ChristianForums.net Mission Statement:
ChristianForums.net aspires to provide a place where Christians can come together in fellowship for encouragement, inspiration, and strength to help build each other up and grow in our walk of faith through honest and open discussion, study, reflection, and prayer.

ChristianForums.net desires to serve non-Christians, seeking answers to questions about Christianity, by sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ so they too may acquire the hope, joy, and peace that come from fellowship with the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 123

Thread: Proof of Jesus?

  1. #1
    Men cleanfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    329
    Christian
    Yes

    Proof of Jesus?

    Please register to hide this advertisement.

    I need your help friends. I am a Christian and have been for many, many years.

    After a recent debate with a fellow atheist, he posed a question to me that I have been trying to answer. I am not having much luck to say the least.

    Since the fella is an atheist, I cannot use the Bible at all. His asked me to prove Jesus' existance without using the Bible and only writings not biblically related. He also wanted to make sure that the writings were actually in Jesus time. AD1-AD33.

    I have to say, even with today's internet and google, I have yet to find a writer that wrote of Jesus during the time he actually was on earth.

    Surely there is something? Surely someone, somewhere, wrote about him, or mentioned him?

    MODS: please move if not posted in the correct forum.

  2. #2
    farouk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    11,703
    Christian
    Yes

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    Quote Originally Posted by cleanfreak View Post
    I need your help friends. I am a Christian and have been for many, many years.

    After a recent debate with a fellow atheist, he posed a question to me that I have been trying to answer. I am not having much luck to say the least.

    Since the fella is an atheist, I cannot use the Bible at all. His asked me to prove Jesus' existance without using the Bible and only writings not biblically related. He also wanted to make sure that the writings were actually in Jesus time. AD1-AD33.

    I have to say, even with today's internet and google, I have yet to find a writer that wrote of Jesus during the time he actually was on earth.

    Surely there is something? Surely someone, somewhere, wrote about him, or mentioned him?

    MODS: please move if not posted in the correct forum.
    Don't waste your words.

    You are right to want to see his blessing.

    It isn't going to come with your rational arguments outside of the Bible. He needs to come round to be prepared to read it and see that the Bible is where you get all your reasons from.

    I hope you are able to encourage your friend to look into the Scriptures.

    "He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11).
    Read John 3.16: such a lot of great theology, truth and doctrine there!

  3. #3
    Men cleanfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    329
    Christian
    Yes

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    I have tried my friend, but he wants legitimate proof as do many.

    I am curious on this as well. It is hard for me to believe there are no writings outside the Bible about Jesus.

  4. #4
      Science
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    460
    Christian
    No

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    There are, but not in the specific time period.

    Many of the "Secular( outside the bible) sources" are WAY WAY WAY outside the time frame, even the Gospels weren't written within the timeperiod you described. They were written at least FOURTY years AFTER Christ.

    Not to mention that we can't conclusively say when Jesus was born, the Gospels don't agree.

    Luke says it was in the time of a Census, when Corinious(sp?) was governor, but King Harod was king. They never overlapped, plus the Census Luke Described NEVER happened.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_th...Jesus_was_born

    I know you might not take that as fact, but at least cross search the information.
    Last edited by Atothetheist; 08-06-2012 at 02:29 PM.

  5. #5
    Young Earth Creationism
    Men
    Science

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    AB, Canada
    Posts
    9,422
    Christian
    Yes
    Gender
    Male

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    Quote Originally Posted by cleanfreak View Post
    I need your help friends. I am a Christian and have been for many, many years.

    After a recent debate with a fellow atheist, he posed a question to me that I have been trying to answer. I am not having much luck to say the least.

    Since the fella is an atheist, I cannot use the Bible at all. His asked me to prove Jesus' existance without using the Bible and only writings not biblically related. He also wanted to make sure that the writings were actually in Jesus time. AD1-AD33.

    I have to say, even with today's internet and google, I have yet to find a writer that wrote of Jesus during the time he actually was on earth.

    Surely there is something? Surely someone, somewhere, wrote about him, or mentioned him?

    MODS: please move if not posted in the correct forum.
    You will not find any writings from the time when Jesus was on earth but that doesn't mean there weren't any, nor does it mean that what the Scriptures say about Jesus aren't true.

    http://carm.org/non-biblical-account...s-andor-people

    That your friend is asking for proof of Jesus seems to suggest he is out of touch with much modern scholarship. There is hardly a biblical or historical scholar that doubts the existence of Jesus. There used to be much debate about his existence but since it is widely accepted that he did exist, the focus has shifted to just who he is and what he did. Extra-biblical evidence for Jesus from the time he existed is unnecessary.
    "When men cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing; they believe in anything. "--G. K. Chesterton

    "It is a sad spectacle, and one that brings discredit on the Christian message, when those who profess to believe that message belie their profession by fighting among themselves or caricaturing others, rather than engaging in respectful discussion through which all sides might just learn something."--John C. Lennox

  6. #6
    farouk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    11,703
    Christian
    Yes

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    The historian Josephus wrote about the Lord Jesus, but why would a Christian prefer commend Josephus's account rather than that of God's Word?
    Read John 3.16: such a lot of great theology, truth and doctrine there!

  7. #7
    Science wayseer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Maryborough, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    483
    Christian
    Yes
    Gender
    Male

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    Quote Originally Posted by cleanfreak View Post
    I have tried my friend, but he wants legitimate proof as do many.

    I am curious on this as well. It is hard for me to believe there are no writings outside the Bible about Jesus.
    In 1st century Palestine people did not go about with smart phones recording everything that happened to pass by. In fact most people could not read let alone write. But even in the 21st century much of the drama of human existence passes unrecorded. I can't remember a journalist dropping in and asking me how things are going with the world. Like most others, I simply don't rate a mention.

