YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #astronomy #pandemic #death #vaccination #biology #terrorism #trafficsafety #crime #astrophysics #assaultcar #carviolence #stopcars #nasa #mortality #notonemore
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2026 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Night mode toggle
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2026 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

History Traveler
History Traveler
1 y

The Second Punic War: How Hannibal Almost Conquered Rome
Favicon 
www.thecollector.com

The Second Punic War: How Hannibal Almost Conquered Rome

  Historians grimace at the word “inevitable,”  but in the same way that the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 laid the groundwork for further conflict, so too did the treaty between Rome and Carthage that ended the First Punic War.   While Carthage was left damaged territorially, economically, and militarily, it sought to heal. But one family would turn recovery into revenge. The conflict began with Hamilcar Barca, and would see his son Hannibal take the conflict to the Romans on their own soil. The Second Punic War would be devastating for Rome’s armies, but they would eventually beat the Carthaginians into submission for a second time. But it is Hannibal who would earn a reputation as one of the greatest military commanders ever known.   Growing Carthaginian Influence in Iberia Portrait of Hamilcar Barca, French engraving and etching, c. 18th century. Source: British Museum, London.   For many Carthaginians, the terms of the Treaty of Lutatius reached with Rome in 241 BCE were egregious. Most notable among the treaty’s detractors was Hamilcar Barca. The general and statesman was undefeated during the First Punic War, but he and the Carthaginians were forced to cede Sicily and Sardinia to the Romans. Hamilcar was not ready to retire and turned his attention to expanding Carthaginian power in Spain.   For centuries the Phoenicians had maintained a presence in the Spanish Iberian peninsula, particularly on the southern coast, establishing trading colonies within its natural harbors.   Hamilcar, with the help of his son-in-law Hasdrubal and his young son Hannibal, carved out a pseudo-monarchical state on the peninsula. Reaping the benefits of Iberia’s ample silver mines and agricultural potential, the Carthaginians began to regain their commercial strength that had been lost.   The ancient historians Cassius Dio and Cornelius Nepos tell us that it was on one of these Iberian campaigns that Hamilcar fell in battle at the hands of a people called the “Vettones.”   Despite the death of the patriarch, the Barcid’s power persisted under the command of Hasdrubal. Wary of their old enemies and their growing power, the Romans signed a new treaty with the Carthaginians in 226 BCE to establish the boundary of Carthage’s sphere of influence at the Ebro River in northern Spain.   Hasdrubal’s time in Iberia was cut short by his subsequent death. His successor would have little respect for boundaries, and far less for Romans.   Provoking War The Oath of Hannibal, by Benjamin West, 1770. Source: Royal Collection Trust, London (ID: RCIN 405417).   The ancient historian Polybius attributes these words to Hannibal as evidence of Hamilcar’s indoctrination of his young son against Rome.   “When my father was about to go on his Iberian expedition I was nine years old: and as he was offering the sacrifice to Zeus I stood near the altar… he then bade all the other worshippers stand a little back, and calling me to him, asked me affectionately whether I wished to go with him on his expedition. Upon my eagerly assenting, and begging with boyish enthusiasm to be allowed to go, he took me by the right hand and led me up to the altar, and bade me lay my hand upon the victim and swear that I would never be friends with Rome.”   Born in the waning years of the First Punic War, Hannibal would be raised in a society that had been thoroughly humbled by the Romans. From an early age, Hannibal was on campaign with his father. Spain became his training ground, leading the cavalry and learning the ways of war.   Taking over for his brother-in-law, Hannibal was leery of moving on the town of Saguntum (modern Valencia) before he was totally prepared. The Saguntines had entered talks with the Romans despite the town lying south of the Ebro River. According to the treaty of 226 BCE, Saguntum lay within the Carthaginian sphere of influence. Nevertheless, Hannibal besieged the city in 218 BCE, simultaneously claiming the role of liberator and attacker.   The Saguntines resisted, hoping that a Roman relief army would appear as an answer to their letters. It never came. Hannibal stormed the city and wiped out the entire adult population. Rather than an army, Rome sent a declaration of war.   The March Into Italy Map of the western Mediterranean at the outbreak of the Second Punic War. Source: Dickinson College, Pennsylvania.   Hannibal wasted little time. He had learned the lessons of the First Punic War and was unwilling to let the Romans fight on the offensive in Iberia, or even worse, in Africa. Bereft of a navy by the terms of the Treaty of Lutatius, he gathered his forces at Nova Carthago (modern Cartagena), and decided to take the war to the Romans and march overland to Italy.   He began his journey crossing the Pyrenees and coming into contact with many Celtic tribes, whom he had hoped to recruit to his cause. The Romans, hearing of his progress, made plans of their own. They deployed one consul, Publius Cornelius Scipio, to Iberia, and the other, Tiberius Sempronius Longus, with the invasion of Africa.   As Hannibal crossed the Rhone River, Scipio disembarked his men at Massalia (modern day Marseille), assuming that Hannibal’s march would follow the coast. The two armies’ cavalries skirmished briefly, but Hannibal side-stepped the larger engagement, and despite the onset of winter, disappeared into the Alps.   Harried by treacherous footing, fickle Gallic tribes, brutal cold, and thick snow, Hannibal marched his army through the Alps. For two weeks they suffered, losing many men, horses, and war elephants to ambushes, starvation, freezing temperatures, and steep cliff faces. Finally, his army began their descent into Italy. Having circumvented Scipio’s army, Hannibal appeared in the province of Cisalpine Gaul (modern-day northern Italy) with 20,000 infantry of varying ethnicities including Libyans, Iberians, Numidians, and Gauls.   First Battle of the Second Punic War Snow Storm: Hannibal and His Army Crossing the Alps, by J.M.W Turner, c. 1812. Source: Tate Museum, London (Ref: N00490).   Now November 218 BCE, no one had foreseen Hannibal’s audacity. Still short of his 30th birthday, Hannibal had made an enormous gamble. His army had been battered, exposed to the elements, and left short of food. But they were now on Roman soil.   Publius Scipio scrambled back from the Rhone Valley to try to head off Hannibal once again. Alerted by the oncoming dust cloud of the cavalry, each side prepared for what would become known as the Battle of the Ticinus River. Promising his men grants of land, money, or citizenship, Hannibal exhorted his men onwards, arranging his Carthaginian cavalry in the center and his Numidians on the flanks.   Scipio, holding a low opinion of the Numidians from their skirmish in the Rhone Valley, advanced. The Roman javelinmen (velites) hurled their projectiles at the enemy line and quickly retreated. A stalemate developed until the Numidians, using their famed mobility, circled around the flanks and hit the Romans in the rear. Panic ensued as the lightly armed velites were cut down by the horsemen.   As the Numidians closed in, Publius Scipio was wounded and Hannibal was close to sealing his victory with the death of a consul. Had it not been for a stunning act of bravery by the consul’s son, also named Publius Cornelius Scipio, who rode through the enemy lines to save his father, Hannibal’s victory would have been complete. Albeit stunned, the Romans retained their consul, and withdrew.   Panic in Rome and the Battle of the Trebia River Annibale in Italia, by Jacopo Ripanda (attr.), c. 16th century. Source: Capitoline Museum, Rome.   Following this defeat on Roman soil, panic ensued in the Roman Senate. Sempronius Longus was recalled to defend Italy. He rushed north to join his consular colleague, the wounded Scipio, who, despite his defeat, had continued to shadow Hannibal’s army.   Having captured a grain depot at Clastidium in Cisalpine Gaul, Hannibal approached the River Trebia in December 218 BCE. Holding the high ground on the other bank, Longus and Scipio funneled cavalry of their own across the shallow river to meet Hannibal’s Numidian scouts. Unprepared for a serious engagement, the Carthaginians withdrew, under a hail of javelins, having lost a significant number of men to the quick-acting Romans.   With Scipio still too ill to lead the men himself, Longus sought to escalate the engagement with Hannibal, despite Scipio’s weary words of warning.   Picking a thicket sufficient to conceal part of his army, Hannibal laid his trap. He sent a contingent of Numidian horsemen across the river to draw out the Roman forces. Longus hastily took the bait. He drew up the entirety of his consular army (approximately 40,000 men: four legions and 20,000 socii allies) and advanced across the river despite the cold and driving rain.   Hannibal arranged his men, 20,000 infantry of Iberians, Celts, and Libyans, in one long line with his Numidians and war elephants on either wing. Hannibal allowed Longus’ advance guard to draw near. Once the signal was given, the Carthaginian army descended upon the Romans. It was then that Mago, Hannibal’s brother, emerged from the thicket with his own forces, attacking the Romans from behind.   