How do we know the Bible is true?

Of course! And the answer was given to you by Virus in the post previous to this one
http://lamiafede.blogspot.com/2015/06/la-tua-parola-verit-per-z3r.html
ciao

Here it is…

I have already answered http://lamiafede.blogspot.com/2015/06/la-tua-parola-verit-per-z3r.html

So I'm afraid it hasn't arrived…

Okay, Let me know if you receive it otherwise I'll try to send it back

(already shipped, updated version)
Response to Virus.

Your explanations were impeccable. They make it clear what a great Bible expert you are, and in this you have all my respect. But, anyhow, your theses were not enough to overturn my considerations, and now I will explain why.

As you say, i 4 Gospels were written differently precisely because the audience to which they were addressed was different. Matthew wrote the gospel for the Jews, Mark wrote it for the Gentiles, Luke for the Greeks and John did it for all humanity, showing the deepest side of Jesus.
It's a shame that this isn't enough to prove its historical authenticity, nor the divine provenance.
I know, as you say, the truth is that their differences are due to the different categories of people they were intended for, this makes them even more embarrassed. Why are you telling me that to establish itself as the word of God, and as a means of salvation, the Evangelists had to lie and change events. Now I'll tell you what you told me with your explanation on diversity:
You told me that Matthew gave royal lineage to Jesus, and identified him as the messiah of the prophecies, to make it more credible in the eyes of the Jews
You told me that Mark described the miracles in a pompous way to make him more credible to the Romans
You told me that Luca, disciple of Paul of Tarsus, he transcribed everything adding his own, to make it known to the Greeks (among other things, something very false, all the gospels were written in Greek, language of the Eastern Roman Empire)
You told me that Giovanni, after the figure of Jesus had spread throughout the empire, he decided to write a gospel a little’ different to let everyone know the deepest side of the messiah, also showing it different from that described by the other gospels.
If this is it, what you wanted to tell me, then not only have you not convinced me, but you have accentuated in me the doubt that the events described by the evangelists are the fruit of their fervent imagination.

Have you ever stopped to look for Christian sources in non-Christian books? Have you ever looked for news of Evangelical events outside of them? Like you advise me to read the Bible carefully (which I did, but oh well, I'll stop repeating it) I advise you to search other sources as well, to get feedback, you would discover very ambiguous things, for example:

Virgin and mother, salve! A son will be born to you and he will be the Savior of the world. But run away, for King Kansa seeks you to die with the tender fruit you bear in your bosom. Our brothers will guide you to the shepherds, which are at the foot of Mount Meru, there you will give the world the divine son.

You know what this is? E’ the description of the birth of the god Krishna, a Hindu tradition dating back a thousand years before the gospels. What do you see in it? I see Maria there, the virgin mother, I see Jesus there, the Savior of the world, I see Herod, King Kansa who is looking for her to kill her and with her the child, I see the shepherds, I see the cave (later adopted by tradition, given that there is no mention of caves in the gospels).
Just like for Krishna, May I remind you of Mitra, Born on 25 December, May I remind you of Horus, followed by 12 disciples, and so on by searching in myths and legends much older than the gospels.
It is possible that the Evangelists used old ones “plot” divine to create their figure of Jesus and therefore also be able to have a divinity made man, to be able to establish themselves in the Roman Empire?