    So why would anyone worry about a low paid worker from the backwoods of Upper Galilee?

    So your friend is right - there is no 'legitimate' evidence that Jesus even existed.

  8. #8
    Men duari91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Huntington Beach
    Posts
    185
    Christian
    Yes
    Gender
    Male

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    If Jesus was related to God in absolutely no way, would anyone deny his existence? No, why? There is more historical evidence/writings of Jesus than many notable people who lived around that time. Did Pilot ever exist? Does anyone doubt his existence? Nope, and guess what, there are more historical writings about Jesus than Pilot himself. Historical evidence for Jesus is there, it's only the ignorant who want to challenge it. It's not a Jesus issue, it's a God issue.

    Historians were writing about Jesus after his death for quite some time. I don't mean modern day historians, I am talking about Roman/Jewish historians. Pick up a world history book, and you will be amazed with the many accounts of Jesus after his death.

  9. #9
    Men cleanfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    329
    Christian
    Yes

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    Quote Originally Posted by Atothetheist View Post

    I know you might not take that as fact, but at least cross search the information.
    The information has been crossed search and to great detail. Your response about Luke's census is typical for an atheist. I submit the following:

    It is a bit long, but a great read.

    Luke's Census

    In Luke 2.1-5 we read that Caesar Augustus decreed that the Roman
    Empire should be taxed and that everyone had to return to his own city
    to pay taxes. So Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem and there Jesus
    was born.

    Several questions have been raised in the context of this taxation
    [1. See Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192, for example]. Even if such a
    taxation actually did occur, would every person have to return to his
    home? Was Quirinius really the governor of Syria at this time (as in
    v.2)? Archeology has had a bearing on the answers to these questions.

    It has been established that the taking of a census was quite common
    at about the time of Christ. An ancient Latin inscription called the
    Titulus Venetus indicates that a census took place in Syria and Judea
    about AD 5-6 and that this was typical of those held throughout the
    Roman Empire from the time of Augustus (23 BC-AD 14) until at least
    the third century AD. Indications are that this census took place
    every fourteen years. Other such evidence indicates that these
    procedures were widespread [2. Ibid., pp. 193-194]. Concerning persons
    returning to their home city for the taxation-census, an Egyptian
    papyrus dating from AD 104 reports just such a practice. This rule was
    enforced, as well [3. Ibid. p. 194].

    The question concerning Quirinius also involves the date of the census
    described in Luke 2. It is known that Quirinius was made governor of
    Syria by Augustus in AD 6. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay discovered
    several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of
    Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to this
    date [4. Robert Boyd, Tells, Tombs, and Treasure (Grand Rapids: Baker,
    1969), p. 175]. Within the cycle of taxation-censuses mentioned above,
    an earlier taxation would be dated from 10-4 BC [5. Cf. Bruce,
    Christian Origins, pp. 193-194 with Boyd, Tells, p. 175. Bruce prefers
    the date 10-9 BC for the empire-wide census, with that which took
    place in Judea occurring a few years later. Boyd places the date of
    the earlier census 6-5 BC, which coincides closely with the accepted
    dates for Jesus' birth]. Another possibility is Bruce's suggestion
    that the Greek in Luke 2.2 is equally translatable as "This enrollment
    (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria"
    [6. Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192]. This would mean that Luke was
    dating the taxation-census before Quirinius took over the governorship
    of Syria. Either possibility answers the question raised above [7.
    While ruling out the two-date approach to the governorship of
    Quirinius, Sherwin-White basically vindicates Luke's account, while
    still finding more problems that does Bruce (pp. 162-171)].

    Therefore, while some questions have been raised concerning the events
    recorded in Luke 2.1-5, archaeology has provided some unexpected and
    supportive answers. Additionally, while supplying the background
    behind these events, archaeology also assists us in establishing
    several facts. (1) A taxation-census was a fairly common procedure in
    the Roman Empire and it did occur in Judea, in particular. (2) Persons
    were required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the
    requirements of the process. (3) These procedures were apparently
    employed during the reign of Augustus (37 BC-AD 14), placing it well
    within the general time frame of Jesus' birth. (4) The date of the
    specific taxation recounted by Luke could very possibly have been 6-5
    BC, which would also be of service in attempting to find a more exact
    date for Jesus' birth.

    Astrology

    Astronomical records show that there were conjunctions of Saturn,
    Jupiter, and Mars in the years 7-6 BC. In 7 BC, the world saw a triple
    conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in an event occurring only once
    every 125 years. Then early in 6 BC, Jupiter and Saturn grouped close
    to the planet Mars, a configuration repeated only once every 805
    years. Later in the spring of 6 BC Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn also
    formed an unusually close grouping. Ancient astrologers believed that
    the area of the sky named Pisces where these conjunctions occurred
    contained signs pertinent to the Hebrew nation, so it is possible that
    the "Magi", blending a knowledge of Old Testament prophecies about a
    Messiah with heavenly observations (Numbers 24.17), were led to seek
    the predicted king in the Land of Israel.

    Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. and Jesus was born before then (Matt.
    2.19). Luke was a very reliable historian, proven trustworthy over and
    over again. (And in Acts 5, Luke shows that he was well aware of the
    census under Quirinius in 6 AD which makes it very doubtful that he
    would have been confused about the census he describes in Luke 2.)

    Josephus and Jewish Antiquities

    An argument made by many opponents of the accuracy of the Bible is
    that Rome was not taxing or conducting a census in Israel before
    becoming a province in 6 A.D. But Josephus records that the Jews were
    being taxed by the Romans with commands coming from Syria as early as
    44 BC. And the task of raising the funds fell upon the Jewish rulers
    in power at the time. For example Josephus records: "Cassius rode into
    Syria in order to take command of the army stationed there, and on the
    Jews he placed a tax of 700 silver talents. Antipater gave the job of
    collecting this tax to his sons . . ." (Jewish Antiquities XIV 271).

