Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: bigmikecox on October 08, 2012, 05:53:18 AM
-
So, I was smoking this past weekend and got to thinking.....Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. So, they then had Cain and Abel, but Eve was the only was the only woman, soooo, how did the world populate if there was just ONE family on the entire planet?
-
So, I was smoking this past weekend and got to thinking.....Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. So, they then had Cain and Abel, but Eve was the only was the only woman, soooo, how did the world populate if there was just ONE family on the entire planet?
LOL... you really believe that crap mike? :D
Stop using logic when discussing religion.
-
So, I was smoking this past weekend and got to thinking.....Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. So, they then had Cain and Abel, but Eve was the only was the only woman, soooo, how did the world populate if there was just ONE family on the entire planet?
Did this really just occur to you as being complete bullshit only now. You went through your whole life believing this nonsense until now? Seriously? ???
-
So, I was smoking this past weekend and got to thinking.....Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. So, they then had Cain and Abel, but Eve was the only was the only woman, soooo, how did the world populate if there was just ONE family on the entire planet?
Ah, fairy tales. Wait 'til the Republicans wake up for your answer.
-
So, I was smoking this past weekend and got to thinking.....Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. So, they then had Cain and Abel, but Eve was the only was the only woman, soooo, how did the world populate if there was just ONE family on the entire planet?
According to the book of Jasher, an ancient Hebrew text, Adam and Eve had 3 daughters ;)
-
So, I was smoking this past weekend and got to thinking.....Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. So, they then had Cain and Abel, but Eve was the only was the only woman, soooo, how did the world populate if there was just ONE family on the entire planet?
I wonder if eve was a mudshark
-
"God works in mysterious ways".
Alternative view point, why do you think people are so retarded, inbreeding from the get go, 5000 years ago when the planet was created. 8)
-
To answer your question as best I can; they married and had children with their sisters.
The Old Testament doesn't include female offspring when listing the geneaology of families, so there would have been no need to to mention the names & number of Adam's female offspring. Of course there are accounts where daughters are mentioned in the bible, but it is usually to highlight something they did or why they stood out.
With regards to inscest etc, they would have known no different. There weren't even any other people on the planet to reference off, and this was before Moses and Mosaic law, so they were not doing anything immoral, and would have married beforehand.
-
To answer your question as best I can; they married and had children with their sisters.
The Old Testament doesn't include female offspring when listing the geneaology of families, so there would have been no need to to mention the names & number of Adam's female offspring. Of course there are accounts where daughters are mentioned in the bible, but it is usually to highlight something they did or why they stood out.
With regards to inscest etc, they would have known no different. There weren't even any other people on the planet to reference off, and this was before Moses and Mosaic law, so they were not doing anything immoral, and would have married beforehand.
Gayer than having more than a basic understanding of religion and justifying incest.
-
Gayer than having more than a basic understanding of religion and justifying incest.
Hahaha
-
Did this really just occur to you as being complete bullshit only now. You went through your whole life believing this nonsense until now? Seriously? ???
Never really thought about it, but when i get stoned i get deep and i started to write all my deep shitt down and this was one of them.
-
I cant believe we discuss this typr of thing 21st century. The story of Adam and Eve is obviously allegorical and it was never meant any other way. It is our failing of underatanding that causes us to take it literally. Ofcourse with the advancement of science this only becomes clearer... Well unless u want to cling to literalist views, or if u want to go for a cheap laugh and mock religion for being 'primitive'...this is basically the crux of the divide between the creationist on one side and atheist on the other.. it is ironic that both base their arguments on the same faulty assumptions.
-
So, I was smoking this past weekend and got to thinking.....Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. So, they then had Cain and Abel, but Eve was the only was the only woman, soooo, how did the world populate if there was just ONE family on the entire planet?
It's called "Magic". HTH! :D ;D
-
(http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x399/tnhrspwr/ancient-aliens-i-dont-know-therefore-aliens.jpg)
-
Don't forget "Lilith", Adam's first woman...she didn't like missionary, and always wanted to be on top. Adam had an issue with that, so she rolled out and was effing with dem bad boys---the demons. She became a slutty chick, doing dp's, ATMs, and all sorts of wildness...
-
Eat The Fruit, And Kiss The Snake Goodnight
-
I wonder if eve was a mudshark
Neeguls were referred to as the Sons of Ham, thus making Eve a "Hamshark" to the extent she preferred their chocolate wands over Adam's skinny mini.
-
Neeguls were referred to as the Sons of Ham, thus making Eve a "Hamshark" to the extent she preferred their chocolate wands over Adam's skinny mini.
Say it ain't so Joe!
-
Neeguls were referred to as the Sons of Ham, thus making Eve a "Hamshark" to the extent she preferred their chocolate wands over Adam's skinny mini.
Unfornately, people want to believe this, but Ham was a regular dude, people (19th Century politicians and slave owners) try to use certain to things to justify slavery (cheap labor).
If a person wonders if Eve was a mudshark, that person is making an assumption that she was white, based upon paintings...
I say, Eve was a freak, but a wholesome freak, but she was smart, after listening to a talking snake, she just didn't want to be in trouble herself, so she convinced Adam to be in the situation.
Always like a woman, can't stand being alone.
-
I think given the fact that Eve had to get fucked by her whole extended family and latterly city amounts of relatives to populate the earth, while in her old age. I would conclude that she was a Nympho, with a cock lust that has only seen equal in Booty.
-
Unfornately, people want to believe this, but Ham was a regular dude, people (19th Century politicians and slave owners) try to use certain to things to justify slavery (cheap labor).
If a person wonders if Eve was a mudshark, that person is making an assumption that she was white, based upon paintings...
I say, Eve was a freak, but a wholesome freak, but she was smart, after listening to a talking snake, she just didn't want to be in trouble herself, so she convinced Adam to be in the situation.
Always like a woman, can't stand being alone.
Regular? not sure what you mean, but the Hamatic tribes all migrated to Africa
-
Eve wore a fig leaf.
Adam wore a hole in it.
-
I think given the fact that Eve had to get fucked by her whole extended family and latterly city amounts of relatives to populate the earth, while in her old age. I would conclude that she was a Nympho, with a cock lust that has only seen equal in Booty.
Naw, I think God had made more people, you know, he's not gonna sit idlely by watching the day to day goings on of just two people and their two sons.
I believe it states that after dumbass killed his brother, a mark was put on Cain to protect him from harm from others--think about it, what others.
-
Weird how that story never mentions that guy steve ???
-
So im going to assume that Jonah didnt live for 3 days in the belly of whale?
-
So im going to assume that Jonah didnt live for 3 days in the belly of whale?
Was he your inspiration for spending endless nights on the bellies of whales Mike?
-
So im going to assume that Jonah didnt live for 3 days in the belly of whale?
No, Jonah smoked some real good herb and "imagined what it would be like to spend 3 days in the belly of a whale", turns out it was a three day smokeout/hangover, and he cane up with a outlandsih story to tell his boss/family...it was just his vision he had when he came to.
-
Jonah DID live three days inside the belly of a whale. If you do research on this, you can learn that there are two different species of whale that have mouths big enough to swallow a man, and that whales have 4 chambers for digestion. Chamber one is for food storage while other food is being digested, similar to the Orad portion of the human stomach in some ways I suppose. Jonah could have been preserved alive in chamber one for three days. Chamber two contains acid for breaking down food, but food is only transferred there after the whale has finished absorbing other food he's already ingested.
lol
-
Naw, I think God had made more people, you know, he's not gonna sit idlely by watching the day to day goings on of just two people and their two sons.
I believe it states that after dumbass killed his brother, a mark was put on Cain to protect him from harm from others--think about it, what others.
the "others" were the hominid men that was already there. pre historic man as you will. adam and eve were the aliens genetic experiments that were interbreed with themslves and the hominids. the story in the bible of adam and eve is of aliens crossbreeding with hominids, (prehistoric man)
wake up
-
the "others" were the hominid men that was already there. pre historic man as you will. adam and eve were the aliens genetic experiments that were interbreed with themslves and the hominids. the story in the bible of adam and eve is of aliens crossbreeding with hominids, (prehistoric man)
wake up
epic alien
-
Wait 'til MCWAY gets here - he'll give you 30+ pages of Noah's Ark as historical fact.
-
Jonah DID live three days inside the belly of a whale. If you do research on this, you can learn that there are two different species of whale that have mouths big enough to swallow a man, and that whales have 4 chambers for digestion. Chamber one is for food storage while other food is being digested, similar to the Orad portion of the human stomach in some ways I suppose. Jonah could have been preserved alive in chamber one for three days. Chamber two contains acid for breaking down food, but food is only transferred there after the whale has finished absorbing other food he's already ingested.
