Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Hi allNow i will try to show all the roman authors that daniel referenced ,how they failed to be the proof of Jesus resurrection. they are more of allusions rather than actual proof for jesus resurrection/existence.Pliny ,the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote a very short passage to Emperor Trajan in 112CE requesting of how to deal with the troublesome Christians. Suetonius ,a Roman historian had a list of miscellaneous notes on the legislative matters between 'considering of sale of food in taverns and briefly discussing the behavior of charioteers' in 64 CE. "Punishment was inflicted on the christians, a class of men, given to a new and wicked superstition." but all these sources really tells us nothing on Jesus only that there was a few christian existed in the Roman world.Suetonius , between 41-54 CE ,under the ruled of emperor Claudius to expel jews from Rome because they constantly made disturbance at the instigation of Crestus. Although Crestus was a popular name but often taken as the corruption of "christ" ,the greek versions of Hebrew 'Messiah'.Hence at that time , any 'would-be Messiah' would be a rousing jew rebellion. so the supposition that any reference to 'Christ' necessarily referred to Jesus christ is totally unfounded. Furthermore ,jesus had never visited Rome. Therefore , all that we being told is that Claudius had to deal with many troublesome jews which was a regular occurrence in Roman history.Considering TacitusHis writings about the great fire of Rome in 64CE ,Nero blamed the christians for it to eliminate that rumor which was Nero ,himself who started the blaze.As governor of Asia (c.112 CE) he must have been familiar with the Christians "troublemakers" as his friend ,Pliny obviously was. Though Tacitus further characterized christians as 'audio humani generic' that is detestable(or odious) to the human race. He say that they were pitied because of their brutal punishments.The only thing that would make Tacitus writings ,an independent testimony of the existence/resurrection of jesus and not merely repetitions of the christians beliefs would be if he had gained his information about christ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate from the copious records that the Roman kept of their legal dealings. But this does not seems to be the case, for Tacitus call Pilate the "procurator" of Judea when he was in fact a "prefect" so Tacitus is clearly not following the records at that time but merely quoting a Hearsay information from his own day.there are other problems ,in Tacitus story ,the Annals was written in ca.120AD nearly a century after the traditional dates of the crucifixion. Did he actually have a record of the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate or did he simply accept what christians claimed about their religion ?In Antiquities 18:3:3 "….. He was the Christ;and when Pilate…."Considering Josephus referred jesus as 'Christ' the greek versions of Hebrew 'Messiah'.He too was among the "tribe of christians," One would expect him to be converted after Josephus "mentioned" Jesus to be the Messiah. Yet Josephus remained loyal to both Jew and Rome ,throughout his life. Later in Antiquities 20:9:1 "the brother of Jesus ,who was called christ" Here jesus is not called 'the christ' only someone call christ.see the difference ,there is an contradiction hereJosephus mentioned jesus as he recorded the passing of James (Antiquities 20.9.1) ,and this is the only time that he mentioned Jesus. had he really thought Jesus as the messiah ? why mentioned jesus only once ?it seems highly unlikely ,Not only he NOT mentioned Jesus again ,he didn't utter those christians again. This is odd ,since he was acquainted with the rule of Nero and lived into the period of Domitian. Because of all of these problems ,the account of jesus by Josephus is a fraud. the "Jesus account" rather more like an interpolation by a later christian copyist. By critical scholarship ,has revealed them to be a much later additions to Josephus text. they are not same hand & contents writing style as Josephus. but if they remove the forged passage ,the original passage flows more in proper sequence.Furthermore ,Origen tells us that Josephus didn't mention Jesus and that he did not even believe that he was christ since he had never believe in any jewish messiah figure. Origen was quoted by St Jerome as advising presbyters in the church who were 'forced by circumstance to lie ',The need to observe the rules of the art of lying and to use the lie when arguing with a disbeliever in order to win that person over to important Christian points. St Jerome himself claimed to write in a lying manner and cited in support of the practice, number of greek and latin christian writers before him, he named St Paul as a liar.Most theologians believe that its was Bishop Eusebius who fabricated the passage ,when he admitted of rewriting Josephus works in 329 AD. As the passage is not found prior to Eusebius (260-339) era. (Ecclesiastical history ,Eusebius)end of part onehappy holidaysbest regards"How well we know ,what profitable superstition this Fable of christhas been for us." --Pope Leo X (1513-1521)