - giving you all the evidence you need, to put faith in me, and believe that God sent me."
Yet, people were saying to him, “What are you performing as a sign, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you doing?" (John 6:30)
That chapter, John 6, highlight what Jesus knew about his audience.

So that, on one occasion, in response to they asking for a sign, Jesus said... “A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except... the sign of Jonah the prophet." Matthew 12:39

The point is this.
(Matthew 13:12) . . .whoever has, more will be given him, and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
Those who gained, or grasped what should have been grasped, are given more. They get to see what the unbelieving ones won't see.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Parents give their children more responsibility in measure, based on the level of responsibility they show.
For example, no parent is going to give their son, a BMW, if that son does not show they are responsible enough to look after their own phone... several of which they lost.

Jesus will not perform a sign as a show, to people who demonstrate thy won't believe even if he were to 'do the impossible'.
He lived what he taught.
“Do not give what is holy to dogs nor throw your pearls before swine, so that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open. (Matthew 7:6)


That was not my question. Not if it's possible, but do you object to what's actually in the records.


Thank you. Have a heart.

Tacitus was able to draw upon earlier histories that contained material from the public records, official reports, and contemporary comment.
Among other sources Tacitus consulted Servilius Nonianus
Marcus Servilius Nonianus (died in 59 AD) was a Roman senator, best known as a historian. He was ordinary consul in 35 as the colleague of Gaius Cestius Gallus. Tacitus described Servilius Nonianus as a man of great eloquence and good-nature. He wrote a history of Rome which is considered the major contribution on the topic between the works of Livy and Tacitus, and which was much referred to by later historians, but was later lost. A number of anecdotes regarding him survive and help to give an understanding of Roman life in the first century.

Titus Livius ; 59 BC – AD 17), was a Roman historian. He wrote a monumental history of Rome and the Roman people, ..., covering the period from the earliest legends of Rome before the traditional founding in 753 BC through the reign of Augustus in Livy's own lifetime. He was on familiar terms with members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and a friend of Augustus, whose young grandnephew, the future emperor Claudius, he exhorted to take up the writing of history.

Tacitus consulted BASSUS, AUFIDIUS, a Roman historian, who lived in the reign of Tiberius. His work, which probably began with the civil wars or the death of Caesar, was continued by the elder Pliny, who, as he himself tells us, carried it down at least as far as the end of Nero’s reign. The Bellum Germanicum of Bassus, which is commended, may have been either a separate work or a section of his general history. The elder Seneca speaks highly of him as an historian, but the fragments preserved in that writer’s Suasoriae (vi. 23) relating to the death of Cicero, are characterized by an affected style.

Tacitus consulted Marcus Cluvius Rufus was a Roman consul, senator, governor, and historian who was mentioned on several occasions by Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Josephus and Plutarch.
Cluvius Rufus was an important historian whose writing and testimony, though now lost, certainly shaped modern understanding of first century Rome.

You are free to respond.
Are you a man to your word?

We wonder wouldn't it make ore sense
to appear to those who didn't have faith.

Like Pilate: " Hey ya moldy swab! Ya wanna
try that again?"
That would sure make me a believer.

 

[Audie]

Have you demonstrated that a non-material anything exists? Has anyone?

At best non-material means imaginary, so how is it a fault to not accept the non-material as real?

You never explained how this is a limitation.

All premises have to be true already.

Theists can't manage to show I'm wrong, or any other critical thinker, so why would I assume their supernatural assumptions are true and my skepticism is wrong? You tell me why theist fail miserably to demonstrate there is any Gods, angels, demons, devils, and any other suvernatural being they so easily claim exists?

Emperor, new cloak

 

[Audie]

No. Unless you also decide that Biblical archaeologist are only those who are not religious.
Is that biased thinking what you are suggesting?

It's fine to be religious.
It's not fine to let presuppositions
be the guide.

Flood- believer geologists for example would
have great difficulty being honest about
the total failure to find ant physical sign of it.
Like a tobacco researchers hired by RJ
Reynolds closing his eyes to what tobacco does

 

[Thrillobyte]

Are all scholars aware of this alleged fraud you speak of?
Can you explain why virtually all credible scholars have rejected the assertion that the Annals of Tacitus are either inaccurate or forged.