Seeing their flanks crumbling, the rest of the Roman army (perhaps as much as half according to Polybius) was cut down and trampled by the Numidians and war elephants as they tried to flee back towards the river. The combined consular army of Scipio and Longus was halved before midday.   The War Reaches Italy: The Battle of Lake Trasimene The fields surrounding Lake Trasimene, July 2023. Source: Copyright Christopher Nelson.   With two victories now in hand, the Carthaginians broke camp for the winter in June 217 BCE and began their march south. Hannibal circumvented the Romans yet again by trudging through uninhabitable marsh and appearing in Etruria (modern Tuscany and Umbria). His daring maneuver worked but he lost the function of one eye to disease.   Outside the walls of Arretium (modern Arezzo), Hannibal, famous for his insight into the personalities of his Roman counterparts, knew that the new consul, Gaius Flaminius, holed up behind the walls would not be able to sit back and watch as he ravaged the countryside.   Flaminius sallied out and chased after Hannibal, who had positioned himself in the hills surrounding the town of Cortona. His troops overlooked a valley and a thin road on the banks of Lake Trasimene. This created a defile that would force opposing troops to march in a narrow column. Shrouded amongst the undulating hills, the Carthaginian army stretched the entire length of the defile, waiting for the eager Flaminius to fall into the trap.   The next morning, Flaminius came upon the defile. With the hills further shrouded by a persisting misty rain, Flaminius marched his army down the narrow road. When the bulk of the Roman army was confined within the defile, Hannibal gave the signal to attack, and “delivered an assault upon the enemy at every point at once” (Polybius).   The Roman soldiers were set upon so quickly that many did not have a chance to defend themselves. They were cut down where they stood. Others were pushed into the lake, or jumped in and began to swim, only to be dragged to the bottom by their heavy armor.   When the mist broke, a small group of Romans, who had managed to push their way out one end of the narrow passage, looked back and saw the devastation that had occurred. Over 20,000 of their comrades lay dead, including the consul Flaminius.   The Fabian Strategy   Statue of Quintus Fabius Maximus “Cunctator,” by J.B. Hagenauer, 1777. Source: Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna.   Word of Flaminius’ carelessness soon made it back to Rome. The annihilation of yet another army “threw the city into a great commotion,” according to Plutarch. In their desperation, they appointed a dictator to serve for the term of six months. The man they chose was Quintus Fabius Maximus.   Having seen the devastation Hannibal had wrought, Fabius concluded that to confront him was suicide. Instead, supply lines would be cut, foraging parties intercepted, farmsteads or other potential sources of supplies would be burned, but Hannibal was not to be engaged directly.   For Fabius, the only prudent course of action was to let the effects of disadvantageous terrain, hunger, and time slowly whittle down and break apart Hannibal’s multinational coalition. Hannibal knew that, given enough time, Fabius’ strategy could obstruct his ultimate goals. He feigned attacks on Fabius, continually trying to draw him out. But Fabius waited patiently until Hannibal finally made a mistake.   Mixing up the name of a nearby town, Hannibal marched his men into a valley surrounded on all sides by mountains. Fabius sprung into action, blocking off the pass and stationing his skirmishers on the high ground. Thinking they were completely surrounded, the Carthaginian army began to waver.   Hannibal, however, steadied his men, instructing them to tie torches to the horns of cattle. They drove the beasts of burden, at first slowly, towards the Roman lines, imitating the form and pace of marching soldiers. When the wood burned down and hit the skin of the oxen, they jolted forward, throwing themselves in an anguished panic at the Romans. While the Romans broke rank, Hannibal slipped through their grasp.   Roman Forces Divided Model of archaic Rome. Source: Museo Della Civiltà Romana, Rome.   With his men hungry and feeling vengeful, Hannibal ravaged the countryside, making certain that Fabius’ country villa remained intact, implying a secret coalition between the two.   Many Romans had had enough of the eponymous “Fabian Strategy.” They called him cowardly, “Hannibal’s pedagogue,” cunctator (the delayer), all for his stubborn refusal to attack the enemy even as the countryside burned.   Chief among the critics was his second-in-command Marcus Minucius; the magister equitum (master of horse). Contrary to Fabius’ orders, Minucius attacked the Carthaginian camp while Hannibal was away. This victory, albeit small, was lauded by the Roman Senate. Fearful of Fabius’ power to punish his subordination, the senate voted Minucius equal powers to the dictator. With the Roman forces now divided and Hannibal well aware of the animosity between the two men, he seized the initiative. Hannibal split the forces of the Romans by occupying a hill in between them.   During the night, Hannibal stashed a contingent of men behind the undulating terrain, out of sight of either Roman force. In the morning, he challenged Minucius to battle. Minucius obliged and the two forces fought savagely for sole possession of the hill. As Hannibal’s cavalry squeezed the heavy Roman infantry, the signal was given for the hidden Carthaginian contingent to emerge and hit the Roman flank. As Minucius’ forces crumbled away, Fabius, the ever-cautious commander, mustered his men and made a desperate march to save his colleague. The ever-prudent Hannibal, knowing he was outmatched, quickly withdrew.   Fabius’ quick reaction prevented a larger disaster. But it would not matter. Rome was tired of his perceived inaction. His term expired and he was maligned rather than praised for keeping the war effort afloat. The only man that seemed to see the prudence in Fabius’ strategy had just slipped through the Roman’s fingers yet again.   A New Roman Army and the Battle of Cannae Diagram of the Battle of Cannae. Source: Dickinson College, Pennsylvania.   With Fabius out of the way and a winter to regroup, in August 216 BCE the Roman war machine roared back to life. While Fabius had waged his guerilla war against Hannibal, the Senate issued a decree to muster an unprecedented eight new legions. With this massive force, the Romans sought to bring Hannibal to heel once and for all at the battle of Cannae.   For the task at hand, they assigned the two consuls, Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro. They marched towards Hannibal’s encampment. Paullus urged caution, citing the long, flat plain in front of them. Hannibal’s Numidian cavalry would be too effective there. As was the custom, however, the command of the army when two consuls were present switched off each day. Ignoring his colleague, Varro ordered an advance. With cavalry on his flanks, Varro stacked the maniples with greater depth to take full advantage of the weight of his numerical advantage.   Hannibal, whose army made up little more than half of the Romans, countered with his Iberian and Celtic cavalry alongside the river on his left, his heavy Libyan and Celtic infantry, wearing Roman armor taken from the dead at Trebia and Trasimene, in the middle, and his Numidians on the right. Rather than a standard battle line, Hannibal arranged his men in a convex formation, the belly of the arc pointed directly at the Roman infantry.   The Darkest Day Bronze Montefortino Type Helmet similar to what the Roman soldiers would have worn in the Second Punic War, Etruscan, c. 4th-3rd century BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (L.2018.51).   Under a hail of projectiles launched by his Balearic slingers, Hannibal’s cavalry slammed into their Roman counterparts on the wings. The Roman cavalry collapsed and the Carthaginians gave chase, leaving only the infantry on the field.   Varro’s massive columns marched directly at Hannibal’s crescent formation, hoping to overwhelm it with sheer numbers. As the two lines met, Hannibal’s center slowly gave ground, drawing more and more Romans into the fray. Even as their center gave ground, Hannibal’s flanks held. Varro, hoping to smash through the Celtic center and encircle the rest of Hannibal’s army, fed more men into the breach.   Hannibal’s arrangement now became concave with the Roman’s pushing so deeply into the center that the Libyans on the flanks were now behind them. As Hannibal had planned, the Libyans turned inwards and the Numidians hit the Romans in the rear and completed the encirclement.   With so many men in such a dense formation, the enveloped legions were compressed to the point that they could lift neither shield nor sword to defend themselves. For hours the Romans could only wait to be cut down or trampled. The largest army in Roman history was slowly and methodically massacred.   Not until the mechanized killing of the 20th century, would the world see such a bloody day. Polybius tells us that by the end of the day, 70,000 Romans were killed or captured. Yet another consul, Lucius Paullus, was killed in action.   In two years, since his arrival in Roman territory, Hannibal had reduced Rome’s male population by 20%. To put that in perspective, during the Great War, France lost nearly 5% of its total population in four years.   