You should know, and I guess you will know, that the messianic cult already existed in the 1st century BC, and he was followed and venerated by those communities called Essenes, the same communities that wrote the famous Dead Sea Scrolls. The Essenes, from which the Zealots were then born, they were a very reserved ethnic group and didn't allow anyone, unless after a period of one year, to join their ranks. It just so happens that the Roman Pantheon, which was spreading due to his conquests, it clashed with the ethics and religiosity of these Essenes who absolutely did not want to see other gods outside of their own, and who firmly believed in that Messiah, King and Warrior of God, that would free them. Thus the Essene-Zealot branches were born which created the various disorders and internal struggles, which were then translated into persecutions. The period of revolt and religious revolt ended in 70 DC, with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Then something happened. Someone, identified as Paul of Tarsus (he is also a very ethereal figure), he understood that to make sure that their religion (the messianic cult) was accredited and integrated with the Roman one, this confidentiality and the fact that only the circumcised could be part of it had to be given up, and in doing so he went on to create that theological trend that we all know today as Christianity.
In fact, from the acts of the apostles it can be seen that there were many arguments between Peter and Paul, and these were precisely caused by the fact that Paul wanted a religion open to Gentiles too, while Peter pursued the original messianic idea, that is, preach religion only to the worthy (and therefore to the Jews).
Paolo, obviously, he prevailed in the dispute, but he could not preach a religion based on the myth of the messiah to come, to establish itself as a religion it had to force this messiah to arrive, and since he had to make it up, he should have also let him die. And here it is, with ingenuity, he revisited the events of riots and disturbances of the first half of the first century, transforming the Essene-zealot rebels into Apostles, and placing a natural person at their head. Jesus. From here the story becomes quite clear. Once you get to Rome, the new Christian religion open to all has become increasingly popular, the church of Paul of Tarsus was expanding and many gospels began to be born, each with its own personality, around the entire empire. Cutting very short, it was then with the edict of Constantine, which liberalized Christian worship, and with the following edict (385 DC if not error…) which made it the sole state religion, that it was inevitable to skim off all that chaos of gospels and acts, to obtain a single text for all the faithful.
But unfortunately, the texts that the Fathers of the Church chose (or that they wrote themselves), they were not free from errors and inaccuracies, having been written by people who had never even been in Palestine, and their mistakes, in the eyes of today's historians, have now been discovered. Voltaire himself, to look for someone not too close to the present day, had expressed his doubts about the authenticity of the Bible.
Just to mention some absurd errors, I can point out to you that Nazareth is referred to as a city located near a mountain and on the shore of a lake. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nazareth is in the plain, the city referred to actually seems to be Gamala (coincidentally the hometown of Judas the Galilean who was the leader of the Zealot groups) and this alone casts doubt on the matter. The forcing of having to give birth to Jesus in that prophetic Bethlehem raises further doubts, because it is clearly a matter of forcing.
The fact is that to the figure of Jesus, or who the guerrilla they were inspired by really was, the adjective Nazarite was associated with it / Nazoreo. Those who later compiled the Gospels mistakenly understood it to mean Nazarite “Of Nazareth” and not, as it actually is, an Essene religious office. This generated a rush for cover by the Evangelists who had to associate Nazareth with Jesus, but to have him born in Bethlehem. And so the two versions of birth were born, according to Matthew and according to Luke:

Matthew has Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem, while Luke makes them live in Nazareth.
Matthew gives birth to Jesus in his home in Bethlehem, while Luke places Mary's birth in an occasional refuge, the famous stable, making it arrive there due to Quirinius' census.
Matthew speaks of Herod's persecution of the child, which would have forced the family to flee to take refuge in Egypt, while Luke makes no mention of all this, the child is presented at the temple without fear that Herod might find him, nor is there any mention of any flight into Egypt.
Matthew has Jesus born in the time of King Herod the Great, i.e. no later than 4 b. C, while Luke has Jesus born during the census of Palestine that the governor of Syria Quirinius oversaw in 7 after Christ: 11 years after!
Matthew has the Bethlehem family go to Nazareth for the first time, on the occasion of his return from exile in Egypt, while Luca, a few days after the birth of Jesus, he returns his family to the town of Nazareth, where he had already lived since before Jesus was born.

Imagine Matthew's face if, looking at today's nativity scenes, he saw his Jesus born in a manger instead of in his house..

Then I could point you out as Jesus, and the miraculous and unique events related to his life, are completely ignored by historians of the time. Pontius Pilate himself, in the chapter of Josephus dedicated to him, it makes no mention of a trial involving the highest Jewish religious authorities and King Herod Antipas. A trial of those proportions would never have been ignored in the reports that Pilate had to send to the Emperor. In the same writing by Josephus there is also a historical falsehood (ascertained) that concerns Jesus, a paragraph clearly interpolated after the writing of the text which makes Josephus say that Jesus was the Messiah, and he was resurrected. As soon as modern historians read it they laughed at how out of place that writing was in the rest of the text, not to mention a Jew, Roman citizen, as Josephus NEVER could have admitted that the Messiah had come in the figure of Jesus.

All this only raises doubts about the real existence of a figure like Jesus Christ. E’ therefore it is useless to continue to rub Biblical writings and sacred texts in people's faces, because if, as they admit, the facts described are real, then there should be no doubt. Too easy to say “the heart of those who do not believe cannot see the truth of the Bible”. It's like saying that Dante actually went to hell just because it's written like that in the Divine Comedy!

Me too, at the moment, I stop here, inviting you to go and look for and watch the birth of some random gods, you will find for yourself that the birth of Jesus is nothing more than a re-proposed version of things already said and re-said.
If you want, tell me that what I say isn't true, or which are facts taken superficially, but know that you're not just saying this to me. You're telling history.

In conclusion, if you want to prove to me that the Bible is true, then don't quote the Bible to me, but find me some historical passages that indicate it to me as the truth of the facts.

I will try to answer Z3RØ.

