How can We take the Bible seriously?

[sfth13]

I watched this video on youtube from Michael Tsarion which gives a different outlook on who is behind religion and humanities evils

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AhbG...eature=related

it's in 13 parts abot 8-10 min. each it's another point of view to think about

[Stabris8]

Some facts regarding some of the Bible...

The external evidence test

Was the New Testament discredited by modern discoveries?

I’ve heard it said that New Testament passages are inaccurate,
unhistorical or unscientific.

That used to be claimed… because often the New Testament was the only source for such statements. But there’s no excuse now. Some modern writers are lying about this matter.

And others are ignorant of the facts. But
let me fill you in with what’s been happening...

Five porticos at the Bethesda pool

The book of John (5:1-15) relates how Jesus healed an invalid by
the pool at Bethesda, which John describes as having five porticoes
(colonnaded porches). Because no such place had been found, critics were fond of asserting that John was wrong.

Then one day the pool was found and excavated. And you know
what? Archaeologists discovered five porticoes – exactly as John
had described. (Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998,
p. 99)

The census at Jesus’ birth

Again, critics argued that Luke’s portrayal of events surrounding
the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-3) was wrong. The critics asserted
there was no census, that Quirinius was not governor of Syria at
that time, but later. And that everyone did not have to return to his
ancestral home for taxing.
However, archaeological discoveries have since shown that:

1. Regular enrollment of taxpayers, as well as a 14-year census,
were begun under the emperor Augustus, just as Luke
wrote.

2. Quirinius was governor twice, including the time Luke says.

3. The conduct of a census did require that people return to
their homes to complete the family registration. (A papyrus
has now been found in Egypt confirming this.) (Josh McDowell,
The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1999, pp. 63,64)

Alleged geographical “mistakes”...
Again, it was believed that Luke was wrong in implying that
Lystra and Derbe (but not Iconium) were in Lycaonia (Acts 14:6).
They based their criticism upon a statement by Cicero.
Then Sir William Ramsay found a monument that confirmed
Luke’s statement. (Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History. Wheaton:
Scripture Press, 1969, p. 317)

Nazareth existing in first century
Yet, despite the mountain of evidence supporting the truth of the
New Testament accounts, there are still some writers who peddle
the same outdated nonsense to us.
Thus, in one of David Icke’s books, he says concerning the first
century, that ‘NAZARETH DID NOT EXIST AT THAT TIME.’
(David Icke, The Big Secret. Wildwood, MO.: Bridge of Love Publications, USA, p.99)
Oh, do come on. The place was so real between the years AD 44
and 50, that it merited an emperor’s decree carved in stone and
directed probably at the people living there.
How do we know? From Nazareth, Jesus’ home town, there came to light in 1878 a
most interesting slab of marble, inscribed in a Greek text. For many years it lay in the
Froehner collection, its value unrecognized until 1930. It is now in the Louvre, Paris.

The text contains a decree issued by an unnamed Roman emperor
prohibiting under penalty of death, any kind of tomb robbery,
including tombs of relatives, or the moving of a body to another
place. It reads:

Ordinance of Caesar. It is my pleasure that graves and
tombs remain undisturbed in perpetuity for those who
have made them for the cult of their ancestors, or
children or members of their house. If, however, any
man lay information that another has either
demolished them, or has in any other way extracted
the buried, or maliciously transferred them to other
places in order to wrong them, or has displaced the
sealing or other stones, against such a one I order that
a trial be instituted as in respect of the gods, as in
regard to the cult of mortals. For it shall be much
more obligatory to honor the buried. Let it be
absolutely forbidden for anyone to disturb them. In the
case of contravention I desire that the offender be
sentenced to capital punishment on charge of violation
of sepulture.

What date is that inscription?
It has been placed somewhere between AD 44 and 50, which was
during the reign of Claudius Caesar, who was noted for his
persecution of the Jews. This was not many years after the death of
Jesus.

It is believed that the preaching of the resurrection had already
begun in Rome by this time. Perhaps this decree reflected the fact
that the enemies of Christianity had faced up to the empty tomb
story.

The placing of the decree on a rock in the little, unimportant town
of Nazareth where Jesus was reared, indicates a possible
relationship between the decree of Caesar and the empty tomb of
Jesus.

Nazareth did not exist at that time? This discovery knocks that
claim on the head!”
Alleged personality “mistakes”

Interesting, isn’t it? The critic shouts himself hoarse. Archaeology
comes along. And the New Testament is vindicated. It happens
time and again. That’s a one-sided contest, if you ask me.