The War in Spain: A Battle of Brothers  Bust of Publius Cornelius Scipio, later to be called “Africanus,” in the Capitoline Museum, Rome. Source: Copyright Christopher Nelson.   Having failed to defeat Hannibal at the River Ticinus, Publius Cornelius Scipio and his brother Gnaeus were sent to Iberia to disrupt the base of Carthaginian power from which Hannibal had launched his invasion.   In 211 BCE, the Scipio brothers redoubled their offensive. Publius led his forces against Hannibal’s brother Mago while Gnaeus took the remaining Romans and Celtiberian mercenaries against another Hasdrubal Barca. Deceitful tribesmen and Carthaginian bribery left the two Roman armies isolated. Publius found himself ambushed, and in a daring night escape, he was slain by a javelin. Like carrions circling their prey, the three Carthaginian armies engulfed the remaining legions under Gnaeus.   Without competent leadership, the Iberian front was on the verge of collapsing. Eager to prove himself and reclaim his family’s honor, the younger Publius Cornelius Scipio, son of the now dead Publius, appeared before the Comitia Centuriata (committee of centurions) and was unanimously elected to lead. Known for saving his father’s life at Ticinus, the youth was still only in his mid-twenties. A veteran of Ticinus, Trasimene, and Trebia, the younger Publius had experience, but had seen only defeat.   The wide dispersion of the three main Carthaginian armies in Iberia led Publius to adopt a bolder plan of action. Unlike his uncle and father’s campaign, which had lasted for seven seasons, Publius sought to strike a decisive blow. He set his eyes on the Carthaginian regional capital: Carthago Nova.   Coordinating his attack with the Roman navy, Scipio launched a feint to pull the defenders away from the north wall. As Roman casualties mounted, a group of 500 soldiers waded across a lagoon at low tide and seized the undefended gatehouse.   Scipio now possessed a major logistics hub on the southern coast of Iberia. It would be a perfect stepping stone for what he had planned next.   The Sword of Rome and the Siege of Syracuse Roman Denarius portraying Marcus Claudius Marcellus, 50-49 BCE. Source: Art Institute of Chicago (Ref: 1922.4846a).     During the long reign of Hiero II of Syracuse (Sicily), the Syracusans had been a staunch ally of the Romans. Following the Roman defeats and the death of Hiero in the following year, Syracuse descended into chaos, second guessing their alliance with Rome. It was in this chaos that Marcus Claudius Marcellus, elected consul for a third time in 213 BCE, was sent to Sicily. A veteran of the First Punic War, Marcellus was an experienced statesman, soldier, and winner of Rome’s highest honor, the spolia opima.   Marcellus surrounded Syracuse, bringing the full might of Roman engineering to bear against its massive walls. Plutarch tells us that large siege towers, fastened to the decks of his warships, were sailed into the harbor. Countering Marcellus and his great machines of war was the famed philosopher and mathematician Archimedes. Plutarch reports an iron claw, wielded from the walls, plucking Roman ships from the water and large projectiles being hurled at the attackers, convincing them they were fighting “against the gods.”   The siege dragged on for months. It was not until a diplomatic ceasefire was called and the stalemate was broken. As Marcellus entered the city to parlay with the stubborn defenders, he noticed a vulnerability in the defenses. Taking advantage of the festivities of a public sacrifice, Marcellus made his move and entered the city with a small group of men.   Unaware of the Roman infiltration, no defenses were marshaled. It is said that Archimedes was killed in the middle of a particularly thorny mathematical problem. Having lived in the squalid conditions of siege for over a year, the Romans burst into the city with rapacious zeal. The city, known for its beauty, exquisite works of art, and great wealth, was summarily looted. So great was the theft and influx of Greek art into Rome that Marcellus was credited by Plutarch with teaching “the ignorant Romans to admire and honor the wonder­ful and beauti­ful productions of Greece.”   The Final Battle at Zama The Battle Between Scipio and Hannibal at Zama, by Cornelis Cort Netherlandish, after Giulio Romano Italian, c. 1550–78. Source: Metropolitan Art Museum, New York (59.570.439).     The war entered its 15th year in 203 BCE. Following his successes in Iberia, Scipio sought to end the war decisively, eying Africa. There were many in Rome who thought this was too risky, given Hannibal’s continued presence in Italy.   Scipio embarked on his plan, landing in Africa with 25,000 men. Hannibal was recalled by the Carthaginians, and the two men, having fought each other at the Ticinus River, were to meet on the plains of Zama, on Carthaginian soil, to decide the fate of the war.   At the battle of Zama, Hannibal’s force was pieced together from three separate armies. In the front, he placed his 80 war elephants and his mercenaries. Behind them were the Carthaginians and Libyans, and in the rear was his army that he brought with him from Italy. Battle-hardened and undefeated by the Romans, they were to prevent a retreat by the less experienced men.   As the two armies marched towards each other, Hannibal sent his war elephants charging at the Roman infantry. The Roman skirmishers parted, leaving gaps in their lines for the elephants to charge through. As they passed, the great beasts were inundated with projectiles, sending them into a frenzied stampede back into the Carthaginian lines.   Then, the first line of each army charged. The hastati (infantry) and the mercenaries careened into one another. Panicked by the Romans’ discipline and order, the mercenaries fled, leaving Hannibal’s Libyans to meet the oncoming threat. They pushed the Romans back before Scipio sent his principes (legionaries) into the fight. Hannibal’s third line of veterans steadied the line, but the advancing Romans proved too much. Coupled with the timely return of Massinissa, a Numidian king allied to Scipio, the Carthaginians were routed.   The Death of Hannibal Statue of Hannibal Barca, by Sebastian Slodtz, 1704 CE. Source: Louvre Museum, Paris   Following the Battle of Zuma, Carthage capitulated. But Hannibal would remain a prominent figure, serving as a sufete (Carthiginian magistrate) in 196 BCE. Despite the financial burden of Rome’s war indemnity, he was able to return a level of solvency to the state. Nevertheless, many Carthaginians remained hostile to the Barcid name.   Hannibal advocated for term limits on the judges that served in the Court of the Hundred and Four from life to one year in an attempt to break the oligarchic grip the body had on Carthage. This was seen as too drastic by those in power and he was duly exiled.   He found refuge in the court of the Anatolian Seleucid king Antiochus III, serving him in his ongoing conflict with the Romans. Following a naval defeat, he fled yet again to Bithynia, in modern day Turkey. He was received at the court of Prusias. Cornelius Nepos tells us that during a diplomatic dinner in Rome, an envoy of Prusias let it slip that the Carthaginian resided in Pontus with the king. The Romans immediately intervened, sending soldiers to surround the complex where Hannibal lived. Prusias was incapable of denying the Romans, and while they stormed his citadel, Hannibal uncorked a small bottle of poison which he always carried with him and emptied the poison into his mouth.   According to Livy, as he died, Hannibal said: “Let us relieve the Romans from the anxiety they have so long experienced, since they think it tries their patience too much to wait for an old man’s death.” Never forgetting the oath he made to his father, Hannibal, the greatest enemy of Rome, took his own life, unwilling to ever submit to the Romans.   Rome Unreachable The Meeting of Dido and Aeneas by Sir Nathaniel Dance-Holland, 1766. Source: Tate Museum, London.     After Hannibal’s victory at Cannae, the road to Rome lay open. Instead of marching on the capital of his sworn enemies, Hannibal, known for his aggressive maneuvers, paused. Stunned by this, his cavalry commander, Maharbal, remarked, “Hannibal, you know how to gain a victory; you do not know how to use it.”   However, Hannibal knew the truth. He could not take the city. No matter how many consuls he killed in the field, there would always be another. Then there were the walls of Rome itself, too formidable for his small, albeit experienced, and undersupplied army.   Chastised by his fellow Romans, Quintus Fabius had been right. He knew the advantages of fighting a war on your own soil would be too much for the Carthaginian, as brilliant as he was. It would not be until the discovery of gunpowder that the walls of the Roman capital would finally fall.   The Romans had a history of stubbornly refusing to give in to external threats. After their disastrous defeat at the Caudine Forks in 321 BCE, the Romans spurned peace talks with the Samnites and war would rage for two decades. In the third century BCE, the fatiguing victories of the invader Pyrrhus of Epirus would not coax the Romans to the bargaining table. Pyrrhus left the Italian peninsula exhausted. After watching multiple fleets sink to the bottom of the sea in the First Punic War, the Romans raised yet more and more ships. In Rome’s darkest moments, when Hannibal approached the very gates of the city, they did not yield. It was Roman conviction and stubbornness that saw them through to victory.
Like
Comment
Share
History Traveler
History Traveler
1 y