I'll let you read:

"The factual accuracy of Tacitus work is indeed questionable. It is based largely on a secondary source of unknown reliability"

'how Accurate An Historian Was Tacitus?' - History Resource

The Tutor Hunt network helps both tutors and students find each other. Search by level, subject and location, create your own tutor or student profile for free.

www.tutorhunt.com

I know exactly what the issue raised in your post is.

So answer the question: if Jesus had no problem appearing to 500 post-resurrected, why does he have such a problem appearing to people now? Maybe because in reality he never appeared to anybody, it's all just mythology because he's a myth?

Jesus appeared to people who were putting faith in him.
Is that hard to understand?

Try this: in reality this "Jesus wants you to put your trust in him purely on faith without any evidence" gets preached because it's easy as pie to dupe gullible dopes into believing in something when you HAVE no evidence to prove it. All you have to do is just tell them, "God wants you to believe in Jesus without a shred of evidence he is real. That makes God happy." And gullible fools scratch their heads and say, "Well, if God wants me to do it then I guess it's the right thing to do. I know you wouldn't lie to me about something so serious so you must be telling the truth."

Does that sound about right?

Tacitus was able to draw upon earlier histories that contained material from the public records, official reports, and contemporary comment.
Among other sources Tacitus consulted Servilius Nonianus
Marcus Servilius Nonianus (died in 59 AD) was a Roman senator, best known as a historian. He was ordinary consul in 35 as the colleague of Gaius Cestius Gallus. Tacitus described Servilius Nonianus as a man of great eloquence and good-nature. He wrote a history of Rome which is considered the major contribution on the topic between the works of Livy and Tacitus, and which was much referred to by later historians, but was later lost. A number of anecdotes regarding him survive and help to give an understanding of Roman life in the first century.

Titus Livius ; 59 BC – AD 17), was a Roman historian. He wrote a monumental history of Rome and the Roman people, ..., covering the period from the earliest legends of Rome before the traditional founding in 753 BC through the reign of Augustus in Livy's own lifetime. He was on familiar terms with members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and a friend of Augustus, whose young grandnephew, the future emperor Claudius, he exhorted to take up the writing of history.

Tacitus consulted BASSUS, AUFIDIUS, a Roman historian, who lived in the reign of Tiberius. His work, which probably began with the civil wars or the death of Caesar, was continued by the elder Pliny, who, as he himself tells us, carried it down at least as far as the end of Nero’s reign. The Bellum Germanicum of Bassus, which is commended, may have been either a separate work or a section of his general history. The elder Seneca speaks highly of him as an historian, but the fragments preserved in that writer’s Suasoriae (vi. 23) relating to the death of Cicero, are characterized by an affected style.

Tacitus consulted Marcus Cluvius Rufus was a Roman consul, senator, governor, and historian who was mentioned on several occasions by Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Josephus and Plutarch.
Cluvius Rufus was an important historian whose writing and testimony, though now lost, certainly shaped modern understanding of first century Rome.

You are free to respond.
Are you a man to your word?

The source for this is Britannica. That's a good source. But this is about Tacitus as a historian in general. Do you have anything that says to the effect that Tacitus consulted all these great Roman historians about Jesus and Christians and Chrestus? Note that none of your cited Roman historians were in Israel in the time of Jesus and Titus Livius wasn't even living in a time when Jesus started his ministry. How would these people know a thing about Jesus? If you're saying, "This proves Tacitus was an excellent historian who used 1st-rate sources" I'd say, "That's questionable far as the Christians passage goes because Tacitus doesn't give a single citation for how he got his information. Did he get it from Nero? From colleagues? From Christians? From writings about Christians from lost sources?

You tell me, nPeace: who did Tacitus get his info about the Christians from?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

And take out humanity as well, so was that part of God's plan too?
Just not in a clear way.
Just as God planned for, right, since God doesn't get surprized. So what happens to humans is outside of our control.
That hasn't worked.
That hasn't happened.
This hasn't happened.
No date?
The why did God create death in the first place?