If you are talking baleen whales, baleen whales eat plankton, and they use their baleen to shift out the water and other stuff, they have huge tongues which would have detected a human, as the tongue is used to push water out as well. No way could Jonah had been swallowed. If he got to the first chamber, there is an issue of air to breath...
Now, if it was a toothed whale, Jonah would have ended up in the belly---in pieces
the "others" were the hominid men that was already there. pre historic man as you will. adam and eve were the aliens genetic experiments that were interbreed with themslves and the hominids. the story in the bible of adam and eve is of aliens crossbreeding with hominids, (prehistoric man)
wake up
them Nephilim Boyz? They were hitting up Eve as well?
It has been said that Neandethals and Cro-Magnons did interbreed with one another.
-
(http://www.nvcc.edu/home/rgorham/sites/home/darwin.gif)
-
Was he your inspiration for spending endless nights on the bellies of whales Mike?
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
-
Jonah DID live three days inside the belly of a whale. If you do research on this, you can learn that there are two different species of whale that have mouths big enough to swallow a man, and that whales have 4 chambers for digestion. Chamber one is for food storage while other food is being digested, similar to the Orad portion of the human stomach in some ways I suppose. Jonah could have been preserved alive in chamber one for three days. Chamber two contains acid for breaking down food, but food is only transferred there after the whale has finished absorbing other food he's already ingested.
so i guess ol' Jonah didn't need oxygen for three days, LOL
-
If you are talking baleen whales, baleen whales eat plankton, and they use their baleen to shift out the water and other stuff, they have huge tongues which would have detected a human, as the tongue is used to push water out as well. No way could Jonah had been swallowed. If he got to the first chamber, there is an issue of air to breath...
Now, if it was a toothed whale, Jonah would have ended up in the belly---in piecesthem Nephilim Boyz? They were hitting up Eve as well?
It has been said that Neandethals and Cro-Magnons did interbreed with one another.
Some whales weigh 250 000 lb that we know of, some maybe bigger and Jonah spent half his life traveling and fasting so he was probably 100lb soaking wet (pun intended) it would be like a grain of rice to the whale.
-
Some whales weigh 250 000 lb that we know of, some maybe bigger and Jonah spent half his life traveling and fasting so he was probably 100lb soaking wet (pun intended) it would be like a grain of rice to the whale.
Any balleen whale would have detected even a 60-80 pound sea otter or sea turtle. Jonah was just telling some tall tale.
Think about it, even remotely if it happened, nobody and
I mean nobody is going to spend even a 15-half hour in an animal's stomach, in the dark, with oxygen depleting....you do
everything your power to give that animal indigestion.
You see man's worst nightmare is being eaten alive. This tale speaks to that fear.
-
So, I was smoking this past weekend and got to thinking.....Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. So, they then had Cain and Abel, but Eve was the only was the only woman, soooo, how did the world populate if there was just ONE family on the entire planet?
You're how old and just now discovering religion is a contradictory mess, conceived by primitive man
-
Any balleen whale would have detected even a 60-80 pound sea otter or sea turtle. Jonah was just telling some tall tale.
Think about it, even remotely if it happened, nobody and
I mean nobody is going to spend even a 15-half hour in an animal's stomach, in the dark, with oxygen depleting....you do
everything your power to give that animal indigestion.
You see man's worst nightmare is being eaten alive. This tale speaks to that fear.
I understand you think the story is a stretch and maybe so but I do not think it's 100% impossible. Whales carry oxygen in their stomach too. Very improbable yes, but not impossible.
-
I understand you think the story is a stretch and maybe so but I do not think it's 100% impossible. Whales carry oxygen in their stomach too. Very improbable yes, but not impossible.
pretty much religion in a nutshell. even it's practitioners know it's more than likely bullshit, but they CHOOSE to believe said bullshit
-
Gayer than the immaculate conception.. ::)
-
Well mammals can eat up to 2% of their net weight daily, so a 250 000 lb whale can consume up to 5000 lb of food daily, like I said before 150lb man would be like a grain of rice, the whale wouldn't even notice it go down, not if it's eating in the 1000's of lb daily.
-
I understand you think the story is a stretch and maybe so but I do not think it's 100% impossible. Whales carry oxygen in their stomach too. Very improbable yes, but not impossible.
smaller or greater likelihood than someone incline pressing 220 lb dumbbells? please give exact stats, thanks.
-
smaller or greater likelihood than someone incline pressing 220 lb dumbbells? please give exact stats, thanks.
You're the clown that thinks a natural can crack the 200 on incline for reps. That's like an elephant being in the whale for 3 days, loser :-*
-
You're the clown that thinks a natural can crack the 200 on incline for reps. That's like an elephant being in the whale for 3 days, loser :-*
given the prowess in science you have displayed itt and others, I yield to the superiority of your intellect.
-
given the prowess in science you have displayed itt and others, I yield to the superiority of your intellect.
If you say so :-\
-
Why was Cain fearful of being killed, and who Did he marry?
-
Why was Cain fearful of being killed, and who Did he marry?
he married an aunt of his, Elizabeth Schuller of Hoboken, New Jersey.
-
Your posts aren't even witty, let alone funny. You need to try harder, or perhaps try the following...take two weeks off...then quit.
lol - what if I promised to believe in alien abductions instead "SimplyHuge"?
-
Why was Cain fearful of being killed, and who Did he marry?
If you believe the Biblical Narrative, you would not have a problem with this scenario. In fact the population in Cain's life time would have reached millions.
-
People like Adonis hate God, and therefore hate his Word. He of course has never read the Bible, yet seems to claim to be expert on all matters relating to it which I find ironic.
I read the Bible. Its complete nonsense and worthless. Very poorly written and contradictory/violent and pointless.
-
Jonah DID live three days inside the belly of a whale. If you do research on this, you can learn that there are two different species of whale that have mouths big enough to swallow a man, and that whales have 4 chambers for digestion. Chamber one is for food storage while other food is being digested, similar to the Orad portion of the human stomach in some ways I suppose. Jonah could have been preserved alive in chamber one for three days. Chamber two contains acid for breaking down food, but food is only transferred there after the whale has finished absorbing other food he's already ingested.
You are easily the most moronic, simple brained schmuck on this forum. Its almost comedic how ignorant you are. The fact that you actually walk around believing such bullshit is frightening. You are going to waste your whole life not knowing anything about anything in the universe. You need help.
-
Weird how that story never mentions that guy steve ???
That guy was in Sodom and Gomorrah. He met his match when God smited him and he's fellow gays. The end.
Welcome to the 21st century, humanity 'progresses' and suddenly allows men to stick their weiners in the poo hole. "Progress" ::)
-
Incest
-
Welcome to the 21st century, humanity 'progresses' and suddenly allows men to stick their weiners in the poo hole. "Progress" ::)
Yes, this sticking never happened prior to the 21st century.
-
There is oxygen in the first chamber of a whale's stomach, Sport.
I have oxygen in my blood doesnt mean a man can live in me for 3 days you fuck wit.
-
I have oxygen in my blood doesnt mean a man can live in me for 3 days you fuck wit.
lol - amazing to me how seriously this "simplyhuge" tard takes himself.
-
Try reading up on this stuff before you post nonsense. I've actually taken the time to study out the subject. A man CAN survive in a whale's stomach. There IS oxygen available to breath. He's not living in the whale's blood there genius, so try to use a little better example.
I'm getting tired of people saying I'm ignorant, etc.
I have a degree in engineering which is considered probably the most difficult B.S. Degree
I worked as an engineer.
And I am currently in med school which is considered one of the most difficult Graduate Programs.
What are YOUR qualifications?
And by the way, you don't have to have a degree in anything to understand any of the subjects we've talked about. It's fairly basic stuff for anyone with an open mind and half a brain.
Even more frightening.
-
Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Cain married one of his own family...probably a sister, or niece.
Cain was afraid of his other family members seeking revenge for the death of their relative.
The Bible does not say Seth was Adam's 3rd son. It implies that Seth was the replacement for Abel - the lineage that Christ would proceed through. There could have been many children born between Cain and Seth, and there are children born after Seth as stated in Genesis 5:4.
What other fairy tales do you read and believe?
-
Statements like: "The bible doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny" and "It's full of contradictions" make me lol.
The bible is THE most sourced, backed up text in Antiquity itself. One of the only texts in world history that we still have most of the original.
It's more reliable that shakespeares plays ffs.