Third Punic War: Carthage Must Be Destroyed
Favicon 
www.thecollector.com

Third Punic War: Carthage Must Be Destroyed

  While Rome won the Second Punic War, it struck a fundamental blow to Rome’s martial manpower and military resolve. The Republic was haunted by the ghosts of Carthage and Hannibal’s campaign on Italian soil. The Romans would initiate the Third Punic War to finally put an end to the conflict between the two Mediterranean superpowers.   Balance of Power Map of Carthaginian and Roman territory on the eve of the Third Punic War. Source: Dickinson College, Pennsylvania.   The Punic Wars began in 264 BCE. At that time, Rome had yet to send a legion outside the confines of the Italian Peninsula. In contrast, Carthage’s commercial influence stretched from the Levantine Coast to the Straits of Gibraltar, and beyond if we are to believe the reports of an explorer named Hanno, skirting the Atlantic Coast of West Africa. The Carthaginians regularly mustered multitudinous armies (as many as 300,000 men according to the dubious tallying of the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus) and sent them overseas to combat the rival power of Syracuse in Sicily.   But that was then. After the dust of the Second Punic War (218-201 BCE) had settled, Carthage was a shell of its former self. Hannibal’s defeat at Zama and the following peace treaty robbed the Carthaginians of all their overseas holdings and saddled them with an indemnity that was to be remitted over the course of the next 50 years.   Rome, meanwhile, was ascendant. After their pyrrhic victory over Hannibal, they would turn to the east, scoring stunning victories over the Diadochi, the successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great. First, Macedon was subdued by Lucius Aemilius Paullus, the son of the consul Paullus who fell at Cannae. Next, was the Seleucids. The Battle of Magnesia in 188 BCE against the Seleucid dynasty cemented the superiority of Rome’s legions over the traditional Macedonian phalanx. The Treaty of Apamea was signed shortly thereafter expelling Alexander’s successors from Europe and extending Rome’s political sphere into Asia Minor (modern Turkey).   In less than a century, the two Mediterranean powers had completely swapped fortunes. Rome, once confined by rival powers within the center of the Italian Peninsula, was now sending legions into Syria. Carthage, once the master of “the Middle Sea,” was now relegated to the confines of her own walls, on a small North African peninsula.   Carthage Must Be Destroyed Patrizio Torlonia bust of a man, sometimes attributed as Cato the Elder, c. 80 BCE. Source: Torlonia Collection, Italy. Source: Wikimedia Commons.   In 153 BCE, the Roman statesman Cato the Elder was sent to arbitrate a dispute between the Carthaginians and the Numidian king Massinissa, who helped Rome in the final battle of the Second Punic War.   A veteran of the Second Punic War, Cato had seen firsthand the horrors of Hannibal’s generalship. However, upon visiting Carthage, to his amazement, he did not find a dilapidated metropolis crippled by two major defeats as he expected, but a vibrant, flourishing city. Not only was Carthage able to finally pay off the war indemnity to Rome in 151 BCE, but commerce flourished and their army was rebuilt.   Cato returned to Rome, warning of a resurgent Carthage by ending every speech he made, related in subject matter or not, by exhorting the Romans to destroy their old rival once and for all: “Carthago delenda est” (Carthage must be destroyed).   Carto, almost certainly, was not alone in his sentiment. During the conflict, Hannibal culled one-fifth of the entire adult male population of Italy. There would have been few in Rome who would have been unaffected by his devastating campaign. Decades after his death, Hannibal’s legacy still haunted the Romans.   Citing passages from the treaty of 201 BCE, the Romans used the conflict with the Numidians to censure their old foes. It should not be seen as a coincidence that the cessation of the Carthaginian debt payments immediately preceded Rome’s hawkishness.   In typical Carthaginian fashion, the generals who had taken part in the conflict with Numidia were condemned to death. But this was not enough to expiate their sins in the eyes of the Romans. Sending a delegation to Africa, the Romans offered harsh terms to the Carthaginians to stop the escalating conflict. Knowing their terms, including the abandonment of Carthage, would be unacceptable, Rome prepared for war. Fear propelled them more than any real transgressions on the part of the Carthaginians.   The Invasion of Africa (149 BCE) Scene 79 from Trajan’s Column showing the transportation of Roman soldiers to Dacia by boat, Rome, c. 106-113 CE. Source: Trajan’s Column in Rome.   The First Punic War was largely fought on the waves. The Second Punic War was decided by large, decisive battles in the field. The Third Punic War was little more than a single, drawn-out siege.   Carthage’s overseas empire had been confiscated. There was no threat of an overland invasion from Spain. Their navy had been disbanded. Punic sails would not be seen harrying Roman ships off the coast of Italy. The army that the Carthaginians could muster was commanded by a general named Hasdrubal and it was used primarily for the defense of the city.   According to the Greek historian Appian of Alexandria, Rome was able to field a massive expeditionary force, which it dispatched to Africa. His estimate of 80,000 men ferried on 150 ships is likely an exaggeration, but if the real figure was even half that, it was a significantly larger force than what Scipio Africanus had with him at Zama during the Second Punic War. There was an eagerness and zeal amongst the population to join this expeditionary force and see the completion of its mission.   The fate of Carthage depended on its walls. Three lines of defense ringed the city, anchored by a wall 30 feet wide and 60 feet tall. It was, in and of itself, a barracks, capable of housing 20,000 soldiers and stables of horses and war elephants. The seaward walls on the peninsula had a single wall connecting with the famous circular harbor in the southeastern corner. Towering over it was the Byrsa, the citadel of Carthage, and the spot on which, according to legend, Carthage’s mythic founder, Dido, first cut the oxhide to lay claim to her dominions.   The Siege of Carthage and the Rise of Scipio A Bronze Statue of a Hellenistic Prince, sometimes attributed to be Scipio Aemilianus, Rome, c. 2nd century BCE. Source: Museo Palazzo Massimo alla Terme, Rome.   Under constant harassment from the Carthaginians and their swift cavalry, the Romans moved against the formidable walls, constructing battering rams that required 6,000 men each to operate, and filling in lakes to allow for the construction of ramps. Fighting for their survival, the Carthaginians sallied out to destroy the Roman’s engines.   The fighting was vicious, but the commendable actions of a military tribune salvaged the day. His name was Scipio Aemilianus. The son of Lucius Aemilius Paullus, the conqueror of Macedon, and grandson of the consul killed at Cannae, he was adopted by the Scipio family, officially becoming the grandson of Scipio Africanus. He rose quickly through the ranks. The lex Villia annalis, the law requiring a minimum age for senior magistracies, was set aside for his election as consul in Rome.   Scipio returned to Carthage in 147 BCE to find the Roman war effort sputtering. Incompetence among the commanders and inexperience amongst the legions had drawn out the conflict. The admiral Mancinus had maintained the blockade of the city. Upon Scipio’s arrival, he consolidated his army for a major assault. Finding an abandoned tower, Scipio’s men scaled the facade and stormed the rampart. The Romans fought their way onto the walls before gaining control of a gate. The rest of Scipio’s army poured into the city, but darkness and unfamiliarity with the terrain led Scipio to ultimately withdraw his forces out of fear of a counterattack.   Hasdrubal, equally afraid of defections, marched Roman prisoners out onto the wall and tortured them to death in full view of the Roman camp. Scipio would not forget this Carthaginian cruelty.   The Last Voyage of the Carthaginian Empire  Remnants of the Marsala Shipwreck, a Punic naval ship from the 3rd century BCE. Source: Museo Archeologico Regionale Lilibeo, Italy.   Scipio knew the siege would continue as long as Carthage had access to the sea through their famed circular harbor. Setting his soldiers to work, they dug ditches and built earthenworks under the constant harassment of projectiles.   The isthmus, a narrow strip of land dominating the entrance to the harbor and abutting the weaker seaward walls, was enveloped by Roman engineering. A mole was constructed across the harbor, constricting Carthage’s last line of resupply. It was as much a symbolic action as it was a strategic one. Carthage was now cut off from the very waves that had sustained her people for over six centuries.   The populace predictably panicked. Under the veil of darkness, men, women, and children set to work cutting a new channel to the sea and constructing a new, makeshift fleet. Much to the surprise of the Romans, they awoke to see a flotilla of fifty Carthaginian ships floating out to sea. It would be the last fleet the Carthaginian Empire would ever put to sail.   Demonstrating their continued naval prowess, the Carthaginian ships fought adeptly, harassing the larger Roman ships. For hours they were locked into a stalemate. But as the detritus from the wrecked ships began to accumulate, the Carthaginians were cut off from retreating into their own harbor. With nowhere left to go, the Carthaginians scrambled to pull their ships to shore while many were rammed by the larger Roman ships or dashed against the rocks.   Cut off from all access to the sea, the inhabitants of Carthage would soon starve. But for all the martial skills that Scipio possessed, he lacked the patience to watch Rome’s old enemy wither away. He would deliver the final blow himself.   The Final Assault Mosaic from the Dominus Julius, a Roman village in Carthage, c. 5th century CE. Source: National Bardo Museum, Tunisia. Source: Wikimedia Commons.   From their position on the newly constructed mole, the Romans bombarded Carthage’s seaward walls with their siege engines. Yet unbroken by their besiegers, many Carthaginians waded naked through the waters at night, bearing unlit torches. They swam up to the quay where Scipio’s machines were positioned. Emerging from the water, they lit their torches, immediately revealing their position in the dark night. They were fired upon and killed with barbed arrows and spears, but the siege engines went up in flames.   Despite the setback, Scipio, leading the cavalry in person, pushed the Carthaginians back. After taking the adjoining town of Nepheris, Scipio planned his attack on the Byrsa, the ancient citadel of Carthage.   Eschewing their siege engines, the Romans set about taking the city center block by block. Buildings, six stories tall, served as platforms from which the defenders harassed the Romans with projectiles. Through brutal urban warfare, the Romans seized each building one by one, laying boards from one roof to the next to cross. Remembering Hasdrubal’s earlier cruelty, Scipio ordered the remaining buildings be set alight, killing their occupants and turning the streets to rubble.   For six days the city burned in this manner. From the rubble of what remained, 50,000 men and women appeared before Scipio bearing olive branches from the Temple of Aesculapius. He granted the people clemency while Hasdrubal and his family remained inside the temple. Appian tells us that Hasdrubal’s wife then set the temple on fire and killed her own children to prevent them from falling into the hands of the Romans.   The End of the Old World  Scipio beweent Carthago, by Ludwig Gottlieb Portman, after Jacobus Buys, 1797. Source: Rijksmuseum, Netherlands (RP-P-1905-2181).   Looting gripped the city as Scipio allowed his soldiers to take what they had earned, according to Roman custom. As the Byrsa Hill and the famed Temple of Aesculapius burned, Polybius, the Greek historian and slave of the Aemilianus family, is said to have approached his master, who gazed upon the flames. He asked the victorious general why he shed tears. Scipio answered him, quoting the following lines from Homer’s Iliad:   The day shall come in which our sacred Troy And Priam, and the people over whom Spear-bearing Priam rules, shall perish all   Scipio did not cry for the Carthaginians. But as he watched the last vestiges of a once great empire descend into ruin, he could not help but be gripped with anxiety and dread that one day the same fate would befall his beloved Rome.   For now, however, Rome ushered in a new age. The same year (146 BCE) that Carthage fell, also saw the destruction of Corinth, the last free city of the Achaean League. After decades of indirect rule through puppet rulers, Rome now destroyed any semblance of Greek freedom. Greece, once the home of democracy, was subsumed by Roman hegemony.   For centuries the rivalry between the Carthaginians and the Greek world defined the central and western Mediterranean. Now, they both bowed to Roman might. The Mediterranean had always been connected by its trade routes, but now the sea, once home to many different cultures and languages, was quickly becoming Roman. It was now mare nostrum (“our sea”).   The Legacy of Carthage The Decline of the Carthaginian Empire, by J.M.W Turner, c. 1817. Source: Tate Museum, London (N00499).   Contrary to some stories of Carthage’s fall, the fields were not sown with salt. The Romans were retributive but practical. While much of the Carthaginian fingerprint (e.g. literature, art, and architecture) was erased, Carthage was a supremely positioned node on a larger commercial network. Completely destroying its infrastructure would have required significant investment to rebuild.   The new Roman city, lying near the modern capital of Tunis, served as the capital of Rome’s African province. The agricultural infrastructure in the hinterland built by the Carthaginians in the 5th century BCE fed the ever-growing city of Rome as it became more reliant on its provinces.   The province flourished and North Africa would become a great pipeline of generals, politicians, and thinkers. The future Roman emperor Septimius Severus was born in Leptis Magna (modern Libya). Two of the great early Christian thinkers Tertullian and St. Augustine were born in Carthage and Numidia respectively. There is some archaeological evidence that certain Carthaginian religious practices would persist into the Christian period and in the deserts of North Africa. But the Carthaginian Empire as antiquity knew it would never rise again.   Despite this, their story continues to be told. In the 19th century, as Napoleonic France and the British Empire were locked in a titanic struggle of their own, Napoleon would refer to the British as the “Carthaginians,” referencing their similar reliance on naval strength.   The Tunisians have not forgotten their own history either. If one were to find themselves in a Tunisian market today, they may pay with a five dinar note featuring the tragic yet heroic gaze of Hannibal Barca. It is a rather innocuous reference to antiquity and one missed by many. But how different would things be if Hannibal had proved to be successful?   The Punic Wars Motya Charioteer, Siculo-Punic statue, c. 5th century BCE. Source: Museo Giuseppe Whitaker, Italy. Source: Wikimedia Commons.   A letter from the Mamertines, a group of Italian mercenaries, to both the Romans and the Carthaginians would unwittingly draw them into a conflict that would span three wars and over a hundred years.   What the First Punic War and the First World War, more than two millennia later, have in common is that they both ended with a “Carthaginian peace” with punitive pecuniary measures that would make future conflict all the more likely, rather than preventing it.   The Carthaginians were never able to effectively use their naval advantage to deal with Rome’s greater military manpower. In contrast, historian Lawerence James attributed Britain’s success in the 18th and 19th centuries to William Pitt’s strategy of the “corrective use of seapower.” Aided by booming overseas trade, the British strangled France’s overseas possessions and relegated France’s numerically superior army to the continent where the British bogged them down by funding other nations to fight a ground war.   The upstart Romans had shown a willingness to learn, adapt, and innovate. When the First Punic War broke out, they did not have a navy. By the end, Roman ships dominated the Mediterranean. When Hannibal crushed every army put before him, Fabius Maximus broke with tradition and effectuated a guerilla war, buying the Romans much-needed time.   Carthage, on the other hand, was fractious. Their society was fraught with squabbling families vying for influence. Hannibal’s campaigns were grossly underfunded and many other less successful generals were executed by their own state rather than falling to a Roman blade.   In war, the Carthaginians sought to maintain the commercial status quo. The Roman endgame was total subjugation. Saying nothing of the moral implications, in this struggle, the stronger convictions won.
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
1 y