Resurrection is restoration of life - John 6:40,44
What happens to humans is Not out of God's control. We are promised a resurrection at Acts 24:15
Sure, some things have Not happened yet, that does Not mean it won't happen
God does have a set date, and we have a date with destiny - Habakkuk 2:3; Matt. 25:31-33
As far as death: we can see if no animals, no birds, no bugs, no fish etc. died earth would be out of balance.
Even humans were only to reproduce until earth was full, earth was populated Not over populated - Gen. 1:28
Adam was forewarned that there only would be human death if Adam broke God's Law.
Jesus will reverse enemy death on earth - 1st Cor. 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Spiritual death will be no more on earth. Physical death will always exist on earth since human bodies were created by God as mortal.

In the Bible, mortal Adam was offered everlasting human life on Earth forever if he did Not break God's law found at Genesis 2:17
Heaven was not meant to be a stepping stone for humans.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

........................ What is the point that you are trying to make, that johnny come lately historians writing in the second century account for something?

Which one of the people mentioned wrote in the 2nd Century _____________________

 

[nPeace]

Reading your words that reveal your beliefs and attitudes. The more fervent a Christian the lkess they tend to follow Jesus.

That's so foreign to I conclude you don't seem sure you are Christian, and here is why.
Sounds more like preaching to atheists.

What I mean is many atheists are loving, charitable, kind to others, they accept gays and other categories of people that far right Christians target, etc. They have a similar moral and loving character that is consistent with what Jesus taught, but the atheists don't have to follow anyone since they think for themselves. The oddity of many more conservative christians is why they bother to be aligned to Christianity but don't botehr to follow what Jesus taught. Christians shouldn't condemn gays or have contempt for science, or liberals. Christians should BE liberals poiltically since the republican party has a platform that is in direct opposition to what Jesus advocated for, namely no judgment of sinners and helping the needy.

Is that your true experience?
If we tested it, would your claim prove true, that many atheists "have a similar moral and loving character that is consistent with what Jesus taught"?

I have seen and heard different.
Since I made clear the distinction between Christians, and "Christians", please be aware that, I will always make that distinction when using the term.
Christians refrain from cursing a neighbor, or stranger, whose actions may be irritating.
For example, it's not the Christian you see doing this.

So who would that be?
It's not the Christian you see doing this.

So who would that be?
It's not the Christian doing these things.
That's why signs like these exists.

Whom do you think put them up?
So I think you have the wrong idea of what Jesus taught, and I know why.
People think that helping an old lady carry her goods, or stopping their car to let some ducks across, makes them saint. They feel that makes them 'okay'
They don't consider smoking on the street to be doing their neighbors harm. Nor blasting their music - rubbish in many cases - filled with profanity, violence, or sexual obscenities.
In fact, flirting is cool to them, not harmful... when it actually is. ...and the list goes on.

Thus, they declare themselves morally upright. They declare themselves.
Then compare themselves in order to convince themselves.

This is not to say that some - not most - atheists... who remember their 'Christian' upbringing, or values their religious grandparent tried to instill in them, don't try.
Nor is it to say that some 'Christians' are not involved in these things, but by far, most "Christians" don't. Why?
They are restrained by a number of things - one being what the Bible teaches. Another, is wht others will think about them and their religion.
We aren't talking about hypocrites here.

Because I don;t see many conservative Christians following Jesus, and I'm curious why they claim to be Christian at all.

That's a good question.
I wonder about some here, especially when they attack the only thing that provides a basis for what they claim to believe.
They attack the Bible, for example, which is where we get teachings about God and Christ.

These believers seem to follow a conservative dogma that just exploits the label of "Christian" without the burden of honing decency and morals.

I missed a word in my comment, I was asking what Christians DON'T live in a way that is consistent with what jesus taught if they think what he taught is important. Conservative Christians don't strike me as following Jesus since they condemn gays, trans kids, liberals, lie, cheat, etc. I'm always curious why Christian belief doesn't prevent obvious immoral acts.

This is a fair observation, and consideration.
It's not complicated, but because people quickly dismiss things which cannot be proven, they will always keep wondering, and come up with their own answers, which doesn't correctly answer the question.
Jesus gave the answer at Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43
You don't believe there are wicked spirit beings who influence and manipulate humans though.

Some people think they must see an invisible spirit, in order to believe in them.
I'm not referring to spirits of dead people... which people do believe in, but don't exist.

If you live a life of peace that would be the testimony. Beating people ver the head with cruel dogma and threats of hell is the antithesis.