-
They've never even read it BigCyp. They just hate it because it conflicts with what they do and believe.
True.
I'm all for people debating on a topic, but it becomes all too obvious when people have an anti-God agenda, because they start with the blanket statements that are FACT, and they couldn't even tell you where they heard these 'FACTS'.
Saddest part, is that people who make these statements are usually the same guys who profess to be 'individuals' who don't follow the crowd and 'make up their own minds', without realising that their opinions are straight out of a hollywood movie, written by anti-christ homosexuals.
-
Statements like: "The bible doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny" and "It's full of contradictions" make me lol.
The bible is THE most sourced, backed up text in Antiquity itself. One of the only texts in world history that we still have most of the original.
It's more reliable that shakespeares plays ffs.
Are you talking about the texts only here, or are you actually implying that stuff like the Noah's Ark, talking snake etc all happened for real?
-
Are you talking about the texts only here, or are you actually implying that stuff like the Noah's Ark, talking snake etc all happened for real?
I believe in every word written in the bible. I don't understand how someone could only take 98% of it to be true and then still follow the religion - that's madness.
Noah's ark is completely believable. 2 single cells finding eachother in a 'primordial soup' that was the earth after 'the big bang' and then reproducing, and eventually evolving into humans......now that's fairy story territory.
-
I believe in every word written in the bible. I don't understand how someone could only take 98% of it to be true and then still follow the religion - that's madness.
Noah's ark is completely believable. 2 single cells finding eachother in a 'primordial soup' that was the earth after 'the big bang' and then reproducing, and eventually evolving into humans......now that's fairy story territory.
Alright, gotcha. Lets just end the discussion right there.
-
Exactly. They choose to believe the fairy tale because the alternative they just simply don't like.
Wouldn't that make the reverse case true as well? That you reject science because you don't like it?
-
Wouldn't that make the reverse case true as well? That you reject science because you don't like it?
This will be my last post on the topic (if I met you irl i'd chat for ages)
Christians don't reject science at all. In fact I love science personally, and how it reveals just how amazing our Creator is.
However what I reject is the THEORY of evolution. Not adaptation, because that can be demonstrated in nature, but actual evolution of a species to another, or one chemical to another is complete theory, with no science involved.
I totally respect everyones right to believe what they wish, but I draw the line when science and evolution are put into the same conversation.
-
This will be my last post on the topic (if I met you irl i'd chat for ages)
Christians don't reject science at all. In fact I love science personally, and how it reveals just how amazing our Creator is.
However what I reject is the THEORY of evolution. Not adaptation, because that can be demonstrated in nature, but actual evolution of a species to another, or one chemical to another is complete theory, with no science involved.
I totally respect everyones right to believe what they wish, but I draw the line when science and evolution are put into the same conversation.
Gradual adaption over time produces significant change, no? It's all there in the DNA 'logs'.
I'm sure you've heard/read it all before though. No point in starting another 20+ page thread that'll be good for nothing.
-
Wouldn't that make the reverse case true as well? That you reject science because you don't like it?
That's the problem with you people, The Bible does NOT reject science.
Gradual adaption over time produces significant change, no? It's all there in the DNA 'logs'.
I'm sure you've heard/read it all before though. No point in starting another 20+ page thread that'll be good for nothing.
Gradual adaption over time produces significant change? Of course it does, everyone knows this. A donkey, a zebra and a horse share a common ancestor, but a donkey can not ever become a dog, no matter how much it adapts and no matter how much time elapse.
-
That's the problem with you people, The Bible does NOT reject science.
Gradual adaption over time produces significant change? Of course it does, everyone knows this. A donkey, a zebra and a horse share a common ancestor, but a donkey can not ever become a dog, no matter how much it adapts and no matter how much time elapse.
Well put my brother.
-
Wouldn't that make the reverse case true as well? That you reject science because you don't like it?
Apparently atheists don't believe in fairy tales when they believe we come from monkies that come from rodents that ultimately came from sea creatures that come from nothing and it's all an accident.
They try to prove this and shuv it down our throats because they are the most scientific people on earth with the most knowledge on earth, did I tell you they are the most knowledgeable and scientific, okay just making sure. By showing us pretty drawings, getting fragments of bones and giving them to artists who use their imagination to 'show us' the 'truth'.
Oh and it's so complicated to proof but 'there is evidence' it only takes hundreds of millions of years and theyve been there by carbon dating mhmmm, so you see, they hold the ultimate truth. We come from monkies and our older ancestors are rodents and sea creatures so cool!
If you reject their belief you are anti-science ::)
And Darwin their prophet could not even see the workings of a cell :)
/end sarcasm
-
EDIT: I honestly can't be bothered debating this stuff right now. I've got a lot of schoolwork to do and I know that if I get sucked into one of these debates there is no turning back, and I'll end up wasting a lot of time.
If anyone replies to my old post then by all means. I'm not going to debate you though. Consider it a walkover, lol
-
You have no idea what you are talking about...
1 There's no way to prove the Earth is older than 10,000 years without many broad assumptions.
2 If you put a monkey on a keyboard and let him smash away at the keys trying to design a chess program for a billion years what do you think will happen???
Option A - Monkey continues to make nonsense
Option B - Monkey magically writes the most sophisticated chess program the world has ever seen
Only a moron would pick option B, but in essence, that's what evolution is saying happened. I'm in med school, and all I keep hearing over and over again is "we still don't understand how this works". Which tells me that the design of the body is VERY VERY complex. Yet, somehow, it all just works perfectly because billions of years made it so by smashing away at the universal keyboard.
Why then do people continue to pick Option B? Because they refuse to acknowledge there is a God because of their lifestyles / beliefs.
Wow. Good for you. I hope your beliefs are all worth it.
I'm out.
-
Goddammit here we go again. Why I keep replying to threads like these is beyond me, frankly. It's pointless.
'You people'?
A literal interpretation of the Bible absolutely does not correlate with the scientific view of the world, beginning with a trivial matter such as the age of the earth and the universe. If you believe science to hold any value whatsoever then don't come here as a serious person and suggest that the earth is younger than 10,000 years old. It's absolutely ridiculous.
What kind of science do you subscribe to? Serious question.
There's nothing to prevent a species of donkeys from being a remote future ancestor of dogs given enough time and selective pressure, but it's extremely unlikely. In fact so unlikely we'll probably never see it happen even given billions of years. But there's nothing in principle that says it's impossible. Exactly what makes you think it's impossible? Because it seems ridiculous?
Thanks for quoting me twice, I am flattered :D
''There's nothing to prevent a species of donkeys from being a remote future ancestor of dogs given enough time and selective pressure''
^^^ That's a bunch of made up horseshit right there, that's not science bro, anything remotely close to that has never been observe. It is impossible period.
the scientific view of the world
^^^ What exactly is the scientific view of the world, is there a limitation to this concept, you are the one putting restriction to science just cause you don't understand something and not understanding something does not mean it does NOT fall in the realm of science.
Can science explain the beginning of time. All of our basic understanding of the universe and science does not give a rational explanation of the beginning of time. The more you think about it the more you realize that there is nothing rational about it and the very concept of a beginning defies all concepts of science.
What was before the beginning, before time?
Where did matter come from?
Space is expanding, what is it expanding into?
Where does energy come from?
Non of this ^^^^ makes sense to us, our brains are not capable of such understanding, to think so is stupid and arrogant, a scientific explanation simply can NOT occur ever.
I am sorry but to explain these require a little hocus pocus on a grand scale, talk about not being scientific.
-
Thanks for quoting me twice, I am flattered :D
''There's nothing to prevent a species of donkeys from being a remote future ancestor of dogs given enough time and selective pressure''
^^^ That's a bunch of made up horseshit right there, that's not science bro, anything remotely close to that has never been observe. It is impossible period.
the scientific view of the world
^^^ What exactly is the scientific view of the world, is there a limitation to this concept, you are the one putting restriction to science just cause you don't understand something and not understanding something does not mean it does NOT fall in the realm of science.
Can science explain the beginning of time. All of our basic understanding of the universe and science does not give a rational explanation of the beginning of time. The more you think about it the more you realize that there is nothing rational about it and the very concept of a beginning defies all concepts of science.
What was before the beginning, before time?
Where did matter come from?
Space is expanding, what is it expanding into?
Where does energy come from?
Non of this ^^^^ makes sense to us, our brains are not capable of such understanding, to think so is stupid and arrogant, a scientific explanation simply can NOT occur ever.
I am sorry but to explain these require a little hocus pocus on a grand scale, talk about not being scientific.
