Correction: 2000 years ago AIDS did not exist dummy, furthermore mocking Him not a good idea, I mean what you're gonna say to Him at judgment day just before He shoves your dumb ass into hell?
SJD, i will give you an insight into Ace....
Here is his favourite sportsman of all time
https://www.espncricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-australia-2011/content/image/526723.html?object=7656
Correction: 2000 years ago AIDS did not exist dummy, furthermore mocking Him not a good idea, I mean what you're gonna say to Him at judgment day just before He shoves your dumb ass into hell?
SJD, i will give you an insight into Ace....
Here is his favourite sportsman of all time
https://www.espncricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-australia-2011/content/image/526723.html?object=7656
SJD, i will give you an insight into Ace....
Here is his favourite sportsman of all time
https://www.espncricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-australia-2011/content/image/526723.html?object=7656
SJD, i will give you an insight into Ace....
Here is his favourite sportsman of all time
https://www.espncricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-australia-2011/content/image/526723.html?object=7656
Below are just 2 that are NOT Christians.
Tacitus - In his annals wrote that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
So a man named Jesus was crucified according to this one historian
Flavius Josephus - Mentions Jesus, John the Baptist. Scholars note that Josephus corroberates the new testament to detail.
He has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels,[4] this being an item of contention among historians.
Below are just 2 that are NOT Christians.
Tacitus - In his annals wrote that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
So a man named Jesus was crucified according to this one historian
Flavius Josephus - Mentions Jesus, John the Baptist. Scholars note that Josephus corroberates the new testament to detail.
He has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels,[4] this being an item of contention among historians.
Answer is above.
The people crucified were ALL paying for there sins, ie, theives etc etc......Jesus was innocent, 100% sin free.
Sources outside bible please
The other people you mentioned were paying (punished) for their sins. Jesus was crucified for other peoples sins....
Sources
How can you compare the 2?
Don't need to, because you have no sources to prove all of this...
Answer is above.
The people crucified were ALL paying for there sins, ie, theives etc etc......Jesus was innocent, 100% sin free.
Sources outside bible please
The other people you mentioned were paying (punished) for their sins. Jesus was crucified for other peoples sins....
Sources
How can you compare the 2?
Don't need to, because you have no sources to prove all of this...
Correction: 2000 years ago AIDS did not exist dummy, furthermore mocking Him not a good idea, I mean what you're gonna say to Him at judgment day just before He shoves your dumb ass into hell?
Correction: 2000 years ago AIDS did not exist dummy, furthermore mocking Him not a good idea, I mean what you're gonna say to Him at judgment day just before He shoves your dumb ass into hell?
Everyone is entitiled to believe what they want to believe....
I have given you 2 writers that are NOT Christians and who are OUTSIDE the bible who gave an account for Jesus Christ.
Everyone is entitiled to believe what they want to believe....
I have given you 2 writers that are NOT Christians and who are OUTSIDE the bible who gave an account for Jesus Christ.
Everyone is entitiled to believe what they want to believe....
I have given you 2 writers that are NOT Christians and who are OUTSIDE the bible who gave an account for Jesus Christ.
No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (TheTestimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus. What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either!
Everyone is entitiled to believe what they want to believe....
I have given you 2 writers that are NOT Christians and who are OUTSIDE the bible who gave an account for Jesus Christ.
No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (TheTestimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus. What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either!
No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (TheTestimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus. What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either!
So Jesus didnt even exist now?
No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (TheTestimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus. What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either!
So Jesus didnt even exist now?
2000 years ago AIDS did not exist dummy, furthermore mocking Him not a good idea, I mean what you're gonna say to Him at judgment day just before he shoves your dumb ass into hell?
2000 years ago AIDS did not exist dummy, furthermore mocking Him not a good idea, I mean what you're gonna say to Him at judgment day just before he shoves your dumb ass into hell?
So Jesus didnt even exist now?
So Jesus didnt even exist now?
No...you won't be ok because he exists...sorry to burst your bubble but hey you can't help it, I mean your username says it all...misfits...you must be a member of maladjusted people...lol
misfit: 1. the act or condition of misfitting 2. anything that misfits, as a badly fitting garment 3. a person not suited to his position, associates, etc.; maladjusted person
No...you won't be ok because he exists...sorry to burst your bubble but hey you can't help it, I mean your username says it all...misfits...you must be a member of maladjusted people...lol
misfit: 1. the act or condition of misfitting 2. anything that misfits, as a badly fitting garment 3. a person not suited to his position, associates, etc.; maladjusted person
Jesus had to do miraculous deeds to prove He was the Son of God, for only God is able to do things like walk on water, heal the sick and crippled, feed the multitudes with one basket and lastly resurrect from the dead for which He is the first and not the last because devout believers will also be resurrected from the dead to spend eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven with our Lord...amen to that bruthaa!
Jesus had to do miraculous deeds to prove He was the Son of God, for only God is able to do things like walk on water, heal the sick and crippled, feed the multitudes with one basket and lastly resurrect from the dead for which He is the first and not the last because devout believers will also be resurrected from the dead to spend eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven with our Lord...amen to that bruthaa!
No...you won't be ok because he exists...sorry to burst your bubble but hey you can't help it, I mean your username says it all...misfits...you must be a member of maladjusted people...lol
misfit: 1. the act or condition of misfitting 2. anything that misfits, as a badly fitting garment 3. a person not suited to his position, associates, etc.; maladjusted person
No...you won't be ok because he exists...sorry to burst your bubble but hey you can't help it, I mean your username says it all...misfits...you must be a member of maladjusted people...lol
misfit: 1. the act or condition of misfitting 2. anything that misfits, as a badly fitting garment 3. a person not suited to his position, associates, etc.; maladjusted person
No...you won't be ok because he exists...sorry to burst your bubble but hey you can't help it, I mean your username says it all...misfits...you must be a member of maladjusted people...lol
misfit: 1. the act or condition of misfitting 2. anything that misfits, as a badly fitting garment 3. a person not suited to his position, associates, etc.; maladjusted person
No...you won't be ok because he exists...sorry to burst your bubble but hey you can't help it, I mean your username says it all...misfits...you must be a member of maladjusted people...lol
misfit: 1. the act or condition of misfitting 2. anything that misfits, as a badly fitting garment 3. a person not suited to his position, associates, etc.; maladjusted person
Let me explain to you what is the big deal of why Christ had to die on the cross to save humanity.
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).
Before Adam and Eve sinned (Genesis 3), they had a good relationship with God. Therefore, they were not ashamed to come into God's presence. But after they sinned, their relationship with God changed, and they were ashamed to come into God's physical presence. Sin had separated them and the entire human race-including you-from God.
But God did not want sin to keep people from having a relationship with him. So he provided a way in which people could be cleansed of their sins and live with him in heaven forever. He gave his only Son, Jesus, as the perfect payment for everyone's sins.
So in essence Christ dying on the cross was the bridge that was needed to fill in the gap that was between God and people's sins. Jesus Christ was the only one who ever lived without sinning and so by him dying on the cross it was the perfect sacrifice that was needed to pay for everyone's sins. Without that bridge all humanity would have been doomed and no one I repeat no one would have been allowed to share a relationship with God in his Heavenly Kingdom!
So now if you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord Savior who died on the cross for you and you have changed your ways by not sinning anymore you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven someday and will have eternal life with God and the rests of the believers who are saved.
Let me explain to you what is the big deal of why Christ had to die on the cross to save humanity.
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).
Before Adam and Eve sinned (Genesis 3), they had a good relationship with God. Therefore, they were not ashamed to come into God's presence. But after they sinned, their relationship with God changed, and they were ashamed to come into God's physical presence. Sin had separated them and the entire human race-including you-from God.
But God did not want sin to keep people from having a relationship with him. So he provided a way in which people could be cleansed of their sins and live with him in heaven forever. He gave his only Son, Jesus, as the perfect payment for everyone's sins.
So in essence Christ dying on the cross was the bridge that was needed to fill in the gap that was between God and people's sins. Jesus Christ was the only one who ever lived without sinning and so by him dying on the cross it was the perfect sacrifice that was needed to pay for everyone's sins. Without that bridge all humanity would have been doomed and no one I repeat no one would have been allowed to share a relationship with God in his Heavenly Kingdom!
So now if you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord Savior who died on the cross for you and you have changed your ways by not sinning anymore you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven someday and will have eternal life with God and the rests of the believers who are saved.
Look, i think i may have mentioned this here before, even if you had seen this with your own eyes, you would still have been a skeptic....
Look at sep 11...The whole thing was caught on camera, invesitgated at nauseum, forensics, several what thousand witnesses, several hundred testimonies, people, govt, etc etc........AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE RESULT IS?
THERE ARE STILL SKEPTICS NO MATTER WHAT. NO MATTER WHAT, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SKEPTICS. LOOK AT THE ATTACK IN YOUR OWN BACKYARD 10 YEARS AGO, ALL CAUGHT ON FILM, WITNESSES, ETC ETC ETC......AND THERE ARE STILL SKEPTICS.......
Who would every think the govt would bomb up there own buildings and kill what 5000 people? No way, surely not...
This post is not about if they did or not, the main point is, no matter how radicle the claim, wether it is caught on film, etc etc etc,THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SKEPTICS.
Why would what happened 2000 years ago be different? Humans back then are humans today
Look, i think i may have mentioned this here before, even if you had seen this with your own eyes, you would still have been a skeptic....
Look at sep 11...The whole thing was caught on camera, invesitgated at nauseum, forensics, several what thousand witnesses, several hundred testimonies, people, govt, etc etc........AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE RESULT IS?
THERE ARE STILL SKEPTICS NO MATTER WHAT. NO MATTER WHAT, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SKEPTICS. LOOK AT THE ATTACK IN YOUR OWN BACKYARD 10 YEARS AGO, ALL CAUGHT ON FILM, WITNESSES, ETC ETC ETC......AND THERE ARE STILL SKEPTICS.......
Who would every think the govt would bomb up there own buildings and kill what 5000 people? No way, surely not...
This post is not about if they did or not, the main point is, no matter how radicle the claim, wether it is caught on film, etc etc etc,THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SKEPTICS.
Why would what happened 2000 years ago be different? Humans back then are humans today
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.