Can This Person Really Be Trusted? –  Encouragement for Today – October 15, 2024
Favicon 
www.godupdates.com

Can This Person Really Be Trusted? –  Encouragement for Today – October 15, 2024

October 15, 2024 Can This Person Really Be Trusted?LYSA TERKEURST Lee en español "Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, ‘This is the way; walk in it.'" Isaiah 30:21 (NIV) "Can I trust this person?" is a big question. The more we feel pressured, internally or externally, to give a definitive answer, the riskier the outcome seems. How can I know that someone who has broken my trust is now in a place to be responsible with my trust? It will take time. The bigger the betrayal, the longer the repair will take. How can I know if a new person in my life is trustworthy? That will also take time. How do I know I can trust myself to properly discern trustworthiness when I've gotten it wrong before or I’ve been made to feel "crazy" for asking questions when things didn't make sense? Again, it will all take time. But time itself isn't enough. Building or rebuilding trust requires a combination of three things: Time. Believable behavior. A track record of trustworthiness. Taking baby steps allows for all three things to happen. For me, I knew if I was going to be able to reengage with people who had broken my trust in the past, or if I was going to consider a new relationship, it wasn't going to happen overnight. I also knew if I was going to learn to trust in my ability to have wise discernment and reestablish my confidence in hearing from the Lord, it would need to happen slowly. Isaiah 30:19-21 has been such a comfort for me as I've started taking baby steps toward trust: "People of Zion, who live in Jerusalem, you will weep no more. How gracious he will be when you cry for help! As soon as he hears, he will answer you. Although the Lord gives you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, your teachers will be hidden no more; with your own eyes you will see them. Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, ‘This is the way; walk in it'" (NIV). The principle of these verses is that God does respond to us when we cry out to Him. The "right" and "left" mentioned mean that as long as we stay within the will and command of God, we're headed in His direction, and we're going to hear Him. He will guide us. In other words, the goal is to live lives of congruity where our lives line up with God's Word. But what about the slowness of this whole trust process? What about how painful it can be to wait to see if someone is trustworthy? The historical context of these verses gives me great comfort in the face of these understandable questions. Isaiah was addressing the Israelites in a season of waiting. Waiting can be lonely, and at times we can feel defeated. Waiting can also make us feel incredibly anxious when there are so many unknowns. But remember this: Whenever we are waiting on God, we are actually waiting with God. The fact that the Teacher is behind us brings to mind the nearness of God. When I asked my friend Dr. Joel Muddamalle about these verses, he said, "The attentive nature of the follower of God who desires to be led by God is important here. The New Testament develops this further with the concept of the Spirit-filled life of believers. We are led by the Holy Spirit based not on our own ambition but the vision and direction of God." (See Galatians 5:16-25 and John 16:13.) What if we get it wrong by turning left or right outside of God's will? When this takes place, God will call out and get us back on track. One of the things often overlooked in today's key verse is the fact that Isaiah didn't expect perfection. He assumed there would be moments of error, times when we would go astray - but as long as our hearts are willing to receive correction, we can be sure God will redirect us. Friend, whatever it looks like for you to take baby steps toward building or rebuilding trust, I pray you cling to the God who is right there with you. Lord, You know my desire to have close relationships based on truth and goodness. You also see my tendency, because of what I've been through, to isolate from the people around me when things look scary and unknown. Help me step forward as the healed version of myself - the one You're making me into. This feels messy and unpredictable, but I know I can trust You and the ways You are working on me and for me. In Jesus' Name, Amen. OUR FAVORITE THINGS Broken trust complicates every bit of the parts of love that should be comforting. Maybe a friend let you down. A family member betrayed you. A spouse cheated on you. A leader deceived you. And now you're wondering: If God let all of this happen, can He even be trusted? Lysa TerKeurst deeply understands. She's learned the truth that having your trust broken can be life-altering, but it doesn't have to be life-ruining. Start taking baby steps of trust with Lysa in the pages of her new book, I Want to Trust You, but I Don’t: Moving Forward When You’re Skeptical of Others, Afraid of What God Will Allow, and Doubtful of Your Own Discernment. Buy now! ENGAGE Find real-life encouragement when you connect with Lysa TerKeurst here on Instagram. FOR DEEPER STUDY John 10:27-28, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand" (NIV). How does knowing Jesus is with you on your journey bring you comfort? What do you hear His voice saying today? We'd love to hear from you! Share your thoughts in the comments. © 2024 by Lysa TerKeurst. All rights reserved. Proverbs 31 MinistriesP.O. Box 3189 Matthews, NC 28106 www.Proverbs31.org The post Can This Person Really Be Trusted? –  Encouragement for Today – October 15, 2024 appeared first on GodUpdates.
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
1 y

A Prayer for When the Past Tries to Define You – Your Daily Prayer – October 15
Favicon 
www.godupdates.com