Exactly what prevents a donkey from being a future remote ancestor to a dog? I'm not so much debating you here, I'm honestly just curios. I'd love to learn something new about evolution and genetics and you seem to know what you're talking about.
-
Exactly what prevents a donkey from being a future remote ancestor to a dog? I'm not so much debating you here, I'm honestly just curios. I'd love to learn something new about evolution and genetics and you seem to know what you're talking about.
the same kind of mechanism that permits a baleen whale to ingest a human being. faith.
-
Would God be so stupid to let one brother steal and pretend to be the other?
-
We all know you have your head in the sand and refuse to take it out. You don't need to keep telling us how it looks under there.
oh go fuck yourself, "medical student"
what med school let you in? University of Trinidad and Tobago?
-
1) There's no way to prove the Earth is older than 10,000 years without many broad assumptions.
-
1) There's no way to prove the Earth is older than 10,000 years without many broad assumptions.
;D
-
Option B - Monkey magically writes the most sophisticated chess program the world has ever seen
Only a moron would pick option B, but in essence, that's what evolution is saying happened. I'm in med school, and all I keep hearing over and over again is "we still don't understand how this works". Which tells me that the design of the body is VERY VERY complex. Yet, somehow, it all just works perfectly because billions of years made it so by smashing away at the universal keyboard? I think not.
Why then do people continue to pick Option B? Because they refuse to acknowledge there is a God because of their lifestyles / beliefs.
So true bro. And if you confront them they will tell you, you are 'anti-science' as so many atheists have done to me. Not to mention some are so puffed up about themselves feeling all 'superior' and as 'holders of the ultimate knowledge of science'.... its a joke.
They always make all these lame statements like "BUT all scientists know its true, duh" and such empty blank statements.
From engineers, to doctors, to biologists (a friend of mine who has a degree/masters/phd/some other post grad specializations, finished biology degree, genetic engineering and forensics. Years of study.
He doesn't believe in darwinism or evolution theory as these atheists proselytize.
Point in fact. Darwin himself just used his visual observations and made conclusions. He could not even see the workings of a cell!
It's just ridiculous.
-
We all know you have your head in the sand and refuse to take it out. You don't need to keep telling us how it looks under there.
says the guy who thinks it's perfectly plausible that a man lived inside a whale for three days, underwater...LOL
-
big cyp, the bible has been change over time repeatedly.
btw i do believe in god, i just dont think highly of any religion.
Actually are you familiar with the dead sea scrolls found in 1947. Well, everyone always argued that the Bible has been changed over and over again and all Biblical theologians had no way of arguing this point.
So we read from our modern Bible, King James version, that we at least know has not been changed since 1611. Then comes ancient manuscripts from the dead sea scrolls that where written nearly 2000 years, the dates show first century and some of the scrolls can date back as far as 200 BC. Make a long story short The Biblical portions of the dead sea scroll are identical to the manuscript used in the king James version Bible. Absoluely identical to a T. So the Bible has not been changed over time, it has been identical from the first versions until now.
-
Mockery and ridicule? is that the best you guys can muster? lol.
-
ARGUMENTS AGAINST EINSTEINS THEORY OF RELATIVITY:
Part I
(4) Einstein's theory of relativity is a striking example for this observation. Most of you will know of Popper's admiration for Einstein, and how he was inspired by the theory of relativity (and by its high refutability in contrast to the irrefutability of psychoanalysis) more than by anything else to develop the criterion of falsifiability as a demarcation between science and metaphysics (Popper 1976, pp. 37-38). And in connection with this criterion he often quoted--and amplified--Einstein's words from Geometrie und Erfahrung (Einstein 1921):
Insofar as the expressions of mathematics refer to reality they are not certain, and insofar as they are certain they do not refer to reality.
(5) Going by this sentence it would appear that there could hardly have been a more perfect understanding on methodology than that between Einstein and Popper. And they even agreed in this, that they both believed the theory of relativity not to be the final truth. Einstein spent the last thirty years of his life in search of a general field theory. And from Popper's Realism and the Aim of Science (Popper 1983, p. xxviii) it can be seen that he considered the issue between Einstein and Lorentz, which is none other than the issue between relativistic physics and non-relativistic physics, to be still open.
(6) Most amazing about this is that they both held the key to the problem in their hands. Let us take a look at the general theory of relativity and at Einstein's concept of "curved space". It is reputed to be a difficult concept, but Einstein's deduction is simple enough to be understood by everybody. In one of his famous Gedankenexperimente he assumes a large box, or lift, being accelerated through space at a constant rate outside any other field of gravitation. He then first discusses the situation of a generation of physicists being born and living in that box, without being able to "look out of the window", and finds that, due to the constant rate of acceleration, they will be under the impression of living in a gravitational field. Permanent acceleration will permanently press them to the floor of the box. He then lets a ray of light travelling horizontally (parallel to the bottom, or x-axis) fall into the box through a hole in its side, and finds that, due to the finite velocity of light, and, again, due to the constant rate of acceleration of the box, this ray, which had been travelling in a straight line outside the box, will assume the shape of a parabolic curve inside the box. From the combination of these two considerations he infers that the scientists living in that box will ascribe the deflection of light to the influence of the gravitational field. And his further inference is that, since we, the human race, are living in the gravitational field of the earth, and the sun, without being able to "look out of the window", we must also assume that the lines of light will be curved in this field. Going by his own explanation, this, and nothing else, lies at the bottom of his famous concept of "curved space".
(7) Now, I fear that some of you may not believe this. The lift-example is taken from the book "Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie" in which Einstein tried to explain the theory of relativity to non-physicists in a popular way (Einstein 1917, chapter 20). It seems unfair to hold this attempt at a simple visualisation of a difficult scientific theory against him. But I assure you that I have looked through Einstein's papers very carefully, especially through the early ones, and I have found many complicated discussions of the implications resulting from curved space, and also many adaptations of the theory to empirical results which surprised me because the experiments in question might well have been taken as refutations of the theory. I have also found the arguments used in the lift-example formulated in a more scientific shape, referring not to lifts, or boxes, but to systems of coordinates, and planets, and ellipses (Einstein 1916). But the gist of the argument always remained the same. And nowhere have I found anything like a critical discussion of the fundamental premise that light will be deflected in the gravitational field. The discussion of this premise did not take place in Einstein's papers; nor have I found it anywhere else.
(8) You may still not feel reassured because I am only a lawyer, and admittedly know very little about physics, and even less about mathematics. But perhaps a quotation from Einstein's own text will convince you. In "Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie" (Einstein 1916)--and this is not a simplified book, but one of his original publications in Annalen der Physik--he explicitly says (the translation is mine, but the words are his):
For it is possible `to create' [he puts this in quotation marks] a gravitational field by merely changing the system of coordinates ... it is easy to see that the way of light relative to K' [K' is the system of coordinates that is being accelerated, i.e. the "lift"] will generally be curved if light moves in a straight line and with constant velocity relative to K.
(9) This, I believe, shows quite clearly that, at that time, he considered the deflection of light as a necessary implication of acceleration, resulting from a purely mathematical operation, viz. the "changing of the system of coordinates". To him it was the result of a mathematical equation. In fact he inferred this deflection from two very simple premises: (1) the constant velocity of light, and (2) an identification of acceleration with gravitation[2].
(10) Let us now look at this argument with Karl Popper's eyes.
(11) According to Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery" Einstein's reasoning is not only very strong, but in fact too strong. For it is, of course, true that the ray of light falling into the accelerating box will form a parabolic curve. But this is true not only for light, but also for any other ray travelling at constant speed, and entering the box at an angle of . The shape of the parabolic curve will, of course, vary depending on the velocity of the ray and the acceleration of the box, but if one of two intersecting systems of coordinates is moving at constant velocity while the other is being accelerated the function of the intersection must necessarily be a parabolic curve. This is not only true for rays of light; it is even true for rays, or lines, that exist only in our imagination, or for a box without top or bottom, and therefore without gravitational field. It is independent of any physical properties of those rays, and has nothing to do with gravitation, but simply consists of a geometrical description of two bodies, or systems of coordinates, moving at speeds relative to each other, when one of them is being accelerated and the other is not. It is the result of a valid mathematical inference which can therefore never be refuted. It is a simple truism of analytical geometry and therefore belongs to mathematics, but not to physics. So it falls victim to Einstein's own criterion: because it is certain it does not refer to reality. And if it does not refer to reality, then it does not describe a physical property of light, or of space. And in Popper's terminology the theory of curved space is non-empirical because it cannot be refuted by any conceivable experiment, or physical property of light[3]. Therefore we may not infer from this theory that space is curved in reality, and that light will be deflected in the gravitational field.
FOR MORE follow this link:
http://www.tkpw.net/tcr/volume-01/number-03/node3.html (http://www.tkpw.net/tcr/volume-01/number-03/node3.html)
-
WHY THE EARTH MAY REALLY BE FLAT
G. Scott Acton
Northwestern University
The hypothesis H is considered that the earth is flat. A relatively simple observation (or experimental outcome) that might plausibly be used to refute H is suggested. The purported refutation is analyzed, identifying the auxiliary assumptions involved, so as to show how H may be saved from actually being refuted. Then it is shown how H can be used, together with some revised auxiliary assumptions that seem reasonable or plausible, to account for the very observation (or outcome) that was originally supposed to refute H.
According to a philosophy often attributed to Sir Karl Popper (1959), naive or dogmatic falsificationism, science is defined as a modus tollens argument of the following form. First, from a hypothesis we draw some observational consequence: H implies C. Then we do the experiment and find some observed outcome: C*. If C* is incompatible with C, then we conclude that H is false. Diagrammatically, we have the following logical argument:
IF H, THEN NOT C*.
C*.
________________________ __
THEREFORE, NOT H.
If this were all there is to science, then there could be no objection to the conclusion that H is false, because it is a consequence of a logically valid argument: given the truth of the premises, the truth of the conclusion follows. However, if we look at the actual practice of scientists, we will find that this is not a true picture of the way science is actually conducted. Scientists routinely argue over conclusions from observation and experiment. What could they possibly have to argue about if science progresses as a series of deductive arguments of the form proposed above? Well, it turns out that there is more to the logical structure of science than the naive scheme for falsification would hold. The key to understanding this "something more" is understanding the role of auxiliary assumptions. Auxiliary assumptions are subject-specific assumptions concerning the initial conditions or experimental assumptions, and/or the assumptions of the theory.
According to the more sophisticated scheme for falsification (Popper's methodological falsificationism), we start out with a hypothesis plus some auxiliary assumptions, which combined imply some observational consequence: H plus auxiliary assumptions imply C. Then we do the experiment and find some observed outcome: C*. If C* is incompatible with C, then we conclude that either H is false or some of the auxiliary assumptions are false (or both). There is room for argument as to what exactly is to blame for the anomalous observational outcome, C*. Diagrammatically, we have the following:
IF (H & A1 & A2 & A3 . . . ), THEN NOT C*.
C*.
________________________ ________________________ __________________
THEREFORE, NOT H, OR NOT A1, OR NOT A2, . . .
A particularly effective rhetorical strategy is to take a potential falsifier, such as the anomalous observation C*, and, by modifying the auxiliary assumptions, turn it into a corroborating instance of the hypothesis, H. This is exactly the strategy that I will attempt to illustrate in the remainder of this paper.
Consider the hypothesis, H, that the earth is flat. Now suppose we wished to derive some testable observational consequences from this hypothesis. If the earth is flat, then we should not observe a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. However, we do observe a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. Therefore, according to the naive scheme for falsification, we have a completely knock-down argument that the earth is not flat.
However, what auxiliary assumptions intervene between hypothesis and conclusion? Auxiliary assumptions can be divided into two types: experimental assumptions concerning the initial conditions, and theoretical assumptions.
As for the initial conditions of this experiment, we note the following. First, we assume that the sun gives the moon its light. Second, we assume that the earth and not another celestial body intervenes between the sun and the moon to cause the lunar eclipse. Third, we assume that the behavior of light is the same in outer space as it is on earth. Fourth, we assume that the rotation of the earth has no effect on the shape of the shadow cast by the earth upon the moon. Fifth, we assume that the shadow cast by the sun is not obscured by light from other heavenly bodies, such as the stars. On the theoretical side, we assume a theory of optics that would allow us to tell the difference between a curved and flat shadow.
Let us take the fourth experimental assmption, that the rotation of the earth has no effect on the shape of the shadow cast by the earth upon the moon. Is this really credible? If this assumption were not true, then that could shift the evidence in favor of a flat earth. Let's see how.
A quarter is a flat object. However, if you spin a quarter on its axis, the shadow made by a light overhead is in the shape of a circle.
Suppose that the earth is flat, as per our initial hypothesis. Now suppose that the earth is in constant motion. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that the earth is spinning at the tremendous rate of approximately 1000 miles per hour. Given these assmptions, what shape shadow should the earth cast upon the moon during a lunar eclipse? Clearly, the earth should cast a circular shadow!
I have demonstrated that the earth may in fact be flat. I have done so by turning a previous argument against the flatness of the earth on its head, showing the importance of the role played by auxiliary assumptions. Let us continue this exercise to account for one further observation.
Given that the earth is spinning at a tremendous rate, why do we not fly off the earth? The answer is that gravity pulls us down, keeping us in close proximity to the earth. In fact, gravity seems to be equally in operation at every point along the surface of the earth, just as we would expect if the earth were a sphere.
How can we account for the equal effects of gravity if the earth is a flat disc? Gravity is a force field. Nobody really knows what gravity looks like--we only know what gravity is like through its effects: it pulls us downward. Therefore, suppose that gravity is curved. It proceeds from the center of mass of the disc-shaped earth out to the further reaches of the earth, while all the time it is curved in such a way as to pull objects on the earth downward. That would account for the observed effects of gravity.
Now I have shown how a little tinkering with auxiliary assumptions can change the evidence against a hypothesis to favor it. Given that the earth is spinning rapidly so as to cause a circular shadow during a lunar eclipse, and that gravity is curved so as to affect the whole surface of the earth equally, we can conclude that the earth may in fact be flat. On the other hand, the auxiliary assumptions themselves need to be subjected to empirical test, and their auxiliary assumptions need to be subjected to empirical test, and so on. Given different auxiliary assumptions, we might arrive at a different conclusion. As Einstein and Infeld (1938, pp. 30-31) say, "It is really our whole system of guesses which is to be either proved or disproved by experiment. No one of the assumptions can be isolated for separate testing.... [W]e can well imagine that another system, based on different assumptions, might work just as well."
http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory/flatearth.html (http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory/flatearth.html)
-
(http://bladeordie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Tide-comes-in-tide-goes-out-You-cant-explain-that.jpg)
-
The Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy
The moon landing hoax controversy is still evident after 36 years (please read footnote below this text). On July 20th, 1969 our lives changed forever. This was not due to any disastrous event that took place here on Earth, but an amazing event that took place in the heavens, when the first man walked on that wondrous thing people had gazed at and wondered about for centuries - the moon. Our world was changing at that time in leaps and bounds. It was a time of endless possibilities. Many people think of this as a moon landing hoax or the first man on the moon hoax. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, some people still believe that the landing of a man on the moon was a trick of television.
Shadows on the Moon
One of the arguments from skeptics to substantiate the moon landing hoax theory involves the shadows that illuminated from the lunar surface when the pictures that were sent back to us. They argue that if this is not a hoax, why is it that facts about the moon state there are no shadows in space. This argument about this moon landing hoax comes from believers that feel the sun is the only source of light in the universe. When you think of the moon, you must consider that the sun is not the only source of light on the moon and that the lunar surface reflects its own light which illuminates all things on the surface. Therefore there is no credence in the theory of a moon landing hoax.
The Fluttering Flag
Another part of the moon landing hoax theory deals with the American flag. The picture that was sent back showed this flag fluttering as in a wind. Some believers in the moon landing hoax feel that this was proof that this picture had been taken on earth and not the result of a moon landing. The fact that the flag flutters in the wind when there is no wind on the moon could lend some degree of credibility to the belief that this was a hoax. However, experts, in an attempt to defend the landing against the moon landing hoax theory explained that a vacuum has no friction. On the moon things don't stop moving as quickly as they do on Earth, so when the astronauts got the flag attached to the surface and straightened, it stayed there longer than what we are accustomed to. Hence the picture was taken with the flag waving is proof that the moon landing hoax theory is incorrect.
Driving the Rover
The pictures of the astronauts driving the Rover also proved to many that this was a moon landing hoax However, the projection of the speed of a film showing the astronauts driving in the moon proves that it really did happen. There were no clouds of dust rinsing from the tires of the Rover because moon dust returns directly to the surface. Therefore it was not possible back in 1969 to have this type of controlled environment in which to display a moon landing hoax.
-
Bro no one is going to read that so do you mined telling us what you are getting at here please. ???