    Records also indicate that Quirinius was no minor figure in Roman
    politics. His name is mentioned in Res Gestae - The Deeds of Augustus
    by Augustus placing him as consul as early as 12 B.C.
    Excerpt from: Kenneh F. Doig, New Testament Chronology, (Lewiston, NY:
    Edwin Mellen Press, 1990).

  10. #10
    Men cleanfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    329
    Christian
    Yes

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    continued.....
    Chapter 5
    THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS

    Luke recorded that before the birth of Jesus, "a decree went out from
    Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.
    This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of
    Syria." (Luke 2:1-2) In response to this census Joseph and Mary
    proceeded to Bethlehem to be counted.1 and there Jesus was born.

    Added note: The word "first" in this context is from "protos"
    (prwtoV), defined in Strong's Greek Dictionary as: contracted
    superlative of pro - pro 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or
    importance):--before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all),
    former. If the early translators of the New Testament had been aware
    of the historical conflict posed by "first" we would long have read
    "This was the census before the one taken while Quirinius was governor
    of Syria." Then there would have been no perceived difference between
    history and scripture.

    The latest possible date for the birth of Jesus was before the death
    of Herod the Great on November 27, 4 BCE. It also would be desirable
    to establish the earliest possible date, and thus set the limits for
    Jesus' birth. Augustus' decree for a worldwide census for taxation has
    often been used to try to establish this earliest limit. However, the
    gaps in our knowledge of the taxations of the period and the details
    of the career of Quirinius have led to no firm conclusions. Based on
    this lack of information, some have denied the historical validity of
    Luke's statement.2 Or, it has been stated the census of the world was
    only a generalization of Augustus' ongoing drive to classify the
    empire, as evidenced by the many local censuses conducted at different
    times.3 However, it can be historically established that Augustus did
    decree such a specific census. To use this approach it is necessary to
    establish which decree of Augustus would have required a worldwide
    census, when he decreed it, and when Quirinius (Cyrenius) put it into
    effect in Judea. The words of the Roman historian, Dio Cassius,
    provide a starting point.

    I. Augustus' Decree for Taxation

    Caesar Augustus ruled from 44 BCE to 14 CE. An edict of Caesar
    Augustus decreeing a census for purposes of taxation for all the
    inhabited earth, or essentially the Roman Empire, is recorded by Dio
    Cassius.4 By 5 CE the military expenditures for the widespread Roman
    legions exceeded income, and "Augustus lacked funds for all these
    troops." (Dio Cassius, Roman History LV 24:9) No tax plan was accepted
    at that time. In 6 CE Augustus established a "military treasury. . . .
    Now Augustus made a contribution himself toward the fund and promised
    to do so annually, and he also accepted voluntary contributions from
    kings and certain communities; but he took nothing from private
    citizens, . . . but this proved very slight in comparison with the
    amount being spent." (Roman History LV 25:3-4) To overcome this
    deficit, Augustus "established the tax of 5%, on the inheritances and
    bequests which should be left by people at their death to any except
    very near relatives or very poor persons, representing that he had
    found this tax set down in Caesar's memoranda. It was, in fact, a
    method which had been introduced once before, but had been abolished
    later, and was now revived. In this way, then, he increased the
    revenues." (Roman History LV 25:5-6) In 6 CE Caesar Augustus issued a
    worldwide decree that for a second time there would be a 5%
    inheritance tax on estates, something beyond the normal taxation. Such
    a taxation would require a census to register transferable assets,
    such as land, and to record genealogies to establish "very near
    relatives." As the benefactor, this taxation would have had the full
    support of the Roman military.

    Josephus noted the effects on non-citizens of this decree in Judea in
    6 CE: "Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through
    other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been
    consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at
    this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a
    judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance.
    Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with
    him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came
    himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to
    take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus'
    money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of
    a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to
    it." (Ant. XVIII 1:1) However, to the north, "a certain Galilean,
    whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt; and
    said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the
    Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords."
    (Wars II 8:1) And, later he wrote of "Judas who caused the people to
    revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the
    Jews." (Ant. XX 5:2) Caesar's 5% tax was to be on the estates, as
    noted by Josephus. The census attached to this taxation was also noted
    by Luke: "Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew
    away some people after him, he too perished, and all those who
    followed him were scattered." (Acts 5:37) The peoples of Judea and
    Galilee were already being taxed, and yet they protested this
    taxation. What was different this time?

    When Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE, Judea came under Roman
    tribute. (Ant. XIV 4:4; Wars I 7:6) Although Herod later collected his
    own heavy taxes, some portion would have gone to Rome. It has been
    contended that Rome had no ability for direct taxation in Herod's
    territory,5 but, Augustus could interfere in local taxation. When
    Samaria remained loyal to Caesar after the death of Herod the Great,
    he "eased of one quarter of its taxes, out of regard to their not
    having revolted." (Wars II 6:3; also Ant. XVII 11:4) Normally, any tax
    money due was likely collected by Herod or his successors and paid
    directly to Rome by them. To the taxpayer, their money would have been
    seen as going primarily to their local government, and not to Rome. At
    the time of Jesus' birth the Romans may have required the taxation,
    but the money was collected by Herod's government. The military
    purpose of that taxation may not have been general public knowledge,
    but only seen as another burdensome tax collected by Herod.

    The census for taxation in 6 CE was different. The Romans and their
    troops would have directly conducted that census. It was specifically
    to support the military, who were not welcomed by most of the Jews.
    The first Roman governor, Coponius, had just replaced Archelaus, and
    the Jews were suddenly under direct Roman control. This tax was on
    their land, which was their inheritance from God. The fanatical Judas
    took the opportunity to revolt against the further demands of mortal
    men and their military might.