A Prayer for When the Past Tries to Define You – Your Daily Prayer – October 15

A Prayer When the Past Tries to Define YouBy Alicia Searl Bible Reading"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" – 2 Corinthians 5:17 Listen or Read Below: Maybe you have heard that the past doesn't define you. I know I have been told this many times, so when I offered these words up to my teen the other day, I thought it would comfort her. Unfortunately, it did the exact opposite, making her succumb to bitter tears. Honestly, when I reflect on the past two years, it's been a bumpy road and not one I like to replay in my mind very often. Maybe that's because when I do, I quickly feed into the lies that I am not a good enough mom and I messed up. Sigh. The past sure can dig up a lot of hurt and pain, can't it? Yet, after spewing out that infamous Christian cliché and being shaken by my daughter's reaction, it just got me thinking ... what really holds us back from moving on? What keeps us reeling in our pain and continually taking that awkward glance in the rearview mirror? Why are we so haunted by our past? Being created in God's image, we have a plan and purpose for our lives (Genesis 1:27, Psalm 57:2, Jeremiah 29:11). That promise should give us hope and the confidence to step into the future, so why do we remain stuck? The answer is clear. We are in a spiritual battle. Our human response and tendencies can easily strike an emotional chord that boldly declares we are unable to move on from our past. It says our sinful choices are just too tragic and unforgivable. This is where guilt and shame weasel their way into our lives. Our past can come with some messy and unwanted parts. It's those sinful choices that grip our hearts and place chains on our feet, igniting fear and the inability to trust God with our future. We begin to feel ashamed and unable to accept God's mercy and grace. We also mustn't discount the clever schemes of the enemy. He will do just about anything and everything in his power to slap negative labels on us. His lies are clever, and his games come with a destructive point to sabotage our souls. But the truth is that we all fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). So, please do not allow the enemy to infiltrate your story and tell you otherwise. Don't let him discredit your testimony and pin your past against you. While our past is made up of the good and bad, and is marked by genetics, experiences, and questionable choices, when we become believers, we have the power given to us through the Holy Spirit to give up our painful past, live in the present with peace, and trust the Lord with our future. Maybe you have been taunted by your past and it has been trying to declare victory over you. Maybe you have little hope for your future. Oh, how I wish I could calmly say that your past doesn't define you and you could immediately feel the chains of guilt crumble down around your feet. What I can say is that it takes time and is a process. Acknowledge your past, and then invite God right into the middle of it. Ask for forgiveness and seek His abundant grace. Do this daily until you begin to feel the weight of your past lift and your heart become lighter. Get into His Word and remind your weary soul that you are no longer that version of yourself, but you are a new creation, a child of God. The truth of the matter is that God knows your story. All of it – the past, present, and future. So, give Him your heart and allow Him to continue to do great work in you because as long as you have breath, He isn't finished with you yet! Let's pray: God, thank you for being such a good and merciful Father. As I reflect on my past, it haunts me. Please grant me forgiveness where I have fallen and failed You. I want to become clean before You. I am so grateful that You take every piece of our story, wash over me with Your unfailing love and grace, and use the messy parts of my life for Your glory. Please help me move forward into the future with hope, knowing that You hold it all and offer such sweet freedom.I ask this in Jesus' name. Amen. Photo credit: Getty Images/INDU BACHKHETI Alicia Searl is a devotional author, blogger, and speaker that is passionate about pouring out her heart and pointing ladies of all ages back to Jesus. She has an education background and master's in literacy.  Her favorite people call her Mom, which is why much of her time is spent cheering them on at a softball game or dance class. She is married to her heartthrob (a tall, spiky-haired blond) who can whip up a mean latte. She sips that goodness while writing her heart on a page while her puppy licks her feet. Visit her website at aliciasearl.com and connect with her on Instagram and Facebook. Related Resource: Jesus Calling – Stories of Faith Kerry Washington. Andrea Bocelli. Reba McEntire. Mark Wahlberg. Tony Dungy. Matthew McConaughey, What do all of these people have in common? They are all people of faith who have leaned on God in both the good and challenging times-and they've shown up to tell their story of faith on The Jesus Calling Podcast. The Jesus Calling Podcast provides a place for people from all walks of life to share the heartaches, joys, and divine moments that keep them going.  Inspired by Sarah Young’s classic devotional book, the Jesus Calling podcast has brought encouragement and peace to millions. New episodes drop every Thursday! Listen today on LifeAudio.com or wherever you find your podcasts. Now that you’ve prayed, are you in need of someone to pray for YOU? Click the button below! The post A Prayer for When the Past Tries to Define You – Your Daily Prayer – October 15 appeared first on GodUpdates.
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
1 y

A Prayer for When the Past Tries to Define You – Your Daily Prayer – October 15
Favicon 
www.godupdates.com

A Prayer for When the Past Tries to Define You – Your Daily Prayer – October 15

A Prayer When the Past Tries to Define YouBy Alicia Searl Bible Reading"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" – 2 Corinthians 5:17 Listen or Read Below: Maybe you have heard that the past doesn't define you. I know I have been told this many times, so when I offered these words up to my teen the other day, I thought it would comfort her. Unfortunately, it did the exact opposite, making her succumb to bitter tears. Honestly, when I reflect on the past two years, it's been a bumpy road and not one I like to replay in my mind very often. Maybe that's because when I do, I quickly feed into the lies that I am not a good enough mom and I messed up. Sigh. The past sure can dig up a lot of hurt and pain, can't it? Yet, after spewing out that infamous Christian cliché and being shaken by my daughter's reaction, it just got me thinking ... what really holds us back from moving on? What keeps us reeling in our pain and continually taking that awkward glance in the rearview mirror? Why are we so haunted by our past? Being created in God's image, we have a plan and purpose for our lives (Genesis 1:27, Psalm 57:2, Jeremiah 29:11). That promise should give us hope and the confidence to step into the future, so why do we remain stuck? The answer is clear. We are in a spiritual battle. Our human response and tendencies can easily strike an emotional chord that boldly declares we are unable to move on from our past. It says our sinful choices are just too tragic and unforgivable. This is where guilt and shame weasel their way into our lives. Our past can come with some messy and unwanted parts. It's those sinful choices that grip our hearts and place chains on our feet, igniting fear and the inability to trust God with our future. We begin to feel ashamed and unable to accept God's mercy and grace. We also mustn't discount the clever schemes of the enemy. He will do just about anything and everything in his power to slap negative labels on us. His lies are clever, and his games come with a destructive point to sabotage our souls. But the truth is that we all fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). So, please do not allow the enemy to infiltrate your story and tell you otherwise. Don't let him discredit your testimony and pin your past against you. While our past is made up of the good and bad, and is marked by genetics, experiences, and questionable choices, when we become believers, we have the power given to us through the Holy Spirit to give up our painful past, live in the present with peace, and trust the Lord with our future. Maybe you have been taunted by your past and it has been trying to declare victory over you. Maybe you have little hope for your future. Oh, how I wish I could calmly say that your past doesn't define you and you could immediately feel the chains of guilt crumble down around your feet. What I can say is that it takes time and is a process. Acknowledge your past, and then invite God right into the middle of it. Ask for forgiveness and seek His abundant grace. Do this daily until you begin to feel the weight of your past lift and your heart become lighter. Get into His Word and remind your weary soul that you are no longer that version of yourself, but you are a new creation, a child of God. The truth of the matter is that God knows your story. All of it – the past, present, and future. So, give Him your heart and allow Him to continue to do great work in you because as long as you have breath, He isn't finished with you yet! Let's pray: God, thank you for being such a good and merciful Father. As I reflect on my past, it haunts me. Please grant me forgiveness where I have fallen and failed You. I want to become clean before You. I am so grateful that You take every piece of our story, wash over me with Your unfailing love and grace, and use the messy parts of my life for Your glory. Please help me move forward into the future with hope, knowing that You hold it all and offer such sweet freedom.I ask this in Jesus' name. Amen. Photo credit: Getty Images/INDU BACHKHETI Alicia Searl is a devotional author, blogger, and speaker that is passionate about pouring out her heart and pointing ladies of all ages back to Jesus. She has an education background and master's in literacy.  Her favorite people call her Mom, which is why much of her time is spent cheering them on at a softball game or dance class. She is married to her heartthrob (a tall, spiky-haired blond) who can whip up a mean latte. She sips that goodness while writing her heart on a page while her puppy licks her feet. Visit her website at aliciasearl.com and connect with her on Instagram and Facebook. Related Resource: Jesus Calling – Stories of Faith Kerry Washington. Andrea Bocelli. Reba McEntire. Mark Wahlberg. Tony Dungy. Matthew McConaughey, What do all of these people have in common? They are all people of faith who have leaned on God in both the good and challenging times-and they've shown up to tell their story of faith on The Jesus Calling Podcast. The Jesus Calling Podcast provides a place for people from all walks of life to share the heartaches, joys, and divine moments that keep them going.  Inspired by Sarah Young’s classic devotional book, the Jesus Calling podcast has brought encouragement and peace to millions. New episodes drop every Thursday! Listen today on LifeAudio.com or wherever you find your podcasts. Now that you’ve prayed, are you in need of someone to pray for YOU? Click the button below! The post A Prayer for When the Past Tries to Define You – Your Daily Prayer – October 15 appeared first on GodUpdates.
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
1 y

Can This Person Really Be Trusted? –  Encouragement for Today – October 15, 2024
Favicon 
www.godupdates.com