-
WHY JESUS NEVER EXISTED
There is no contemporary historical record of any kind of Jesus!! No written Roman, Greek or Jewish sources from this time (apart from the gospels) know of any historical Jesus or Christ. The name "Christ" is mentioned in some later texts (Tacitus, Suetonius Pliny d.y.) but then merely as the name of the idol of the Christians' worship (Read what these sources really say here). We don't even know who the writers of the Gospels were, and don't have the original manuscripts themselves either. We just have later copies of copies of copies of copies … of copies of the assumed lost originals. And with each copy the copyist usually felt free to alter details or rewrite whole parts of the manuscript. (We usually don't trust dubious anonymous sources as evidence for anything, do we?)
All the divine aspects of the Jesus figure are "stolen" from earlier similar dying and resurrected godmen, such as Dionysos, Osiris, Hercules, Attis, Mithra, Horus, Zarathustra and others. Actually there are few (if any) things about Jesus that are original at all. Jesus is just the Jewish version of this popular mythic Saviour- character in the Mystery-religions of Antiquity. (See the similarities here).
All the teachings of Jesus are "borrowed" from older sources, for example from the teachings of Buddha. Many of Jesus teachings are almost word for word identical with some of Buddhas sayings (400 years earlier). The so-called "Golden rule" can be found in several earlier pagan Greek (and Jewish) texts. The famous "Sermon on the Mount" was never held by Jesus (of course, since he never existed), but also because it was actually first produced in the second century AD by Christian priests, assembled from what they assumed were sayings of Jesus in different other texts.
The "birthday" of Jesus is of course unknown, not even the year of his miraculous birth is known. The church just stole the already popular date of the 25th December, which in Antiquity was an immensely popular celebration of the birth of the sungod Mithra, - "the light of the world".
More on the origin of Christmas - see the here
The story of Jesus was originally an allegorical story based partly on the Jewish exodus myth and Joshua/Jesus ben Nun, successor of Moses, the Jewish Messiah-myth and the widespread pagan myth of the dying and resurrected godman Dionysos-Osiris. Later uneducated Christians in Rome, people without the insight and understanding of the deeper meaning of the texts, started to take these allegorical stories for their face value, and Literary Christianity as we know it was born.
http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm (http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm)
-
PROOF OBAMA IS THE ANTI-CHRIST
Barrack Sodobama is left-handed!
"The Bible contains about 25 unfavorable references to the left hand. In the best known example, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations: And he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, 'Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.' ... Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.'" (Matthew 25:31-34, 41)"
MORE:
The 27 Characteristics of the AntiChrist:
1. He comes from among ten kings in the restored Roman Empire; his authority will have similarities to the ancient Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks [Daniel 7:24; Rev 13:2 / Daniel 7:7]
Obama: American president has similarities to Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks.
2. He will subdue three kings [Daniel 7:8, 24]
Obama: Hmmm... McCain, Hillary and John Edwards
3. He is diverse from the other kings [Daniel 7:24]
Obama: Mixed race
4. He will rise from obscurity…a “little horn” [Daniel 7:8]
Obama: virtually unheard of two years ago.
5. He will speak boastfully [Daniel 7:8; Rev 13:5]
Obama: Change we can [blindly] believe in...
6. He will blaspheme God, [Daniel 7:25; 11:36; Rev 13:5] slandering His Name, dwelling place, and departed Christians and Old Testament saints [Rev 13:6]
Obama: not exactly getting along with his pastor...
7. He will oppress the saints and be successful for 3 ½ years [Daniel 7:25; Rev 13:7]
Obama: One termer.
8. He will try to change the calendar, perhaps to define a new era, related to himself [Daniel 7:25]
Obama: Michigan primary... once again change he can believe in... may be a 3 day work week.
9. He will try to change the laws, perhaps to gain an advantage for his new kingdom and era
[Dan 7:25]
Obama: wants to re-negotiate NAFTA!
10. He will not be succeeded by another earthly ruler, but by Christ [Daniel 7:26-27]
Obama: Future stuff...
11. He will confirm a covenant with “many” [Daniel 9:27]
This covenant will likely involve the establishment of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem
[see Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15]
Obama: Future stuff: ???, diplomatic deal? treaty? NAFTA? Peace treaty with bin Ladin? Who knows.
12. He will put an end to Jewish sacrifice and offerings after 3 ½ years and will set up an abomination to God in the Temple [Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15]
Obama: I've never heard of him sacrificing an animal, or follow ANY of the sacrifice rites from the book of Leviticus.
13. He will not answer to a higher earthly authority; “He will do as he pleases”[Daniel 11:36]
Obama: U.S. presidents are like that....
14. He will show no regard for the religion of his ancestors [Daniel 11:37]
Obama: His Father was a Muslim...
15. He will not believe in any god at all [except for himself] [Daniel 11:37]
Obama: His Mother is an atheist. He was raised atheist. And his adopted church believes in stuff that's kind of politically incorrect. Does he really believe in god?
16. He will have "no regard for the desire of women"[Dan 11:37]
Obama: He doesn't much care for Hillary. Bill embodies the the "desire of women"...
17. He will claim to be greater than any god [Daniel 11:37; 2 Thess 2:4]
Obama: Obviously someone who disobeys the bible thinks they are greater than God.
18. He will claim to be God [2 Thessalonians 2:4]
Obama: Satanists claim to be gods, and as a democrat, he is a satanist.
19. He will only honor a “god” of the military. His whole focus and attention will be on his military. He will conquer lands and distribute them [Daniel 11:39-44]
Obama: Has an expert "campaign" - the electoral equivalent of an army.
20. His arrival on the world scene will be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders [2 Thess 2:9]
Obama: Signs/Disasters like Chinese earth quake, the cyclone that his burma. Wonders like a black man and a woman are to front runners for US president...
21. Either he, or his companion [The False Prophet], will claim to be Christ [Matt 24:21-28]
Obama: We'll have to wait for his choice on a running mate.
22. He will claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh, or that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave [2 John 7]. He will deny that Jesus is the Messiah [I John 2:22]
Obama: Is a democrat.
23. He will be worshipped by many people [Rev. 13:8]
Obama: I would have to say this is true...
24. He will hate a nation that initially will have some control over his kingdom, but he will destroy this nation [Rev 17:16-18]
Obama: Israel?
25. He will appear to survive a fatal injury [Rev. 13:3; 17:8]
Obama: Everyone thought his campaign was "dead" before Iowa.
26. His name will be related to the number six hundred and sixty six [Rev 13:17-18].
Was born in Chicago zip code: 60606
27. He will be empowered by the devil himself [Rev. 13:2]
Nominated by democratic party.
UPDATE! Matthew 5:34 CLEARLY STATES THAT OBAMA "COMETH OF EVIL"
Obama insisted on taking the oath of office TWICE! Why is he so obsessed with oath-taking? Read Matthew chapter five, in which Jesus clearly says that oath-taking is "evil":
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
-
Bro no one is going to read that so do you mined telling us what you are getting at here please. ???
I may be back for more, just spreading the truth brother.
-
I may be back for more, just spreading the truth brother.
Well you certainly got the Jesus one wrong
-
Wasn't Obama's name BarYUCK hesaliar obomber? Just a thought. Wait what does this have to do with homos who stick their thing in the wrong and dirty place?
-
Actually are you familiar with the dead sea scrolls found in 1947. Well, everyone always argued that the Bible has been changed over and over again and all Biblical theologians had no way of arguing this point.
So we read from our modern Bible, King James version, that we at least know has not been changed since 1611. Then comes ancient manuscripts from the dead sea scrolls that where written nearly 2000 years, the dates show first century and some of the scrolls can date back as far as 200 BC. Make a long story short The Biblical portions of the dead sea scroll are identical to the manuscript used in the king James version Bible. Absoluely identical to a T. So the Bible has not been changed over time, it has been identical from the first versions until now.
I'm sorry to say but although I have not been to seminaries I have had the opportunity and time to study christianity and the bible quite in depth and know of people who have studied in seminaries and I've had the delightful pleasure of meeting and discussing with the bible and scriptures. One of my philosophy teachers was in the vatican order and left it so he could marry and eventually it led him to the teaching profession. He himself basically attested to no Jesus is not God, he was one of the first to make me think.
The bible indeed has been changed and cropped and copied and mistranslated over and over again. The king james bible is so erronous that the new standard revised edition dubs it as unbelievably riddled with errors. What was it something like 40000 or 50000 errors?
Then there's other things like major stories that were forged way after. Such as the NT story about the prostitute and 'those without sin can cast the first stone" which is not something Jesus said but a later forgery. Or the 'three in heaven' a forgery. Just to name a few prominent and VERY important creed altering additions and fabrications.
The ending, openings of certain books. In the end, no it has been changed and corrupted.
Those who know very well are the ones actually closest to the study of the bible, those prominent theologians that go to seminaries and not joes who assume what their preacher tells them from their handy dandy bible on sunday or sunday class.
I have two bibles at home and just reading between the two of them there are so many differences. Heck then there are the apocrypha.
So sorry to say in this regard I totally disagree, you have to be honest with yourself. Don't be a deluded evangelist who believes the entire bible is the 'word of God' when the NT is pretty much composed of Paul's personal writings, his 'letters' propagating his person gospel and beliefs.
-
You are a very foolish person, I just proved it has not been changed and you gave me a whole page of absolute garbage.
NOW PAY CLOSE ATTENTION BRAINIAC
DEAD SEA SCROLLS =2000 YEARS OLD
THE MODERN BIBLE, IDENTICAL WORD FOR WORD
A 2 Year old can figure this out wooooooooooooooooooooooo sh
-
lol I guess you missed the whole part about 'forged verses' and 'forged stories'.
You realize the scriptures are tiny parchments here and there, it's not like a 'whole book'.
There are many copies left and right. It's all contested and not 'absolute'
Most Christian theologians know this :)
As a Christian I did not know that the story of the prostitute was a later fabrication. Yet as a Muslim still studying the bible I learned about it's forgery.
You can't be that blind like most evangelists and believe it is the 'word of God'.
The bible is literally cropped together from parchments of scriptures over ages.
One would think a person can use the brain when in their bible's commentary it says "this is verse is a later addition" would make them 'think' but no :)
-
Heck look at how christians argue about the various translations:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/Revised%20Standard%20Version/revised_standard_version_exposed.htm
It's not God's word and it's been changed and tampered with. Each subsequent edition including the new standard revised edition emphasizes these things yet also acknowledges they 'kept' certain later additions because of the 'flow' or because people are used to these stories, etc...
In case you've never seen what the parchments can look like here:
(http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/components/photos/050715/050715_israelscroll_hmed_2p.grid-4x2.jpg)
(http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_papyrus_cc_120918_wblog.jpg)
Every day there is some Christian arguing between a Christian whether one verse or another in one translation or another is this or that.
-
Bro what I think of all the other translations of the Bible is the same as what I think of of the Koran, false books inspired by satan, they are not the word of God.
The king James is the word of God and it is the only Bible inspired by God
So listen ding dong, I don`t care if the Bible is partial books blah blah blah,or I don`t care how you slice it, you have no argument here and making yourself look dumb.
FOR THE THIRD TIME :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ PAY ATTENTION
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS ARE WORD FOR WORD WITH TODAYS BIBLE AND THEY ARE FROM 2000 YEARS AGO.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS HAS EVERY SINGLE BOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT EXCEPT THE BOOK OF ESTHER, THAT IS 38 BOOKS AND EVERY SINGLE BOOK IS IDENTICAL WORD FOR WORD WITH TODAY`S BIBLE, WHICH MEANS IT HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED IN OVER 2000 YEARS,
DO YOU UNDERSTAND OR DO I HAVE TO TELL YOUR IGNORANT BRAIN A FOURTH TIME
-
So, I was smoking this past weekend and got to thinking.....Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. So, they then had Cain and Abel, but Eve was the only was the only woman, soooo, how did the world populate if there was just ONE family on the entire planet?
triple stupid
your mom and I populated the whole planet
you're welcome
-
lol no they're not. I have two bibles at home and they are different.
Do you have any idea how many editions of the bible there are? It's not just 'how things are worded' or translated (or rather mistranslated) but how things are deliberately added or manipulated or worded. Whole stories forged.
Damn.. well I can't argue with someone with such blind faith.
The bible comes from the word biblios in latin. Book. It is composed of many different 'books' and letters. These 'books' and letters are found scattered in parchments. Of these 'books' there are some that are included in some bibles and some that are not included, some that are not included at all yet are scripture both in OT and NT. The church decided which of these 'books' and letters to include and not include for instance.
These parchments you are arguing about I bet you never even saw them, obviously wouldn't know how to read them or understand them.
People who studied hebrew, konic greek attended seminaries and even saw with their own eyes these things know far more than you do and I'll take their word over your blind faith.
Don't get me wrong. I believe in God almighty and these writings include things from God, things from prophets, things from humans, things from rabbis, things from historians, things fromscribes and things from frauds but they are not 'the word of God'.
The king james bible was erronous yet became 'standard' bible of the time and won over.
The first English version of the Scriptures made by direct translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, and the first to be printed, was the work of William Tyndale. He met bitter opposition. He was accused of willfully perverting the meaning of the Scriptures, and his New Testaments were ordered to be burned as "untrue translations." He was finally betrayed into the hands of his enemies, and in October 1536, was publicly executed and burned at the stake.
Yet Tyndale's work became the foundation of subsequent English versions, notably those of Coverdale, 1535; Thomas Matthew (probably a pseudonym for John Rogers), 1537; the Great Bible, 1539; the Geneva Bible, 1560; and the Bishops' Bible, 1568. In 1582, a translation of the New Testament, made from the Latin Vulgate by Roman Catholic scholars, was published at Rheims.
The translators who made the King James Version took into account all of these preceding versions; and comparison shows that it owes something to each of them. It kept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever source, which had stood the test of public usage. It owed most, especially in the New Testament, to Tyndale.
The King James Version had to compete with the Geneva Bible in popular use; but in the end it prevailed, and for more than two and a half centuries no other authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. The King James Version became the "Authorized Version" of the English-speaking peoples.
...
Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. The task was undertaken, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated in the work, was published in 1901.
Despite these things they still decided to keep certain statements and forgeries/later additions because of their 'acceptance'.
Remember what's being contested is this:
Parchments of writings scattered here and there compared to other parchments here and there.
(http://www.biblical-data.org/LATIN_Resources/Mich_4969_parchment.jpg)
(http://i1.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_lens2061779module10329401photo_1215292651ancient_bible-parchment-380x250.jpg)
-
lol no they're not. I have two bibles at home and they are different.
Do you have any idea how many editions of the bible there are? It's not just 'how things are worded' or translated (or rather mistranslated) but how things are deliberately added or manipulated or worded. Whole stories forged.
Damn.. well I can't argue with someone with such blind faith.
The bible comes from the word biblios in latin. Book. It is composed of many different 'books' and letters. These 'books' and letters are found scattered in parchments. Of these 'books' there are some that are included in some bibles and some that are not included, some that are not included at all yet are scripture both in OT and NT. The church decided which of these 'books' and letters to include and not include for instance.
These parchments you are arguing about I bet you never even saw them, obviously wouldn't know how to read them or understand them.
People who studied hebrew, konic greek attended seminaries and even saw with their own eyes these things know far more than you do and I'll take their word over your blind faith.
Don't get me wrong. I believe in God almighty and these writings include things from God, things from prophets, things from humans, things from rabbis, things from historians, things fromscribes and things from frauds but they are not 'the word of God'.
The king james bible was erronous yet became 'standard' bible of the time and won over.
Despite these things they still decided to keep certain statements and forgeries/later additions because of their 'acceptance'.
Oh my did you even read my post those Bibles you mentioned are from the devil just like the Koran, and just like the Koran there are contradictions cause they come from satan himself there is only 1 true Bible and that is the King James Bible
Bro people have studied the Dead Sea scrolls extensively and they are equal to today`s modern day King James, identical, get over it.
-
lol you make me laugh what a guy ;D Theologians are the devil because they expose forgeries and inconsistencies that's hilarious. And of course that slick touch of KORAAN IS OF DE DEVILZ! Because you never read it :)
Well I r disappoint, I thought you were a person that liked to read and learn I guess not. May God guide you ameen.
-
lol you make me laugh what a guy ;D Theologians are the devil because they expose forgeries and inconsistencies that's hilarious. And of course that slick touch of KORAAN IS OF DE DEVILZ! Because you never read it :)
Well I r disappoint, I thought you were a person that liked to read and learn I guess not. May God guide you ameen.
So be it....
DOESN`T CHANGE THE FACT THAT IF A DOCUMENT 2000 YEARS AGO SAYS BNJEVBEKEG AND A DOCUMENT TODAY SAYS BNJEVBEKEG THEN THAT MEANS IT HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED, SO ADMIT YOU WHERE WRONG, BE A MAN.
-
The Dead Sea scrolls? LOL!!
Even Chumlee on "Pawn Stars" would know those things are fake.