I agree. Even giving you guys nasty nudges, as I do, is not in harmony with being peaceable with all men.
Only, recently, I attended the "Friends of Peace" Assembly, where we were reminded against giving in to the temptation, to respond in kind, or use sarcastic remarks or subtle jabs.
We do get good reminders on how to imitate God and Christ, but we sometimes are a bit delinquent.
I think we take a little too much rope sometimes.
Gotta stop before that rope hangs us though.

See how you treat it as a product that is possessed for the self? That misses the mark. You see it as an ideal, a dogma, a product to own, but what Jesus taught was about how a person lives their lives, and treats others with decency and kindness. Jesus taught living in service to others.

Maybe you need to get to know Jesus better.
You see, people mistake kindness for tolerance.
So people sing this "sweet Jesus" song, because it make them feel comfortable to live their life however they want. Jesus will overlook that... they tell themselves.
That wasn't Jesus. You need to read the gospels, and forget what your priest told you, to tickle your ears.
If you really want the picture of who Jesus is, I'll be happy to paint it for you... from the Bible, of course.

Being kind does not mean accepting anything people want to do.
Didn't you notice how many times Jesus used the words "hypocrites", "offspring of vipers"?
Remember how he described one who would not be childlike, or the ones who say, but do not do?

People mix up things for their own desires.
Paul said... For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. (2 Timothy 4:3)
Yes, many many pastors water down God's word in order to keep people in their pews, and their collection plates filled.
They don't genuinely care if the people do what Jesus taught, or what the Bible actually says.

Not all do this, but yes, many do.

That is what the business of religion tells you. They want you to follow the religion's dictates and dogma, and give them money.

Many religions fit that bill. True Christianity is different. You would know if you found it.
Jesus said, You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free... if you remain in his word.
He also said, all will know his disciples by the love they have for one another.
I know where money I give goes. It doesn't go to any pastor, or priest.

So you acknowledge that many Christians are frauds.

No. Christians are not frauds, but yes, many "Christians" are like most politicians.

Do you think they are aware they are frauds, or that they accepted a distortion of what Jesus taught and were duped, or both?

Frauds know they are frauds.
I'm not referring to sincere people who really want to know and serve God, but are misled by the money grabbing priests.
There are many sincere people in false religion, and JWs are searching for those friends of peace... finding many of them too, and they respond as peace lovers.
Most of them are sincerely wrong, that's all.
Jesus showed kindness to such ones.
(Matthew 9:36) On seeing the crowds, he felt pity for them, because they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd.

You might pick out your preferred brand of toothpaste, but why have you adopted a Christian set of attitudes that are contrary to what Jesus taught? Your condemnation of atheists is an example that goes against what Jesus taught.

I'm a little hard on them, yes. It doesn't go against Jesus teachings though.
Wait till the judgment message starts. You haven't seen anything yet.
The only thing I am not doing right, is responding in kind, when atheist pull their stunts at ridicule and belittling.
I try to remind myself of the way I ought to respond, but being in the actual pit of the lions, the urge to growl is strong at times.
I'm working on it. It's my training ground.
I'm not like this offline.

You are going out of context here. I'm referring to following religious dogmas and how people conform to one type of Christianaity or religion mostly because they were exposed to it. I'm not referring to language, or speaking style, or cultural influences, just religious belief.

I follow the teachings of the Bible, which is good for all - not just me, because it's God's word - the truth.
To be continued...

 

[F1fan]

Resurrection is restoration of life - John 6:40,44
What happens to humans is Not out of God's control. We are promised a resurrection at Acts 24:15
Sure, some things have Not happened yet, that does Not mean it won't happen
God does have a set date, and we have a date with destiny - Habakkuk 2:3; Matt. 25:31-33
As far as death: we can see if no animals, no birds, no bugs, no fish etc. died earth would be out of balance.
Even humans were only to reproduce until earth was full, earth was populated Not over populated - Gen. 1:28
Adam was forewarned that there only would be human death if Adam broke God's Law.
Jesus will reverse enemy death on earth - 1st Cor. 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8

None of this is factual, so what is your point?