Can This Person Really Be Trusted? –  Encouragement for Today – October 15, 2024

October 15, 2024 Can This Person Really Be Trusted?LYSA TERKEURST Lee en español "Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, ‘This is the way; walk in it.'" Isaiah 30:21 (NIV) "Can I trust this person?" is a big question. The more we feel pressured, internally or externally, to give a definitive answer, the riskier the outcome seems. How can I know that someone who has broken my trust is now in a place to be responsible with my trust? It will take time. The bigger the betrayal, the longer the repair will take. How can I know if a new person in my life is trustworthy? That will also take time. How do I know I can trust myself to properly discern trustworthiness when I've gotten it wrong before or I’ve been made to feel "crazy" for asking questions when things didn't make sense? Again, it will all take time. But time itself isn't enough. Building or rebuilding trust requires a combination of three things: Time. Believable behavior. A track record of trustworthiness. Taking baby steps allows for all three things to happen. For me, I knew if I was going to be able to reengage with people who had broken my trust in the past, or if I was going to consider a new relationship, it wasn't going to happen overnight. I also knew if I was going to learn to trust in my ability to have wise discernment and reestablish my confidence in hearing from the Lord, it would need to happen slowly. Isaiah 30:19-21 has been such a comfort for me as I've started taking baby steps toward trust: "People of Zion, who live in Jerusalem, you will weep no more. How gracious he will be when you cry for help! As soon as he hears, he will answer you. Although the Lord gives you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, your teachers will be hidden no more; with your own eyes you will see them. Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, ‘This is the way; walk in it'" (NIV). The principle of these verses is that God does respond to us when we cry out to Him. The "right" and "left" mentioned mean that as long as we stay within the will and command of God, we're headed in His direction, and we're going to hear Him. He will guide us. In other words, the goal is to live lives of congruity where our lives line up with God's Word. But what about the slowness of this whole trust process? What about how painful it can be to wait to see if someone is trustworthy? The historical context of these verses gives me great comfort in the face of these understandable questions. Isaiah was addressing the Israelites in a season of waiting. Waiting can be lonely, and at times we can feel defeated. Waiting can also make us feel incredibly anxious when there are so many unknowns. But remember this: Whenever we are waiting on God, we are actually waiting with God. The fact that the Teacher is behind us brings to mind the nearness of God. When I asked my friend Dr. Joel Muddamalle about these verses, he said, "The attentive nature of the follower of God who desires to be led by God is important here. The New Testament develops this further with the concept of the Spirit-filled life of believers. We are led by the Holy Spirit based not on our own ambition but the vision and direction of God." (See Galatians 5:16-25 and John 16:13.) What if we get it wrong by turning left or right outside of God's will? When this takes place, God will call out and get us back on track. One of the things often overlooked in today's key verse is the fact that Isaiah didn't expect perfection. He assumed there would be moments of error, times when we would go astray - but as long as our hearts are willing to receive correction, we can be sure God will redirect us. Friend, whatever it looks like for you to take baby steps toward building or rebuilding trust, I pray you cling to the God who is right there with you. Lord, You know my desire to have close relationships based on truth and goodness. You also see my tendency, because of what I've been through, to isolate from the people around me when things look scary and unknown. Help me step forward as the healed version of myself - the one You're making me into. This feels messy and unpredictable, but I know I can trust You and the ways You are working on me and for me. In Jesus' Name, Amen. OUR FAVORITE THINGS Broken trust complicates every bit of the parts of love that should be comforting. Maybe a friend let you down. A family member betrayed you. A spouse cheated on you. A leader deceived you. And now you're wondering: If God let all of this happen, can He even be trusted? Lysa TerKeurst deeply understands. She's learned the truth that having your trust broken can be life-altering, but it doesn't have to be life-ruining. Start taking baby steps of trust with Lysa in the pages of her new book, I Want to Trust You, but I Don’t: Moving Forward When You’re Skeptical of Others, Afraid of What God Will Allow, and Doubtful of Your Own Discernment. Buy now! ENGAGE Find real-life encouragement when you connect with Lysa TerKeurst here on Instagram. FOR DEEPER STUDY John 10:27-28, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand" (NIV). How does knowing Jesus is with you on your journey bring you comfort? What do you hear His voice saying today? We'd love to hear from you! Share your thoughts in the comments. © 2024 by Lysa TerKeurst. All rights reserved. Proverbs 31 MinistriesP.O. Box 3189 Matthews, NC 28106 www.Proverbs31.org The post Can This Person Really Be Trusted? –  Encouragement for Today – October 15, 2024 appeared first on GodUpdates.
Like
Comment
Share
BlabberBuzz Feed
BlabberBuzz Feed
1 y

Looney-Toon Michael Moore Has A Last Minute Wish List For Joey B!
Favicon 
www.blabber.buzz

Looney-Toon Michael Moore Has A Last Minute Wish List For Joey B!

Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
1 y

Overcome Evil with Good This Halloween - iBelieve Truth: A Devotional for Women - October 15, 2024
Favicon 
www.christianity.com

Overcome Evil with Good This Halloween - iBelieve Truth: A Devotional for Women - October 15, 2024

We can pray for God’s protection over our lives and ask God for discernment to recognize how to best resist evil in our lives.
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
1 y

A Prayer for When the Past Tries to Define You - Your Daily Prayer - October 15
Favicon 
www.ibelieve.com

A Prayer for When the Past Tries to Define You - Your Daily Prayer - October 15

Being created in God’s image, we have a plan and purpose for our lives (Genesis 1:27, Psalm 57:2, Jeremiah 29:11). That promise should give us hope and the confidence to step into the future, so why do we remain stuck? The answer is clear. We are in a spiritual battle.
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
1 y

Is Science Incompatible with Christianity?
Favicon 
www.thegospelcoalition.org

Is Science Incompatible with Christianity?