    There had been ongoing taxation throughout the Roman provinces.
    Augustus' worldwide decree in 6 CE established an additional tax to
    support his troops. As noted by Dio, this was the second attempt at
    such a taxation, as it "had been introduced once before, but had been
    abolished later, and was now revived." There had only been one prior
    5% taxing specifically for the military, and it was probably that
    decree referenced by Luke, that "went out from Caesar Augustus, that a
    census be taken of all the inhabited earth." The decree for taxation
    and a census at the time of Jesus' birth was likely that first
    unsuccessful attempt to support the military treasury.

    Since there is no specific record of the first decree for taxation for
    the military, but only the reference by Dio, no dating is presently
    available. There are, however, several related early sources.
    Tertullian (ca. 155-245 CE), a Christian theologian at Carthage, noted
    that a census in Judea took place under Sentius Saturninus, 9-6 BCE.
    He wrote, "But there is historical proof that at this very time there
    were censuses that had been taken in Judea by Sentius Saturninus,
    which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and
    descent of Christ." (Against Marcion IV:19) The year, or years, of
    taxation is not specified. It is also not known if that census was for
    normal taxation of everyone, or if it was specifically related to the
    inheritance tax to support the military. It should be noted that
    `censuses' is in the plural,6 which suggests normal taxations.
    Tertullian may only have presumed such a census based on Luke,
    Josephus and his knowledge of the history of the period. He appears to
    have known that Quirinius was not governor of Syria at that time, or,
    it has been suggested, had access to an early version of Luke that
    described the census as conducted by Saturninus, not Quirinius. The
    words of Tertullian do not confirm or establish a specific date for
    the census.7

    Justin Martyr, who was born in about 105 CE, wrote to defend the
    Christians against persecution, and appealed, "Now there is a village
    in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which
    Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registries of the
    taxing under Quirinius your first procurator in Judea." (First
    Apology, 34) Here is an appeal to the public registries, which have,
    unfortunately, been lost. Whether his comments are derived only from
    the writings of Luke, or he had independent verification of the
    earlier "taxing under Quirinius" is not known. He also refers to
    Quirinius as the "first procurator in Judea," as opposed to governor
    of Syria. Again, there is no specific dating.

    II. Quirinius Was Governor of Syria

    Since there is not yet sufficient information to establish the year of
    the first inheritance taxation, perhaps it is possible to identify
    when Quirinius became "governor of Syria" and could have conducted
    such a census. The problem is that it does not seem possible to
    establish that Quirinius was governor of Syria before 6 CE. The
    governors of Syria during the period, with their approximate dates,
    were:8
    Chart XII
    Governors of Syria
    BCE 10-9 M. Titius
    BCE 9-6 Gaius Sentius Saturninus
    BCE 6-3 P. Quinctilius Varus
    BCE 3-1 L. Calpurnius Piso (?)
    BCE 1-4 CE Gaius Julius Caesar
    4-6 CE L. Volusius Saturninus
    6-7 CE P. Sulpicius Quirinius

  11. #11
    Men cleanfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    329
    Christian
    Yes

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    continued...
    Varus succeeded Saturninus as governor of Syria in about 6 BCE (Ant.
    XVII 5:2). In the chapter on "Herodian Chronology" it was determined
    that Varus was still governor after the death of Herod, at least until
    Summer of 3 BCE, and perhaps for another year or so. Jesus was born
    before Herod died, while Varus was governor of Syria. Quirinius was
    governor after Herod died. Quirinius does not appear to have been
    governor of Syria during the reign of Herod, at least in the usual
    sense.

    It has been suggested that Quirinius was an imperial procurator for
    Caesar, and may have been the "Sabinus, Caesar's procurator" mentioned
    by Josephus (Ant. XVII 10:1).9 However, this reference is after the
    death of Herod and not related to a census. Little is known of
    Quirinius. He was a consul in 12 BCE, and sometime thereafter
    conducted the Homanadensian war against that tribe in the Cilician
    Taurus country of Asia Minor. This action was complete about 6 BCE.
    The exact status of Quirinius during this period is not known.10 The
    inscriptions of the period are not conclusive.11 Without further
    information it is only a guess that he had some official status to
    direct a census in Judea during the period before the death of Herod
    the Great. The suggestion that he was governor of Syria shortly after
    the death of Herod is irrelevant, since Jesus was born before Herod
    died. In 6 CE Augustus appointed him governor of Syria. He was later a
    favorite of Tiberius and was buried with honors in 21 CE (Tacitus,
    Annals, 3:48).

    Luke acknowledged the later "days of the census," in 6 CE, which were
    disrupted by Judas of Galilee. The records are clear that Quirinius
    was governor of Syria then, but Luke's gospel distinguishes that the
    census at the time of the birth of Jesus was the "first." Luke
    certainly knew the chronology and rulers of that period. However, it
    has been suggested that Luke's intent was to say that the enrollment
    at the time of Jesus was the first one, as distinguished from the
    later one when Quirinius was governor of Syria. That is, Luke was not
    saying that Quirinius was governor at the time of the first census.
    The Greek usage can be interpreted to say: "This census was before
    that [census] when Quirinius was governor of Syria."12 Perhaps a
    better translation would be: "This census was the first before that
    under the prefectureship of Quirinius in Syria."13 As such, the
    Scripture is historically satisfied, but this translation does not
    advance our knowledge of the chronology of Jesus.

    [It would stand to reason the word "first" is uniquely used here as if
    to suggest an event preceding].

    III. Joseph and Mary Register for the Census

    Luke went on to say that, "all were proceeding to register for the
    census, everyone to his own city." (Luke 2:3) It has seemed a problem
    that the Jewish method of returning to one's own tribal headquarters
    to be "numbered" was used for a census under Herod.14 The Romans
    usually took a census in one's home town.15 However, in a census for
    inheritance taxation it would be expected that this would be conducted
    where the tribal records were kept, no matter who conducted the
    census. Joseph was a descendent of David of the tribe of Judah.
    David's ancestral home was in Bethlehem, and in that town the land
    records and genealogies required for such a census would have been
    located. Or, simply, Joseph was born in Bethlehem but then lived in
    Nazareth. Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to register for this
    census, and there Jesus was born.