 

[YoursTrue]

That is a grand cop-out. Jesus came here to save people from hell. The easiest way for a god like Jesus to save people from hell is to simply appear to them and show them what he accomplished--show them the wounds in his hands and side. They would have gotten Pilate over to Rome and asked him, "Is this the man you crucified?" and Pilate would have said, "Yes, it is" and Jesus could have converted all 5 million people in Rome at once. That's commonsense.

nPeace said:
"Appearing to the world would have been against everything Jesus said and did."
And you, @Thrillobyte, reacted in your comment above by saying that was a cop-out -- except that what @nPeace said is true. If Jesus appeared to everyone in the world it would have been against everything Jesus said.

 

[lukethethird]

No. Unless you also decide that Biblical archaeologist are only those who are not religious.
Is that biased thinking what you are suggesting?

Archeologists period. Biblical archeologists are a breed of their own.

 

[YoursTrue]

That may be true for some evangelical conservative Christian Trump supporters, but it is not true for all of them.

My family is overwhelmingly evangelical conservative Christians who firmly believe that Trump is a Christian and that God sent him to reclaim America. I'm now estranged from both sides of my family because of how they treated me while I was still a Christian and refused to support and vote for Trump. I have aunts, uncles, and cousins who have turned on me and talked about me behind my back. I was intentionally left out and not invited to our annual family reunion in the summer following Trump's election. I later found out by a friend of the family that I wasn't invited to the reunion because my presence there would have upset everyone else. Unfortunately, the verbal abuse, the bullying, and the harassment increased substantially after I voted for Biden. I had to block the phone numbers of my relatives and former conservative friends, and I blocked a few of them on Facebook. But one of the worst experiences for me was having to call the police on my cousin because he threatened to physically hurt me after he found out that I voted for Biden. I've had conservative friends whom I've known for years turn their backs on me because I don't support Trump. I had to block their phone numbers and block them on Facebook.

And, lastly, I'm a former member of a Christian forum where the majority of the evangelicals genuinely believed and declared in their posts that Trump is a Christian, that God anointed him to reclaim America, and that God appointed him to purge America of liberals. When I initially voiced my objection to Trump in a response to one of these Christians, I was immediately and persistently disparaged, called derogatory names, and accused of not being a true Christian. I was called evil and godless, and I was constantly called a "demon rat." After I informed another member who was also being harassed for not supporting Trump that I had voted for Biden, the harassment intensified even more. I was accused of being demon-possessed and was told that was what caused me to vote for Biden. I was also spitefully reported by several members, which led to my being permanently banned without a warning. But when I reported the members who harassed me, I was told that I was the troublemaker, and I received a warning, not the members who degraded and harassed me. A staff member who secretly sympathized with me emailed me the day after I was banned to let me know about a thread where these members were gloating about how they got me and the other harassed user perma-banned. It was upsetting to read the scathing remarks about me and the other user.

wow, that's kind of sad. Unfortunately these things happen. And please, if I may, Jesus did not pray for any particular country, a kingdom is a governmental arrangement. If he felt God's kingdom was operating on the earth during that time, he would not have taught what is called the Lord's Prayer, essentially asking God to let his kingdom be on the earth. "Our Father in heaven...let your kingdom come..."

 

[YoursTrue]

Archeologists period. Biblical archeologists are a breed of their own.

Depends how you look at it. From Newsweek magazine:
"In 1846—before archaeology even existed as a field—an Assyrian obelisk was discovered in what is today northern Iraq. It referred to Jehu, a ninth-century BC Hebrew king. For the first time, an archaeological find corroborated what was in the Bible, and Victorian society was electrified. But this was only the first in a torrent of similar discoveries that challenged secular claims that the Bible is a collection of made-up myths and folktales."
There's more, it's an interesting article.

Is Archaeology Proving the Bible?

Archaeology has been pointing to the accuracy of the Hebrew scriptures for 170 years. But this latest find is arguably the most astounding of all.

www.newsweek.com

 

[YoursTrue]

This is what convinces me Christianity is actually a demonic religion. Christians support him. That makes Christians in league with demonic forces.

True Christians support the only one that can change humanity for the better, and that is Jesus Christ, who did not teach his disciples to pray for any political candidate, considering his life course anyway, aside from the "Lord's Prayer," "Let your kingdom come..." If he thought the kingdom of God was on the earth at that time, he would not have offered that prayer to his disciples.