A me pare, that you read our posts with that “spring” of reading that is not exactly free from prejudices and preconceptions already present.

Regarding the 4 gospels, I know very well that they were written in Greek. Greek at that time, it was like English now… that is, it was learned by various peoples, and known in hundreds of urban centers. Greek was defined as the language of commerce… For faster diffusion, then, not just the gospels, but the entire N.T., it was written in Greek. Then there was no shortage, translations into Hebrew, especially the gospels.

I 4 gospels, intended for different initial readers, for rapid propagation of the church (it's obvious), now they give a figure of Christ, the Messiah, complete and total. But it alone is not enough. The merely intellectual knowledge deriving from reading the gospels, it must be nourished by that deriving from faith and a living relationship with Jesus, which is proposed as the only way, truth and life!

Regarding my research on non-Christian and extra-biblical texts, I invite you to read (carefully, listen to me) the annals of Cornelius Tacitus, some letters from Pliny the Younger to Trajan, and the most substantial work of evidence on Jesus and the beginning of Christianity, and that is “Jewish Antiquities”by Josephus Flavius.

If you want a summary, you can find news on this page… read it please.

http://camcris.altervista.org/provestoriche.html.

Now let's move on to the thesis minestrone, ideologies and myths that you put on fire every time: Krishna, Mitra, Esseni, Zealots… you're worse than Dan Brown sometimes… put it all together to support your goal, without going in depth, and know things well.

To answer you, I start from a premise, and that is that it is highly probable to find minimal percentages of similarities between the life of Jesus and stories, myths and legends of the past.
It would be the same thing, as if among a thousand, two thousand years, someone found similar events and characteristics, between you, Your Life, what you do and what you say, and stories scattered over dozens and dozens of centuries.

A simple search on the virtual encyclopedia Wikipedia.org was enough, to avoid a lot of things you stated.. in any case, I'll do it for you!

But let's go in order now:

Krishna:
He was part of a royal family, in fact Krishna, prince of the royal family of Mathura, he was the eighth son of Devaki and Vasudeva.

Thus Krishna spent his childhood in the Vrindavan district, in the Gokula Woods, among the shepherds, and their wives and daughters (Gopi), first petted by them and then loved.

Now, only a superficial analysis and not free from already established mental constructs, can see similarities between Krishna and Jesus dear Z3RØ.

Eg, his death, then it is similar to the death of Achilles (an arrow in the heel, its only weakness). In your opinion, following your reasoning, who copied this thing? Who invented Krishna or who invented Achilles?

In a similar way I could answer you about the other characters, but I'll stop here for now, hoping to be able to continue soon.

I repeat, it is not enough to find similarities in percentages which are then minimal and negligible, between the life of Jesus and that of phantom and mythical characters, to accuse the authors of the gospels of plagiarism.

You are free to disbelieve Jesus and the Z3RØ gospels, but as ChristianFaith already told you, at least have the respect to attack its veracity, as I have already expressed, with more valid and less cheap arguments.

Thank you!

Sì certo, sono tante le similitudini, but they do not constitute evidence! There are also many between Christ and Mithras, as Virus claimed!
Do one thing, you go to a courtroom reporting hypotheses, theories and similarities between one fact and another, and see if you win the case 😉

Salve, I read this article with interest and I must say with sincerity that I do not agree at all.

Not to be controversial, but the topic “Many Bible prophecies have come true so the Bible tells the truth about everything” it is fallacious.

In addition to more or less verified predictions, the Bible also contains a series of obvious historical inaccuracies. Just to name a few:

1) Joshua 10,12
Joshua said to the Lord before the eyes of Israel: “Sole, stop in Gibeon and you, luna, over the valley of Aijalon”. The sun stood still and the moon remained motionless until the people took revenge on their enemies.

Anyone who knows a little about astronomy knows that it is the Earth that revolves around the Sun. And it's not just a question of reference points. If Earth is taken as a reference point, the inner planets of the solar system would have orbits that do not include Earth.

2) Genesis 1,27
God created man in his image;
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Creation of man as an act of separate creation. Palesemente in contraddizione con la teoria dell’evoluzione che vede l’uomo discendere dalle protoscimmie.

3)Leviticus 11,6
La lepre, perché rumina, ma non ha l’unghia divisa, la considererete immonda.

La Lepre non è un ruminante.

Ma soprattutto la Bibbia non è l’unico testo antico che azzecca qualche previsione. Senza scomodare il Corano posso citarti L’Iliade. L’Iliade descrive con così grande precisione gli scenari della guerra di Troia che nel 1872 l’archeologo Schliemann seguendo tali indicazioni scopri le rovine di Troia. Ne dobbiamo forse dedurre che siccome l’Iliade azzecca alcune previsioni le divinità greche esistono? Mi sembra un ipotesi tirata per i capelli.