    As will be seen in the following chapters, the evidence suggests a
    winter birth for Jesus. But, why would Joseph and Mary journey to
    Bethlehem in the middle of winter to register for the census? There
    are several possibilities. Joseph may have recently inherited some
    land. Since the special taxation was related to inheritances, Joseph
    journeyed to Bethlehem to claim his estate and settle any taxes due.
    He would have there registered his property for the census. Or,
    perhaps Joseph had recently become eighteen years of age, and as an
    adult was required to then register as an independent household.16 Or,
    they had recently married, and the registration of the family was
    required. Or, Joseph and Mary thought that their child might be the
    promised Messiah and that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem
    (Mic. 5:2). They may have timed their trip to Bethlehem for the census
    to ensure that Jesus was born there. Also, registration may have been
    required before the end of the Roman year, that is, December 31, and
    they were late. However, there is no need to require that Joseph's
    registration occurred immediately after the census for taxation was
    decreed. There are other possibilities, but these are mostly
    speculation.

    IV. Conclusion

    In support of Luke's description of the census that brought Joseph and
    Mary to Bethlehem, it is confirmed that Augustus did decree a 5% world
    wide inheritance tax to support the military. This was sometime before
    the second taxing in 6 CE and likely before Herod's death in 4 BCE; it
    was at some point discontinued. When this census took place cannot yet
    be determined, and Quirinius' official status at that time is unknown.

    An alternate translation suggests that Luke was actually saying that
    the census was only the one before that when Quirinius was governor of
    Syria in 6 CE. Luke was not saying he was governor when the first
    census was taken.

    It does not seem presently possible to establish an earliest limit for
    the birth of Jesus. As such the search must go elsewhere to establish
    the date of His birth. As will discussed in the following chapters,
    the conception of John the Baptist and Jesus offers a surprising
    answer.

    Notes:

    1. R. Smith, "Caesar's Decree (Luke 2:1-2): Puzzle or Key?," CTM 7
    (1980), looks at Luke's intent to establish Joseph and Mary as subject
    to the decrees of Caesar.

    2. For example, G. Cornfield, The Historical Jesus - A Scholarly View
    of the Man and His World (New York: Macmillan, 1982), 90; T. P.
    Wiseman, "`There Went Out a Decree from Caesar Augustus...'," NTS 33
    (1987), 479-480.

    3. See R. E. Brown, "Gospel Infancy Narrative Research from 1976 to
    1986: Part II (Luke)," CBQ 48, 4 (1986), 670.

    4. E. W. Faulstich, "The Birth of Jesus," IAT (July 1986).

    5. E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
    Christ Vol. 1 (London: Clark, Rev. 1973), 413-416.

    6. R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
    1977), 553.

    7. C. F. Evens, "Tertullian's Reference to Sentius Saturninus and the
    Lukan Census," JTS NS24, 1 (1973), 39, concludes that, in context,
    Tertullian's argument was not concerned with the census of Luke and
    "ought not be introduced into discussions of it."

    8. Schurer, History Vol. 1, 257-259. His dates are here modified to
    extend Varus' term to 3 BCE.

    9. Although Sabinus is called "procurator" by Josephus, Coponius is
    usually recognized as the first governor in Judea.

    10. J. Finegan, The Archeology of the New Testament (Boulder, CO:
    Westview, 1981), 5, reported micrographic lettering on coins of the
    period that suggest that Quirinius was proconsul of Syria and Cilicia
    from 11 BCE until after the death of Herod. J. Vardaman, "Jesus' Life:
    A New Chronology," CKC, uses microlettering on coins to establish
    Jesus' birth in 12 BCE. However, the microletters are probably
    graffiti unrelated to the date of issue of the coins, and therefore
    undatable.

    11. G. R. Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus -
    Historical Records of His Death and Resurrection (Nashville: Nelson,
    1984), 152-153.

    12. H. W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand
    Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1977), 21.

    13. L. H. Feldman in W. Brindle, "The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2,"
    JETS 27 (1984), 48-49.

    14. Schurer, History Vol. 1, 411-3.

    15. J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton: Princeton
    Univ. Press, 1964), 234-238.

    16. There is no Scriptural basis for the claim that Joseph was an old
    widower, already with a family of children. Some require such an
    explanation to claim that Mary had no other child after Jesus, even to
    suggest that she remained a perpetual virgin.

  12. #12
    Men cleanfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    329
    Christian
    Yes

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    ......from Dr. Richard P. Buchar
    Caesar Augustus, Quirinius, and the Census
    By Dr. Richard P. Bucher

    "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be
    taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that
    took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went
    to his own town to register" (Luke 2:1-3).

    All those even vaguely familiar with Luke's Christmas story have heard
    of Caesar Augustus and his famous decree. It was this decree that sent
    Mary in the ninth month of her pregnancy 80 miles south to Bethlehem,
    along with husband Joseph. But could such a thing have really
    happened? Do we have any proof from historical sources outside of the
    Bible that the Roman emperor ever authorized a census? Yes, we do.

    "Caesar Augustus" reigned as emperor of the Roman empire from 27 B.C.
    to 14 A.D. (Or 727 A.U.C. to 767 A.U.C.), 41 years in all. The
    grandnephew of Julius Caesar (100- 44 B.C.), his real name was Gaius
    Octavius and he lived from 63 B.C. to 14 A.D. Because Julius Caesar
    had legally adopted Octavius as his son, Octavius took the name
    "Caesar" from Julius, which in later years became a name almost
    equivalent to "emperor." "Augustus" is a Latin term that means "worthy
    of reverence."