During a panel on the future of religion among Gen Z, a student asked me, “Are you scared of our coming generation? Because we’re so into reason and science, and that seems threatening to the future of religion and what you do.” In voicing this sincere question, the student tapped into a long-standing trope in our culture about an alleged conflict between religion and science. This trope, known as the “conflict thesis,” was popularized by John William Draper’s 1874 book A History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science. He tells a familiar story: humanity, on its upward trajectory of progress, is continually opposed by a blind-faith peddling, power-hungry church. Scared of a heliocentric universe, it opposed Galileo. Terrified of evolution, it opposed Darwin. In the conflict between science and faith, it’s not just religion in general that seems bad—Christianity and the Bible are particularly dangerous. Evolutionary science, we’re told, has made biblical accounts of human origins seem out of date, while contemporary accounts of geology and astronomy make the Bible’s chronology implausible. Moreover, it seems like the whole approach to knowing is basically opposed. On one side, you have reason, evidence, and observation; on the other side, you have faith and trust in ancient, unverifiable books with little connection to the real world. We’ve become so familiar with the conflict thesis that it’s taken for granted today. We assume there’s a worldview generated by science (including the hard sciences) and worldviews generated by religion, and you must choose: one means thinking, the others feeling. While these are the choices presented to us, it’s worth taking a step back and asking whether this is the right framing of the debate or if there’s a more truthful and compelling starting point to the relationship between science and Christianity. I believe there is, and the starting point may be surprising: Genesis 1. The basic worldview Genesis 1 provides is necessary to the practice of science as we know it. As Alvin Plantinga suggests, while at first it may appear there’s a deep conflict between Christianity and science, it’s only superficial. There’s actually deep concord. Genesis 1 gives us the metaphysical foundation, the epistemological grounds, the moral boundaries, and a purpose necessary for scientific inquiry. Metaphysics: Genesis 1 Explains the Orderliness We Perceive in the Universe “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). That phrase is a merism, a literary feature where God creates everything by referring to the whole range of things in between them. This opening verse gives us important metaphysical data. First, before there was a beginning to the universe, there was a God beyond the universe. In other words, the world isn’t divine, nor is anything in it. It’s the result of the Divine. The basic worldview Genesis 1 provides is necessary to the practice of science as we know it. Second, how does God make things? By the power of his word: “God said . . . and it was so” (vv. 6–7). He doesn’t take preexisting, eternal matter and reshape it. God speaks and matter comes into existence as he desires it. Unlike in other ancient creation narratives, there’s no competition, chaos, or violence at the origin of the world but simply the reasonable decree of an all-wise King who brings it all into existence. Third, Genesis 1 portrays a basic order, symmetry, and beauty to creation. As Meredith Kline and others have shown, there’s a logical flow to the order of the first six days—on the first three days, God creates realms (heavens, waters, land), and on the next three days, he fills these realms with inhabitants and rulers (sun, moon, stars, the beasts of the deep, vegetation, animals, and humans). Further, there’s an orderliness implied to the order—the sun, moon, and stars are placed in the sky to mark the passage of time and changing of seasons, and their regularity provided a consistent calendar for activities like planting and reaping and religious festivals. All this paints a portrait of a universe uniquely suited for the practice of the empirical sciences. For these sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics, geology) to work, you must assume much at the outset about the nature of reality. Processes of observation, the testing of hypotheses, and inductive reasoning about the future and present consistency of reality all rely on a set of assumptions about the universe’s orderliness. Nature’s regularity is what makes inductive reasoning work—reasoning that proceeds from observation to infer something like “Every day before today, the sun has risen; therefore the sun will rise tomorrow.” This might not seem like a big deal at first, but it’s the kind of assumption that kept philosopher David Hume up at night. One of the major criteria for the verification of scientific studies is their repeatability. Verification, however, assumes the present is consistent with the past is consistent with the future. It assumes an essentially lawlike regularity within nature. Physicist Paul Davies puts it this way: “Even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as a lawlike order in nature that is at least in part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” Davies’s observation helps us see it was no coincidence that during the rise of modern science in the West, most of the leading scientists were Christians. Galileo was a Roman Catholic. Francis Bacon, father of the scientific method, was a believer. Physicist Robert Boyle was a Christian who, in addition to writing the natural law that bear his name, wrote extensive commentaries on Scripture. James Clerk Maxwell, one of the great unifiers of physics who brought together electricity, magnetism, and light, was a Presbyterian and elder in the Church of Scotland. More could be named. Many historians of science conclude it’s no accident that science developed in a culture largely influenced by Christianity and its account that the rational, reliable, and orderly universe in which we live was created by a God who transcends creation. Metaphysically, we all act as if we live in an orderly universe. And the first gift Genesis 1 gives to science is an Author and Sustainer of a rational order who underwrites that intuition. Epistemology: Genesis 1 Explains Why We Can Trust Our Perceptions of an Orderly Universe It’s one thing for the universe to be orderly, but how can we know it’s orderly? Is there a match between our reason and reality? In Christianity and Science, Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck wrote, “All scientific research assumes in advance and without proof the reliability of the senses and the objectivity of the perceivable world.” Bavinck is noting the practice of science assumes that reality seems to fit with the way our mind reasons. If naturalism (the view that the world is only material) is true, then a strong case can be made that our rational faculties aren’t (or don’t have to be) accurate preceptors of the way the world is. This is the case Plantinga makes in Where the Conflict Really Lies, which he calls the evolutionary argument against naturalism. Plantinga’s argument begins with what’s true if two things, evolution and naturalism, are true at the same time. If you take both these beliefs and put them together, you have good reason not to trust your senses or cognitive capacities to tell you the truth about reality. Here’s why: evolution is based on natural selection—a process that preserves genetic traits that help a species fight, fly, feed, or reproduce. Therefore, we can trust our perceptive abilities only to keep us alive, not necessarily to tell us what’s true. Plantinga illustrates this point with an analogy: he says imagine an ancient person who comes to believe that every time he sees red berries, a witch doctor is waiting to curse him. So whenever he sees a bush with red berries, he avoids it and doesn’t eat its fruit. Now, it turns out those berries are poisonous, and if he ate them, they’d kill him. What you come to understand is that his false belief is keeping him alive, and this belief will allow him to pass on his genetic material as well as his beliefs. It’s an evolutionarily useful belief that isn’t in contact with reality. Here you start to understand that without God, you have a potential reason to doubt that your cognitive functions give you true knowledge of reality. All you can conclude is they give you beliefs that keep you alive functionally. And if our rational abilities only serve to give us useful beliefs but not necessarily true beliefs, on what kind of footing does that put us with respect to our ability to do science confidently? What does all this have to do with Genesis 1? This: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (vv. 26–27) Genesis 1 teaches that God created human beings in his own image. What does that mean? The basic idea is that humans are supposed to represent God and act like him, and to do so they’ve been given certain qualities that resemble him, including the rationality of their minds and souls. According to Genesis 1, the Mind that made the world made your mind, and he made it in such a way that you’re able to perceive the world in a way analogous to the way he does. This starting point gives us the highest confidence in our capacity to study the world as it is and discern an orderliness to it. We have reason to trust there’s a fit between our thoughts and the world outside them, because God made both. This all amounts to good epistemological grounds for the practice of science. Ethics: Genesis 1 Best Explains Our Moral Intuitions Concerning Science’s Limits Metaphysical and epistemological principles seem to be enough to ground the basic practice of science, but science also needs a third standard: moral boundaries. While the connection won’t be immediately intuitive, let me mention one name: Josef Mengele. Mengele, a chief medical researcher under Adolf Hitler, was infamous for his research on humans. He conducted tests on Jews and Roma people to advance Hitler’s racial theories. He had studies performed on twins involving amputation, organ dissection, and various forms of torture and death to study their effects on the human body. If one twin died of a certain cause, he’d have the other one killed so they could compare them side by side. The list of horrors goes on. We have reason to trust there’s a fit between our thoughts and the world outside them, because God made both. Most of Mengele’s “research” resulted in nothing, but there have been long-standing questions about the value of potentially life-saving medical research into hypothermia, hypoxia, dehydration, and more derived from human experimentation in concentration camps. This kind of science wasn’t unique to Nazi Germany. Infamously, the research performed on black men in the Tuskegee Study in Alabama studied the progress of syphilis in the lives of hundreds of poor black men, despite there being a cure at the time. Most people have some sense that this kind of experimentation is wrong, but you have to ask the question: Why? This question is relevant not only for experiments conducted in the past but also for us today. There are ethical questions all over campus: the bioethics of cloning, or testing the unborn for genetic abnormalities (and then killing them in utero), or performing experiments with tissue from aborted fetuses. What about the ethics of artificial intelligence or technologies that will be used for wicked ends? This is the classic question raised by movies like Jurassic Park. You have scientists asking the question “Can we do this?” without asking whether we should do it. And absent God, the question becomes what grounds there are for stopping Mengele, Tuskegee, or future experiments? Where do our moral boundaries come from? Several answers could be given. First, our moral sense could originate from our individual consciences—issues are right and wrong because I’ve determined them to be so. But why is your conscience, and not someone else’s, ultimately authoritative of right and wrong? Second, it’s been said morality is socially constructed—something is wrong because we’ve collectively decided it is. But this explanation kicks the can down the road. Why is a group establishing moral boundaries more authoritative than the individual? What if society changes its mind? Third, you might argue that evolution provides grounding for ethics. Again, this is flawed: studying evolutionary behavior can, at best, yield a description of behaviors that have been advantageous for human survival. As I explained earlier, Plantinga argued that if we take evolution and naturalism as equally true, we’re not left with any coherent, rational standard against which we can judge our actions. So where does that leave us? Let’s revisit Genesis 1. God made humans in his image, and that includes at least two imperatives relevant for us in forming a coherent moral vision: a dominion mandate and a clear line. First, God gives humans a dominion mandate: they’re supposed to exercise dominion and subdue the earth. They’re to take raw, untamed nature and cultivate it. Dominion in the Bible isn’t about self-aggrandizement but about service and blessing. This is where the mandate for science begins. Science is a human activity pursued to understand the world as well as to develop it under God’s command. In exercising dominion, humans do this as an image, which means we’re supposed to do it in a way that reflects God’s goodness, character, creativity, and righteousness. This is why, elsewhere in the Bible, Paul describes becoming a Christian as being renewed in God’s image in holiness and righteousness (Eph. 4:24). We’re given a guardrail: What you do with creation is supposed to reflect the perfect and moral character of its Creator. Second, because all human beings are made in God’s image, you’re not to attack, abuse, or mistreat your fellow humans in the name of science. This is why God issues the death penalty in Genesis 9:6. He says that anyone who sheds the blood of another will have his own blood shed. Why? Because humanity is made in God’s image, and any assault on a human is essentially an assault on God himself. Why was what Mengele did so evil? Why was what happened in the Tuskegee experiments so horrid? Why do we recoil at the thought of turning humans into science experiments? It’s not just a reflex from our evolutionary past that we can decide to override if we want. It’s the testimony of a truth our world suppresses: we’re made in God’s image, and therefore science ought to be used to bless and build, not to curse and destroy. Purpose: Genesis 1 Provides a Worthy Goal for the Practice of Science: Doxology Finally, Genesis 1 gives the practice of science is the answer to the big question of why. Every human endeavor must have an answer to the question of why they’re doing what they’re doing. It’s the question of purpose: What are you ultimately trying to do when you do science? It’s not enough to have small, short-term goals: I want to get a conclusion to this experiment. I want to come up with a product so I can keep my job. I want to make some money. I want to cure cancer. Instead, you need an answer that can sustain you. What you do with creation is supposed to reflect the perfect and moral character of its Creator. Christianity gives us several reasons for pursuing science, but let me synthesize them into two: love of neighbor and love of God. First, the love of neighbor. Part of unfolding a dominion in the world and building it out is to bless and benefit our fellow humans made in God’s image. So when you pursue knowledge in technology, biology, and chemistry, you do so knowing it’ll contribute to human flourishing and that this is a service of love to your neighbor. Second, the worship, enjoyment, and glory of God himself. Many scholars point out that Genesis’s creation account contains several parallels with ancient Near Eastern narratives of kings building temples for their gods. The temple of the god was supposed to be a microcosm of the world, and you’d go there to worship that god. In Genesis 1, we have God building the world as a temple within which he can dwell and meet with his people. The Westminster Catechism says the chief purpose of humanity is to “glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” That means everything you do, whether it’s literature or art, raising your family or falling in love, or even pursuing the sciences, is supposed to be part of this overall goal. We’re to praise God and live in a way that reflects him, while at the same time enjoying him and loving him. So when you pursue science, when you study the cosmos, it should lead you into greater wonder and appreciation and worship of the God who created it. Growing our knowledge in the sciences should ultimately lead us to a growing knowledge of Jesus. In Christ, as Paul says, are hidden “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). In the beginning was the Word, the Logos, the second person of the Trinity. To come to know creation is a way to come to know Jesus.
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 60928 out of 106888
  • 60924
  • 60925
  • 60926
  • 60927
  • 60928
  • 60929
  • 60930
  • 60931
  • 60932
  • 60933
  • 60934
  • 60935
  • 60936
  • 60937
  • 60938
  • 60939
  • 60940
  • 60941
  • 60942
  • 60943
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund