i was banned
they banned me.... hmmm
Look, documentation isn't necessary. I think a point should be made that we all believe in the Bible because we have FAITH in it. You can call it what you like (storybook, false, etc) but that won't affect true Christians.
Also, how can you say, "Jesus and Mary were a couple" ... then state that there's no proof of Jesus ever being alive. I mean, if Jesus wasn't alive, then Jesus and Mary couldnt have been a couple, in which case there would be no discussion... if you wanted to bash Jesus's credibility you should have just stated, "I don't believe in Jesus"
PERFECT ANSWER
thats all u need to be a true christian
FAITH have FAITH
basically all religions teach good morals etc, so hey, they are all good to me
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137b.htm
The authenticity or authority of Holy Writ is twofold on account of its twofold authorship. First, the various books which make up the Bible are authentic because they enjoy all the human authority that is naturally due to their respective authors. Second, they possess a higher authenticity, because invested with a Divine, supernatural authority through the Divine authorship which makes them the inspired word of God. Biblical authenticity in its first sense must naturally be considered in the articles on the several books of Sacred Scripture, in its second sense, it springs from Biblical inspiration, for which see INSPIRATION.
The Annals is a gospel
This passage is often cited by Christian scholars as an early witness by a Roman historian to the presence of the Christian movement, as evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, and as evidence for the persecution of Christians by the Romans (see E. Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, pp. 70f). It is a text, therefore, that requires careful and critical examination.
READ THIS if you think that was a good defense
The text is full of difficulties, and there are not a few textual variations in the mss tradition (e.g., "Christianos" or "Chrestianos" or even "Christianus"? - "Christus" or "Chrestos"?) -- which at least reflects the fact that this text has been worked over.
It is not even clear what Tacitus means to say - e.g., whether he implies that the charge of setting the fires brought against Christians was false; whether some Christians were arrested because they set fires and others because of their general "hatred for humankind"; what those persons arrested "confessed" to -- arson or being Christians? -- or whether they were executed by crucifixion or immolation, or some one way and some in another.
But the real question concerns the historical reliability of this information -- i.e., whether we have to do here with a later Christian insertion. When I consider a question such as this, the first question to ask is whether it conceivable or perhaps even probable that later Christians might have modified ancient historical sources; and the answer to this question certainly must be yes! Then, with regard to this particular source, I note that the earliest manuscript we have for the Annales dates from the 11th century, and must therefore have been copied and recopied many times, by generations of Christian scribes (and Christian apologists). So there were certainly opporunities to modify what Tacitus originally wrote.
Furthermore, it is highly remarkable that no other ancient source associates Christians with the burning of Rome until Sulpicius Serverus (Sacred History, 2.29), in the fifth century (c. 408). The dramatic and fantastic description of the tortures suffered by the scapegoats resembles the executions portrayed in legendary Acts of Christian Martyrs. And John Meir (who regards this text as early evidence for pagan recognition of a historical Jesus) tellingly observes (without perceiving its significance): "There is a great historical irony in this text of Tacitus; it is the only time in ancient pagan literature that Pontius Pilate is mentioned by name -- as a way of specifying who Christ is. Pilate's fate in the Christian creeds is already foreshadowed in a pagan historian," -- which could easily indicate Christian apologetic intervention. For all these reasons, therefore, one must at least conclude that this text is too problematical to serve as historical evidence for anything. I myself, however, regard it as probable that we have to do here with a later Christian elaboration.
One might ask whether those passages in Christian or Roman writings before Severus are ones in which we would expect to find a reference to Christians being associated with the burning of Rome, and yet we do not? Well, Tertullian tells his readers, "Consult your sources; you will find there that Nero was the first who assailed with the sword the Christian sect" (Apol 5); but he makes no mention of Christians setting Rome on fire. If Tertullian had read Tacitus (which seems very probable), we would have to assume this information was probably not yet present. Other ancient historians also refer to Nero's persecution of Christians (Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Pliny the Elder), but none of these associates the persecution of Christians with the burning of Rome. Irenaeus makes no reference at all to a persecution under Nero. Origin has little to say about any persecutions. And although Eusebius knows the tradition of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul under Nero (HE 2.25) and even conceives the persecution of Christians under Nero -- "the first of the emperors who showed himself to be the enemy of the divine religion" -- as a kind of salvation-historical turning point in Christian history, he nevertheless makes no reference to the "multitude" of believers who supposedly suffered martyrdom under Nero at the time of the burning of Rome. The silence in early Christian sources concerning this event is deafening.
It is often objected that "no matter what the textual or historical difficulties, no Christian would ever have written such phrases as 'pernicious superstition' or 'the home of the disease' or 'loathed for their vice' " -- that "such a Christian would have let such things stand if he was redacting the passage," and that "there is not a hint of Christian theology or tendentiousness in the entire chapter." This is the most common argument against the possibility of a Christian interpolation here. However, the reference to Christ having been "crucified under Pontius Pilate" is certainly a "hint of Christian theology." As a historicization of the Christian myth it has the same significance here as it does in the Apostles Creed (c. 340). The reference to Christianity as a "pernicious superstition" characterized by "hatred for all humankind" could be verisimilitude, reflecting what Christian apologists later attributed to pagans and what someone thought Tacitus also might have said. The apologetic nuance of even these remarks, however, is the qualification "which was checked for the moment, only to break out once more" -- i.e., the idea that persecution of Christians is of little avail (cf. Acts 5:33-39). We might also ask how many Christians were present in Rome in Nero's time -- enough to constitute an "immense multitude"? The legends concerning persecutions of Christians in early times greatly exaggerate the actual events. (See the careful discussion by Robin Lane Fox in his book Pagans and Christians, 419ff). And the interpolation in Tacitus reflects this tendency.
Even Frend (162) calls attention to the fact that this passage replicates language and motifs from Livy's account of the Bacchanal conspiracy - as something that Tacitus "may have had in mind," since Tacitus describes the persecution of Christians by Nero "in almost identicle terms." Two things are particuarly remarkable here. One is the reference to the "immense multitude" (multitudo ingens) that was convicted, a theme also found in Livy's account, but probably not appropriate for Christians in Rome in 60 CE. And the other is that in both cases the charge involved with setting fires.
Since I have now spent so much time pondering this text, however, I might speculate a bit regarding its possible redactional composition. To begin with, it is not obvious here that Christians or anyone else were charged with setting the fire. The most probable meaning rather is that Nero created a "diversion" (the phrase subdidit reos is vague) in the form of a "spectacle" or "circus" - by "subjecting to the most extra-ordinary tortures those persons hated for their abominations by the common people..." -- i.e., persons later referred to as "criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment" (presumably for various crimes). And this may have been the original content of Tacitus' account, the purpose of which--reflecting his negative opinion of Nero--was to depict Nero in an ugly way: so we are told "... it was not as it seemed for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."
The confusing reference, however, to people being arrested because they "confessed" has the appearance of a Christian motif, as well as the idea that "based on their information," an immense multitude was convicted, which resembles what we read in Pliny and Christian Martyr Acts. So the Christian elaboration may include at least the identification of the despised people as "Christians" (christianos appellabat), the reference to Christ as the founder of the movement, his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, and the revival of the movement in Judea and even in Rome, as well as the references to people confessing to be Christians and then ratting on their Christian brothers, and their being put to death because of their "hatred for the human race.".
It is difficult to determine what else might be Christian elaboration. The description of the tortures suffered by the crimnals resembles what we find in Christian martyr legends. And the reference to "mockery" of those condemed to death and execution by crucifixion could be Christian motifs (cf. Mark 15:29-32; Mt 27:39-44; Lk 23:35-38). But the portrayal of Nero in the gardens driving his chariot may be original. And the conclusion could also be original: "Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."
Notice that the interpolated material constitutes a solid block:
"called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race."
And when this material is removed the text still makes perfect sense.
"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."
One should finally recognize that, as Keresztes correctly observes, the portrayal of Christians being persecuted here suffers from the same ambiguities and difficulties as the crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospels. To be executed in such a way, the Christians would have been brought to trial before a Roman magistrate, where witnesses would be heard and charges evaluated. But as Keresztes observes, "Just as we still do not know the basis of Pilate's condemnation of Christ, we do not know the basis for the condemnation of Tacitus' Christians (ANRW 2.23.1, 253). Keresztes argues that we have to do here an cognito extra ordinem, and that in such cases the "quite abstract idea of odium, 'hatred,' without concrete proof of crimes" was probably sufficient to warrant condemnation to death. But this is unlikely. Keresztes simply assumes what must have been the case in order to make sense of what the Gospels and Tacitus relate when these sources are read uncritically. The entire story makes better sense, however, if Tacitus' original account related the execution of criminals who had already been convicted of serious crimes.
http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBS ... citus.html
Jesus of course. If you think 2 billion Christians is not enough evidence to say that Jesus was important and true then I guess nothing will convince you of anything unless it is something that doesn't convict you.
thats now.. you dont need historical proof to have a lot of followers all you need is to be a great orator. look at hitler, stalin they were great orators and convinced millions through lies.
______________________________________________________
Da Vinci Code is fiction based on history with factual proof
The Bible is based on history without factual proof
if your a true christian u dont need factual proof because u have faith.
wtf someone tried to defend its factuality by quoting the bible
______________________________________________________
Karaite i did read it and it happy.. i easily bore sometimes! (i hadnt slept for 36 hours priar to that so i was tired too) sometimes i have great patience.. the bible was pretty boring i must say, youd think god would be a better writer :roll:
_________________________________________________________
MARK
if 1 person is killed out of a billion it is a trajedy..
what was the population of Nuremburg.. wait WHO CARES that was the focal point, they brought people from all over germany there. AMAZING
<removed link by newseed> im looking for someone to finance the machines and food to make some jeezits.. or u can give me money
just email me @ <removed email link by newseed>
PS why does h2o have so much hate in him. hes angry at me and i havnt done anything
h2o jesus loves u -- o wait ur muslim
wat a diss huh
just kidding man
Muhammad loves u
_________________________________________________________