    Caesar Augustus's reign was marked by peace and security - the famous
    Pax Romana - as well as by lavish building projects throughout the
    empire. In addition, according to Paul Maier, Augustus had such an
    intense interest in religion within his realm that, if not for his
    other great achievements, he might have gone down in history as a
    religious reformer. In his day, belief in the traditional Greco-Roman
    pantheon had decreased dramatically as philosophical skepticism grew
    and a growing number joined the foreign mystery religions. Augustus
    was convinced that belief in the old gods had made Rome great so he
    set out to encourage his subjects to return to the worship of these
    gods. He restored eighty-two temples in Rome alone! He became the
    pontifex maximus (highest priest) in the state cult.1


    What exactly was it that Caesar Augustus decreed, according to Luke
    2:1? The King James Version of the Bible says, "that all the world
    should be taxed." Most other translations say something like "that all
    the world should be registered" (NRS) or "that a census should be
    taken of the entire Roman world" (NIV). The Greek verb is apographo,
    which literally means to "enroll" or "register" as in an official
    listing of citizens.2 What was it then, a census or a taxing? Both: It
    would have been a census taken in part for the purpose of assessing
    taxes. But only in part. Augustus was very interested in the number of
    citizens in his empire; he was especially interested in whether that
    number was growing. This probably was the primary reason for the
    census (see below).

    But what of the census that Luke 2:1 speaks of? Is there any record
    outside of the Bible that Augustus ever issued such a decree? Yes. As
    a matter of fact he authorized three censuses during this reign. How
    do we know this? The three censuses are listed in the Acts of
    Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest
    achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he
    ranked them eighth on the list. The Acts of Augustus were placed on
    two bronze plaques outside of Augustus's mausoleum after he died.

    The three empire-wide censuses were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. In
    all probability the one in 8 B.C. is the one the Luke mentions in the
    Christmas story. Even though scholarship normally dates Christ's birth
    between 4 and 7 B.C., the 8 B.C. census fits because in all likelihood
    it would have taken several years for the bureaucracy of the census to
    reach Palestine.

    The only apparent difficulty with identifying the census that Luke
    mentions in the Christmas story with the one in 8 B.C. is, ironically,
    something Luke seemingly included to clarify the dating. He tells us
    in 2:2 that "this was the first census that took place while Quirinius
    was governing Syria." Seems simple. All we have to do is find out
    exactly when Quirinius was governing Syria and then we will know
    exactly when the census was given, right? Right. But the problem is,
    according to records available to us, Quirinius was governor of Syria
    in 6-7 A.D. -- eleven years too late!

    We know this because ancient historians have quite a bit to say about
    our man Quirinius. Roman historians Tacitus, Seutonius, and Dio
    Cassius, as well as Jewish historian Josephus all wrote of him.3 His
    full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (d. 21 A.D.), who was what
    the Romans called a "new man." This means that he came to hold his
    political office on the basis of his own merits rather than by family
    tradition and inheritance. It was through his military conquests in
    Cilicia and elsewhere that Quirinius had been exalted by the emperor
    to the holding of governor in Syria in 6-7 A.D.

    Does this mean that Luke is in error? Not at all, especially when he
    shows himself to be such a careful historian throughout both his
    Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, his other historical work.
    Besides, we believe Luke's Gospel to be inspired by the Holy Spirit!

    The key to solving this alleged puzzle, is in the phrase "first
    census" in the sentence, "This was the first census taken while
    Quirinius was governing Syria." What does Luke mean by a first census?
    One theory offered is that the Greek word for "first" (prote) is
    sometimes translated "prior to" or "before." This is a viable solution
    because the Greek text of Luke 2:2 can indeed be translated, "This
    census was before Quirinius was governing Syria."

    A second theory holds that by saying "first census" Luke is telling
    his readers that there was another census that Quirinius oversaw. Was
    there a second one? Yes, and Luke mentions it in the Acts 5:37! The
    second census mentioned in Acts would have taken place in 6 A.D. Since
    it is well known that the Romans often held provincial censuses every
    fourteen years, it would follow that the "first census," the one at
    the time of Christ's birth, would have been held in approximately 8
    B.C. -- if the fourteen year census cycle was in place at this time.
    The problem with this second solution is that Luke is specifically
    saying that the first census (the 8 B.C. one) took place while
    Quirinius was governor of Syria; and from all available extrabiblical
    sources, he wasn't. According to E.M. Blaiklock, however, evidence has
    been found that shows that Quirinius was in Syria for an earlier tour
    of duty, right around the time that Christ was born. He wasn't there
    as governor but in some other leadership capacity.4 Therefore, it is
    possible that Luke is alluding to this in 2:2.

    Of the two theories the first has more to commend it, in my opinion.
    Ultimately, however, Luke was much closer to the historical sources
    and claims to have "investigated everything carefully" (Luke 1:3) and
    he did this under the Holy Spirit's inspiration. The bottom line is
    that the evidence that we have points to 8 B.C. as the date when the
    "Christmas census" would have been authorized.

    So much for dating the census. What about motivation to authorize it
    in the first place? Do we have any clues from the historical sources
    about what might have motivated Caesar Augustus to issue his censuses?
    Perhaps one. Roman historian Dio Cassius tells us that Augustus was so
    concerned about the declining marriage and birth rate in his empire,
    that he passed legislation that made promiscuity a crime, which
    penalized bachelors in their right to inherit, and which bestowed
    political advantages on fathers of three or more children.5 Because of
    his demonstrated concern about marriage and birth rate in his empire,
    it is likely that one of the reasons that Augustus authorized the
    censuses was to see whether his legislation was working, or, at the
    very least, to see how birth rates fared.