Cordiali saluti
G.L.

“it is not science but philosophy!”

Strange.
I look forward to your answers.

Good evening.
G.L.

In the Feltrinelli Fischer Encyclopedia, vol. 13, Biology 2 (Zoology), p. 215, it is read: «Rodents are also considered “ruminants”, as they eat a second time the excrements relatively rich in food substances that have been emitted from their large caecum"
All those who criticize the Word of God, sooner or later they find themselves making similar fools. The rest, if they were convinced that the Bible is the "Word of God" in all its parts, they would not allow themselves to make certain statements.
{Argentinian Quintavalle}

About ruminants.

taken from wikipedia:

The members of this suborder have in common the characteristic of rumination: they digest food after chewing and swallowing it, and then regurgitate it and chew it again, in order to extract the greatest possible amount of nourishment from it.

As you can see, the hare does not ruminate, you got the wrong hole!

Sorry for the bad joke. Happy Sunday. G.L.

The one about the hare is an interesting etymological question. If you tell me there is a translation error, I can only agree with you.

After all, this isn't the first time this has happened in the Bible. For example the step of the camel and the needle. Clear translation error between kamelos camel and kamilos gomena. I am well aware that my bible (the CEI one) it is among the most manipulated.

However, that of the hare was unknown to me.

I see that we disagree on the definition of ruminant.
If you want we can also leave the issue aside and focus on my other objections.

Greetings and best wishes for a happy Sunday.
G.L.

PS did you take a look at the site I indicated to you, I think you could get some interesting food for thought.

No, you have to be objective about the hare: I gave you an encyclopedic definition and told you what zoologists teach, if you do this then you are not objective.
I believe that the hare problem can be considered a solved problem!
I advise you to change the Bible if you want to understand something about it, the CEI should be banned! read a Luzzi or a Nuova Riveduta.
ciao

Regarding the prophecies of the Messiah I published a post with a very long list of prophecies made in the OT from millennia to centuries before the coming of the Messiah and their fulfillment alongside in the NT. You can have fun finding everything about the Bible because the verses are listed.
You still have the courage to compare the prophecies of the Bible with the Iliad, the Koran or whatever? It takes courage eh! And these are just the prophecies of the messiah, there are many others, also concerning Israel today and what is going on politically in the world! Everything written in the Bible and said by Jesus 2000 years ago when he spoke of the signs of the end before his second coming and last judgement!
What does Zeus have to do with it??
the Iliad never claimed to be the word of God!
Then the Koran? but if he was born in 600 AD by a leader who said he had a vision and spoke with God! But what prophecies does it contain?? Eddy!

Jesus talked about false prophets and how to recognize them.

In addition to the Bible then, because Christianity? Because there is no other faith and revelation on the face of the earth in which God became man and lived among people to make himself known and to save them from the evil that reigns in the world. Good works will not save anyone because everyone sins, no one is without sin, nobody, only Jesus is because he is God. There are no Madonnas, maria teresa of calcutta that they hold, we are all worthy of eternal death because of who we are by nature: It appears to you that the best person on earth did not think evil thoughts of me? felt envious? told a lie? Or just thought? If it weren't for Jesus who through his sacrifice offered us eternal life for anyone who believes in him, wants to hope for salvation!
it's because then you'll say, he died on the cross? what purpose does it serve? if God is God there was no need for this? I asked myself that too! Why do you think that if he didn't do it and didn't resurrect people then they believed that he was God? Christianity would not have been born through the apostles, rather than deny what they had seen with their own eyes, they allowed themselves to be killed and died as martyrs (you don't think it's strange? anyone at the point of death confesses a lie), skin, as Christians are today, as I am in this blog, pay attention, we are fooled, as fools and bigots and gullible, don't be afraid this is also written in the Bible, it must be so “Because many are called but few are chosen”(Mt 22,14) Salvation is explained to many but few understand and receive it.

Why “Enter through the narrow door, for wide is the gate and wide the way that leads to perdition, and many are those who enter through it. How narrow is the door and the way that leads to life! And few are those who find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inside they are predatory wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. ” (Matteo 7:13,14).

Don't believe that Christians go to heaven because they call themselves wings!!! Don't think that the Catholics you know will go to heaven because they go to church! Those who accept Jesus and live with him daily following his teachings go to heaven (Catholic ones are the exact opposite of what the Bible says, if you want, pop into the section “Catholicism”)
There is only one way to reach the sky (narrow and cramped, almost hard to find) and on the way his name is Jesus Christ!
I hope you can find that way after your long searches for the truth.