Here’s another example. Luke had claimed that Lysanius, the
tetrarch of Abilene, ruled Syria and Palestine (Luke 3:1) at the start
of John the Baptist’s ministry in AD 27.
The only Lysanius known to ancient historians was one who was
killed in BC 36. So Luke was accused of being mistaken.
However, an inscription now found at Abila near Damascus
speaks of “Freedman of Lysanias the Terarch”, and is dated
between AD 14 and 29. (F.F. Bruce, “Archaeological Confirmation of the New
Testament”. In Carl Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1969, p. 321)

Want more examples?:
Paul makes mention of the Corinth city treasurer, Erastus
(Romans 16:23). During excavations at Corinth in 1929, a
pavement was found inscribed: ERASTVS PRO:AED:S:P:
STRAVIT (‘Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this
pavement at his own expense.’) (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents:
Are They Reliable? Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter Varsity Press, 1964, p. 95)

Luke gives to Publius, the chief man in Malta, the title ‘first man
of the island’ (Acts 28:7). Inscriptions have been unearthed that do
give him the title of ‘first man’. (F.F. Bruce, “Archaeological Confirmation of
the New Testament”. In Carl Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1969, p. 325)

Luke was assumed to be wrong for using the term politarchs to
denote the civil authorities of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) – because
‘politarch’ is not found in classical literature. However, there have
now been found some 19 inscriptions that make use of that title.

One of the inscriptions was discovered in a Roman arch at
Thessalonica and in it are found the names of six of that city’s
politarchs. (Ibid., pp. 325,360)

Pontius Pilate
The New Testament records that Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea when
Jesus was crucified (AD 31).
However Icke the critic claims that ‘Pontius’ was a fictitious name invented only after
AD 85. Icke also asserts that the Gospel of Luke was written after this date.
Icke claims that a man called Pliny visited a place called Pontus from the year AD 85
onwards ‘and this is the origin of the first name of Pontius Pilate. He was only called
Pilate in Matthew and Mark,… but in Luke, the one Piso wrote with Pliny, Pilate
suddenly acquires the name, Pontius. Luke was written in the very years that Pliny began
to visit Pontus.’ (David Icke, The Big Secret. Wildwood, MO.: Bridge of Love
Publications, USA, p. 110)
Thank you, David Icke for that contribution. So is Icke right? Or
the Gospel of Luke? Now let archaeology be the referee…

His name on historic inscription:
In 1961, at the city of Caesarea, an Italian excavation uncovered a huge block of
limestone. It bore an inscription containing the name – wait for it - ‘Pontius Pilate’. The
block, probably from the period of Emperor Tiberius (AD 12 to 37) is engraved with the
words:
………S TIBERIEVM [Tiberieum]
……[PO]NTIVS PILATVS [Pontius Pilate]
[PRA]ECTVS IVDA[EA]E [Prefect Judea]

The first word, ‘Tiberieum’, probably refers to a temple dedicated
to the emperor Tiberius.
Mentioned by Roman historian:
Is that all? Not quite. The well known Roman historian, Cornelius
Tacitus (born around 52 AD), also mentions Pontius Pilate, and
states that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus Christ. In 112 AD, Tacitus
became Governor of Asia. He wrote in his history:

Nothing which could be done by man, nor any amount
of treasure that the prince could give, nor all the
sacrifices which could be presented to the gods, could
clear Nero from being believed to have ordered the
burning, the fire of Rome. So to silence the rumor, he
tortured and made false accusations against those who
were called the Christians, who were hated for their
large following. Christus, the founder of the name, was
executed by Pontius Pilate, the Judean procurator,
during the rule of Tiberius. [AD 14 to AD 37] (Tacitus,
Annals, 15:44; cited by Justin Martyr, Apology, 1.48. Emphasis added)

He further says:
At his coming the lame shall leap, tongues that stammer shall
speak clearly, the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be
cleansed, and the dead shall rise and walk about. And you
can learn that he did all these things from the Acts of Pontius
Pilate.
Pontius Pilate a fictitious name invented after AD 85? Icke,
what’s got into you?

Summary
Colin Hemer, a noted Roman historian, has catalogued numerous
archaeological and historical confirmations of Luke’s accuracy.

His report is voluminous and detailed. His research includes:

· Specialised details, which would not have been widely
known except to a CONTEMPORARY researcher such as
Luke who traveled widely. For example, exact titles of
officials, identification of army units, and information about
major routes.
· Details which archaeologists know are accurate but cannot
verify as to the precise time period. Some of these are
unlikely to have been known except to a writer who had
visited the districts.
· Correlation of known kings and governors with the
chronology of the narrative.
· Facts appropriate to the date of a contemporary but not to a
date earlier or later.
· ‘Undesigned coincidents’ between the writings of Luke and
Paul.
· Other materials, the ‘immediacy’ of which suggests that the
author was recounting a recent experience, rather than
shaping or editing a text long after it had been written.
· Cultural or idiomatic items now known to be peculiar to the
first century atmosphere, but not later. (Colin Hemer, The Book of
Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990,
pp.104-107)

One archaeologist carefully studied Luke’s references. He
discovered that Luke names 32 countries, 54 cities and 9 islands
without an error! (Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask.
Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1992, p. 385)

Ramsay the skeptic
One of the greatest archaeologists
of all time was Sir William Ramsay.

As a student in the German historical school of the midnineteenth
century, Ramsay was firmly convinced that the New
Testament book of Acts was a fraudulent product of the midsecond
century AD.

In his research to make a topographical study of Asia Minor, he
was compelled to consider the New Testament writings of Luke.
Here is how he relates his experience...

I began with a mind unfavourable to it… but more
recently I found myself brought into contact with the
Book of Acts as an authority for the topography,
antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually
borne upon me that in various details the narrative
showed marvellous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed
idea that the work was essentially a second century
composition, and never relying on its evidence as
trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually
came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and
difficult investigations. (Edward Musgrave Blaiklock, Layman’s
Answer: An Examination of the New Theology. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1968, p. 36 – quoted from Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and
the Roman Citizen)

You know, guys, as a result of that, Ramsay was
forced to do a complete reversal of his beliefs. He concluded after
thirty years of study that ‘Luke is a historian of the first rank; not
merely are his statements of fact trustworthy… this author should
be placed along with the greatest of historians.’ (Sir W. M. Ramsay, The
Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1915, p. 222)

Luke’s “unsurpassed… trustworthiness”

In fact, Ramsay concluded that ‘Luke’s history is unsurpassed in
respect of its trustworthiness.’ (W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the
Roman Citizen. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962, p. 81)
Since then, further discoveries have shown New Testament
writers such as Luke to be careful historians.

The verdict of Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White. He declares:
For Acts [in the New Testament] the confirmation of
historicity is overwhelming…. Any attempt to reject its
basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman
historians have taken it for granted. (A.N. Sherwin-White,
Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, reprint edition.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978, p. 189)

Dr Gleason Archer undertook a painstakingly detailed
investigation into this question. Notice his report:

As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after
another and have studied the alleged contradictions
between the biblical record and the evidence of
linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in
the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly
verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost
every problem in Scripture that has ever been
discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has
been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by
the biblical text itself – or else by objective
archaeological information. The deductions that may be
validly drawn from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or
Akkadian documents all harmonize with the biblical
record. (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982, p. 12)

And former skeptic Josh McDowell adds his testimony:
After trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the
Scripture, I came to the conclusion that it is historically
trustworthy. If one discards the Bible as being
unreliable, then one must discard almost all literature of
antiquity.
One problem I constantly face is the desire on the part
of many to apply one standard or test to secular
literature and another to the Bible. One must apply the
same test, whether the literature under investigation is
secular or religious.
Having done this, I believe we can…say, ‘The Bible is
trustworthy and historically reliable. (Josh McDowell, The
New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1999, p. 68)

What gets to me is the way the critics try to hide all this evidence from us. Is it because they suffer
from a lack of integrity? Or more likely that they’re just quoting someone else who is as ignorant as they
are?
These very critics you put your trust in, are not going to help you survive death. But that Deliverer they
like to attack so much – what if He really is the only answer to man’s problems?

Jonathan Gray
http://www.beforeus.com

[motov]

Originally Posted by sfth13

I watched this video on youtube from Michael Tsarion which gives a different outlook on who is behind religion and humanities evils

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AhbG...eature=related

it's in 13 parts abot 8-10 min. each it's another point of view to think about

i have been into mtsar for some time, read all his work, seen all his videos, and lecture... now, i wouldnt touch his work with a ten fot pole..lol

he is not that good of an researcher as he thinks or would like you to think he is, hes "facts" are so filed with things he have made up that its more confusing then enlighten, like putting bible text together that dont belong together and telling us that its an clue... i use to buy alot, but not anymore... i dont get blinded by incredible storys that dont have leads....

[arcora]

Originally Posted by sfth13

I watched this video on youtube from Michael Tsarion which gives a different outlook on who is behind religion and humanities evils

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AhbG...eature=related

it's in 13 parts abot 8-10 min. each it's another point of view to think about

Here we go again. Confusing the message with the messenger.

[sfth13]

Originally Posted by arcora

Here we go again. Confusing the message with the messenger.

I'm not confusing anything, I was just stating that this guy had a differnet point of view. I wasn't saying that it was true. the fact of the matter is none of us knows what the truth is and won't until we either drop dead or have everything reveiled to us . all these points of view are just opions.

[atama]

you ever been smacked over the back of the head by an angry priest holding the king james ? you'll take that pretty seriously.