    Some scholars have scoffed at the notion that people in faraway
    Palestine (such as Joseph and Mary) would have had to travel to their
    ancestral birth place for a census. But we have evidence to show that
    such traveling was indeed done with a Roman census, in Egypt at least.
    A Roman census document, dated 104 A.D., has been discovered in Egypt,
    in which citizens were specifically commanded to return to their
    original homes for the census.6 Another census document from 119 A.D.
    has been found in which an Egyptian man identifies himself by giving
    (1) his name and the names of his father, mother, and grandfather; (2)
    his original village; (3) his age and profession; (4) a scar above his
    left eyebrow; (5) his wife's name and age, his wife's father's name;
    (6) his son's name and age; (6) the names of other relatives living
    with him. The document is signed by the village registrar and three
    official witnesses.7 This latter document is of special interest,
    because it gives us an idea of the kind of information that Joseph and
    Mary would have had to provide for the census.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time (New York: HarperCollins
    Publishers, 1991), 6.

    2. Other than its occurrences in Luke 2, the only other occurrence of
    apographo in the New Testament is Hebrews 12:23 " to the general
    assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and
    to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made
    perfect" (NAS).

    3. See Tacitus, Annals, II, 30; III, 22, 23, 48. See Seutonius,
    Tiberius x1ix; See Dio Cassius 1iv, 48; See Josephus, Antiquities
    17:355; 18:26; 20:102. See also Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical
    Chronology, (Princeton, 1964), 234-238.

    4. E. M. Blaiklock, "Quirinius," The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia
    of the Bible, vol. 5, gen. ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids:
    Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 6.

    5. Dio Cassius, Roman History, 1vi, 1-10. Dio Cassius tells of one
    occasion when Augustus was so vexed by the declining marriage and
    birth rates that he strode into the Forum, separated the married men
    and bachelors he found there into two different groups and then let
    the bachelors have it: "What shall I call you? Men? But you aren't
    fulfilling the duties of men. Citizens? But for all your efforts, the
    city is perishing. Romans? But you are in the process of blotting out
    this name altogether! . . . What humanity would be left if all the
    rest of mankind should do what you are doing? . . . You are committing
    murder in not fathering in the first place those who ought to be your
    descendants!" Quoted in Maier, In the Fulness of Time, 6.

    6. This is cited in Maier, Fullness, 4, who is quoting from A. H. M.
    Jones, ed., A History of Rome through the Fifth Century (New York:
    Harper and Row, 1970), II, 256f.

  13. #13
    Men cleanfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    329
    Christian
    Yes

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    .......from Dr. John Ankerberg
    Was Luke Wrong About the Census Under Quirinius?
    by Dr. John Ankerberg

    For those who believe that the Gospels are accurate historical records
    of Jesus life, one of the most difficult problems in the New Testament
    is the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2:

    Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar
    Augustus that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was
    the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all
    were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city.
    And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth to
    Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was
    of the house and family of David, in order to register along with
    Mary, who was engaged to him and was with child.

    So, Luke tells us Augustus took a census before Jesus was born and
    this was the reason Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem. However, critics
    say there are five reasons why Luke's account is historically
    incorrect.

    1. There is no known evidence of an Empire-wide census in the reign of
    Augustus. If it occurred, wouldn't it be mentioned by one or another
    of the ancient historians who recorded this period?

    2. Josephus records a lot about Herod but does not mention a Roman
    census in Palestine.

    3. Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria and Judea until A.D.
    6, many years after Jesus was born.

    4. In a Roman census, Joseph would not have been required to travel to
    Bethlehem and he would not have been required to take Mary with him.

    5. A Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod's kingdom
    while Herod was still alive.

    In light of these facts, did Luke make vast historical errors in his
    chronology of events? All of this was stated or implied in the Peter
    Jennings in his ABC Special "The Search for Jesus," and continues to
    be brought up by many critical scholars today. Historian Dr. Edwin
    Yamauchi told me:

    Quirinius, we know, was governor leader in A.D. 6 when there was a
    census and there was a revolt led by a man called Judas of Galilee.
    And there are several proposed solutions to this well-known problem.
    One solution, of course, is that Luke was clearly in error here; that
    he didn't have correct information. Yet Luke is the most careful of
    all the Gospel writers to try to correlate events in Judea with Roman
    events. He knows that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus; that
    Jesus began His ministry in the reign of Tiberius and so forth.

    An Empire-wide census?

    Let's answer some of these objections. When Luke states that a decree
    from Caesar Augustus went out that all the world should be taxed, was
    he talking about just one empire-wide census? No, according to Roman
    historian A. N. Sherwin White. The censuses were taken in different
    provinces over a period of time. But Caesar Augustus was the first one
    in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial
    empire. Luke uses the present tense to indicate that Augustus ordered
    censuses to be taken regularly throughout the empire rather than only
    one time.

    Second, papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans
    undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt,
    for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were
    taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number
    of years, and substantiates Luke's reference to Augustus's census, but
    it seems to work against the Lucan account in terms of the year when
    Jesus was born. Why? Because the 14-year intervals do not intersect
    with the year of Jesus' birth in 4 B.C.

    But concerning that problem, the Dictionary of New Testament
    Background [Craig Evans and Stanley Porter, eds., InterVarsity, 2000]
    states: "Evidence indicates that Egyptian censuses were taken at
    7-year intervals during the reign of Augustus and can be established
    with indirect and direct evidence for the years of 11-10 B.C., 4-3
    B.C., A.D. 4 and 5, and A.D. 11 and 12." This information is based on
    documentation presented in The Demography of Roman Egypt by Bagnell
    and Friar, a book published by Cambridge University Press in 1994.

    Third, there are other reasons to believe a census was taken by Caesar
    Augustus in 4 or 5 B.C. Augustus knew of Herod's paranoia. Herod
    frequently changed his will and then would kill the family member he
    had put in charge if he were to die. Each time he changed his will and
    the one who would succeed him, he had to get permission from the Roman
    emperor to do so.

    So, Emperor Augustus knew what was happening in Palestine. It is
    reasonable to assume that Augustus, anticipating the problems that
    would come about when Herod died, would want to take a census of
    Herod's territory and might well have extended the Egyptian census of
    4-3 B.C. or performed something like it in Judea.

    The mentioning of the census in Luke 2:1 is the only historical
    reference of this census from antiquity, yet it rests on a plausible
    reconstruction of events. Edwin Yamauchi comments, "this is a case
    where we do have something recorded in the New Testament which is not
    directly correlated by extra-biblical evidence. This doesn't mean that
    it did not happen, however, because there are many things that occur
    only in a given text without corroborative evidence of other texts or
    inscriptions."

    But what about Luke's reference, "this was the first census taken
    while Quirinius was governor of Syria?" When Luke says this was the
    "first" census that took place under Quirinius, the Greek word prote,
    usually translated "first," according to some Greek scholars can also
    be translated "prior." If that is Luke’s meaning, then, he would be
    referring to a census taken prior to the one taken when Quirinius was
    governor in 6 A.D. Is it possible that a prior census was taken, or
    even taken by Quirinius himself?

    Well, historians know that Quirinius had a government assignment in
    Syria between 12 B.C. to 2 B.C. He was responsible for reducing the
    number of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia. As
    such, he was a highly placed military figure in the Near East and
    highly trusted by Emperor Caesar Augustus. Augustus, knowing of the
    turmoil in Herod the Great’s territory, may well have put his
    trusted friend Quirinius in charge of a census enrollment in the
    region of Syria just before the end of Herod’s life.

    The time period from 7 to 6 B.C. also coincides with the transition
    period between the rule of the two legates of Syria: Saturninus from 9
    to 6 B.C. and Varus from 7 to 4 B.C. The transition of power between
    these two men took place between 7 to 6 B.C., and Augustus again may
    have appointed his friend Quirinius to step in and conduct a census
    taxation when he could not trust anyone else.

    Again, Luke’s statement has a plausible foundation in history.

    Why did Joseph take Mary to Bethlehem?

    Next, what about the criticism that in a Roman census Joseph would not
    have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been
    required to bring Mary with him? Well, now historians have found that
    in A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is
    essential for all people to return to their homes for the census."
    This indicates it was plausible for Joseph and Mary to travel to
    Bethlehem as Luke indicates. In fact, it is just one of the many
    reasons scholars have found why Mary would have needed to go with
    Joseph on his trip to Bethlehem. Claire Pfann suggests another.

    I think that we find a few basic presuppositions that are just our own
    modern skepticism and really don’t deal with the reality of the fact
    that, if Joseph and Mary had come to live together as a married couple
    at this point, why on earth would he leave her at home when he faced a
    prolonged absence, waiting for the census to be accomplished?

    Could a census have taken place while Herod was alive?

    Next, what can be said to those who say a Roman census could not have
    been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was alive?

    This is simply not true. Records have now been found that show the
    emperor did take censuses in vassal kingdoms like Herod’s. In fact,
    when Herod died, his domain was divided among his three sons, and
    Augustus ordered that taxes be reduced in the territory of one of his
    sons. It proves the Roman emperor was not afraid to intervene in one
    of his vassal kingdoms.

    Further, it is now known that in 8-7 B.C., Herod came into disfavor
    with Augustus and was thereafter treated as a subject rather than a
    friend. It resulted in Herod’s autonomy being taken away from him.

    Third, historians have also discovered that the people of Herod’s
    domain took an oath of allegiance not just to Herod, but to both
    Augustus and Herod, which proves there was a greater involvement of
    Augustus in Herod’s realm.

    Finally, Luke’s account points to a census taken before Herod the
    Great’s death and the division of his kingdom. Why? It would have
    been highly implausible to think that after Herod’s kingdom had been
    divided between his three sons in 4 B.C. that people in Nazareth under
    Herod Antipas would have traveled to Bethlehem, the territory
    belonging to Archelaus for purposes of taxation. It makes more sense
    that such traveling would have been done when all the territories were
    under Herod’s rule himself and Augustus called for an overall
    census.

    So, since it has been proved that Augustus had taken censuses in other
    vassal kingdoms, and since Herod had come into the emperor’s
    disfavor, and since Herod was having troubles in his own realm with
    his sons, it is more than probable that Augustus would have wanted to
    conduct his own census, assessing Herod’s kingdom, while Herod was
    still alive. And this is exactly what Luke recorded.

  14. #14
    Men cleanfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    329
    Christian
    Yes

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    Quote Originally Posted by duari91 View Post

    Historians were writing about Jesus after his death for quite some time. I don't mean modern day historians, I am talking about Roman/Jewish historians. Pick up a world history book, and you will be amazed with the many accounts of Jesus after his death.
    Why did they not write about him DURING his life here on earth?

    The Bible states that Jesus performed so many miracles, that books would not be able to contain them.

    Surely, one of these who received such a miracle also wrote about it? Think of the 5,000 that were fed.....and again later on the other miracle mass feeding? Surely one of those wrote something outside of the bible talking about the miracles.....even it is just one?

    Surely?
    Last edited by cleanfreak; 08-07-2012 at 07:10 AM.

  15. #15
    Men WIP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Central Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    2,987
    Christian
    Yes
    Gender
    Male

    Re: Proof of Jesus?

    Ask you atheist friend if he can find proof of the existance of George Washington and if so, ask him to substantiate his proof.
    "Wide is the path to destruction but narrow the gate to life." "Seek and you will find." "Knock and the door will be opened." "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Bible references are automatically parsed and given popup Bible text courtesy of RefTagger