-
(http://bladeordie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Tide-comes-in-tide-goes-out-You-cant-explain-that.jpg)
actually, you cant explain it. i dare you to try. :)
-
actually, you cant explain it. i dare you to try. :)
Dollar goes in, soda comes out you can't explain that .
-
Well you certainly got the Jesus one wrong
oh really ? evidence outside of the new testament that points towards his existence ? ;D
-
Dollar goes in, soda comes out you can't explain that .
Wait? What? Where does this happen? Madness!!
-
Dollar goes in, soda comes out you can't explain that .
;D i literally LOL'd ;D
-
Rhode Island. Neither a road or an island. You can't explain that.
-
actually, you cant explain it. i dare you to try. :)
What are you on about? Dont have time for your trolling today, the point of the meme is that Oreillys dumbass is referring to an inexplicable phenomenon as proof of god which has been scientifically understood for hundreds of years.
-
Shouldnt have taken the bait, tbombz has shown an epic overconfidence in knowledge in areas where he has no clue. This is not a peraon with a state of mind that can be reasoned with.
-
The Dead Sea scrolls? LOL!!
Even Chumlee on "Pawn Stars" would know those things are fake.
Clap Clap Clap, stupidest post of the year, ya some random dude on getbig is going to educate all these experts across the globe that have estimated the scrolls to be worth Billions and Billions of dollars, no not millions, Billions.
Ya they are so fake, that`s why if you offered 10 billion dollars your offer would be rejected. They where found in Qumran in a cave where thousands of archaeologist have flocked to since and have spent years and million upon million of dollars excavating other caves and have found a total of 11 caves containing scrolls, in 1 cave a lone 1 scroll is estimated to be worth 3 billion dollars, wow pretty expensive for a fake scroll, get real man.
-
Rhode Island. Neither a road or an island. You can't explain that.
When I flush the water comes back , you can't explain that .
-
oh really ? evidence outside of the new testament that points towards his existence ? ;D
No Problem ;)
More information has survived about Jesus Christ than most other ancient figures. Yet few historical persons have ever had their existence as questioned and as researched. One result of all that research is that information about Christ, from sources other than the Bible, is readily accessible by the common person for nearly the first time in history.
Unfortunately, this information and other material which refers to Christ seldom makes it into our learning cycle. Almost any material with significant reference to Christ or the Bible can be classified as religion and thus be summarily censored out of all events, displays, or institutions touched by government-allocated tax dollars. And the areas touched by tax dollars broaden every year.
Therefore, because taxpayer-funded expressions of Christ currently seem limited to extreme commentaries like crucifixes submerged in jars of urine, and scowling portraits of Jesus painted with an artist's own feces, the paths by which we have been left to learn any facts about the historical life and times of Jesus are either through churches, private institutions, or self-study.
The world deals differently with Jesus than with other historical figures and rightly so. Jesus made bigger claims and had a bigger impact than all the others. Jesus claimed to be God incarnate and left this world with the original Schwarzenegger-styled promise of "I'll be back". Even if our tax dollars seem to favor Christ's critics, it is not necessarily wrong to hold Christ up to a higher standard. Raising the standards was one of his clearest messages.
2.2 The testimonies from hostile sources.
In the case for Christ, the value of evidence, particularly from hostile sources, is tremendous. Hostile sources are considered to be those who were definitely not followers of Christ; i.e., people who clearly were not out to propagate favorable belief in him. The fact that hostile sources cite Christ, as well as cite other New Testament personages and events, is evidence for both the existence of Christ and the general veracity of the Bible.
The important point of hearing the corroborating testimony by non-Christians writing in Christ's own era, and shortly thereafter, is simply the acknowledgment of Christ's existence. Naturally, because all of the proceeding testimony comes from people who did not conclude him to be God, it does not deal with Christ as favorably or thoroughly as writings by those who did.
It is also categorically true that proof of Jesus' divinity will not be found in writings that qualify as hostile. This is because if some ancient writer had seen and confirmed his miracles or realized his fulfillment of prophecy and then recorded "Yes, Christ actually did this or that which his followers speak of", that writer would no longer be considered hostile by today's skeptic. Right?
Therefore, only writers who reference Christ offhandedly or in a negative way are sources whom skeptics are likely to accept as neutral observers. Hence we are left with a collection of writings that, though by nature lack clear confirmation of Christ's deity, do at least confirm he walked the earth for even his enemies to see.
-- FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born around AD 38. He served Roman commander Vespasian in Jerusalem until the city's destruction in AD 70. Josephus personally believed Vespasian to be Israel's promised Messiah. When Vespasian later became emperor of Rome, Josephus served under him as court historian. 2 In AD 93, Josephus finished his work Antiquities of the Jews in which at least three passages specifically confirm portions of Scripture:
But to some of the Jews the destruction of Herod's army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism. 3
...convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned. 4
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;... 5
-- PLINIUS SECUNDUS (Pliny the Younger)
Pliny was the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Much of his correspondence has survived including a particular letter written circa AD 112 to the Roman emperor Trajan. This letter does not reference Christ directly, but it does establish several beliefs and practices of early Christians. This includes their loyalty to Christ even when it cost them their lives. Pliny's letter states:
In the meantime, the method I have observed towards those who have been denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were in fact Christians; if they confessed it, I repeated the question twice, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed.
...They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to perform any wicked deed, never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to make it good; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food - but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. 6
-- CORNELIUS TACITUS
Tacitus was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and later became governor of Asia. Around AD 116 in his work entitled Annals, he wrote of Emperor Nero and a fire which had swept Rome in AD 64:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome... 7
-- GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLAS
Suetonius was a chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian writing around AD 120 in his work Life of Claudius:
Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city. 8
-- LUCIAN
Lucian, the Greek satirist, wrote this rather scathing attack in The Death of Peregrine circa AD 170:
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed upon them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. 9
-- THE TALMUD
The Talmud is essentially the collection of Jewish oral traditions that were put into writing with additional commentary between the years of AD 70 and 200. From the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a includes:
On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of the Passover. 10
The facts in this passage are somewhat difficult to assimilate. Although Yeshu is referring to Jesus, the announcement that he was to be stoned (a lethal punishment) is followed by the statement that he was hanged (crucified). One possible explanation is that the Jewish leadership's call for his stoning preceded his eventual arrest by at least those forty days. This would be consistent with Scripture's accounts of his numerous near-stonings (John 10:31-33, 11:8).
Jesus' death by crucifixion may have then just been a matter of Roman involvement in the affair. Perhaps it is more likely that his sudden crucifixion (which immediately followed his arrest and dubious midnight trial) was gladly allowed by the Jewish leaders to pre-empt the normal forty day holding period for a condemned man. The leaders may have feared that, during this time, Jesus' followers might have been able to organize his release or stir up an outcry against them.
There are more yet
-
This thread is a complete clusterfuck.
-
This thread is a complete clusterfuck.
(http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/user_photos/1180762/enhanced-buzz-22838-1297456308-20_fullsize.jpeg?60a4c272)
-
What are you on about? Dont have time for your trolling today, the point of the meme is that Oreillys dumbass is referring to an inexplicable phenomenon as proof of god which has been scientifically understood for hundreds of years.
oh really? and what exactly is understood?
( X causes Y... but what caused X ? ) ;) :-*
No Problem ;)
More information has survived about Jesus Christ than most other ancient figures. Yet few historical persons have ever had their existence as questioned and as researched. One result of all that research is that information about Christ, from sources other than the Bible, is readily accessible by the common person for nearly the first time in history.
Unfortunately, this information and other material which refers to Christ seldom makes it into our learning cycle. Almost any material with significant reference to Christ or the Bible can be classified as religion and thus be summarily censored out of all events, displays, or institutions touched by government-allocated tax dollars. And the areas touched by tax dollars broaden every year.
Therefore, because taxpayer-funded expressions of Christ currently seem limited to extreme commentaries like crucifixes submerged in jars of urine, and scowling portraits of Jesus painted with an artist's own feces, the paths by which we have been left to learn any facts about the historical life and times of Jesus are either through churches, private institutions, or self-study.
The world deals differently with Jesus than with other historical figures and rightly so. Jesus made bigger claims and had a bigger impact than all the others. Jesus claimed to be God incarnate and left this world with the original Schwarzenegger-styled promise of "I'll be back". Even if our tax dollars seem to favor Christ's critics, it is not necessarily wrong to hold Christ up to a higher standard. Raising the standards was one of his clearest messages.
2.2 The testimonies from hostile sources.
In the case for Christ, the value of evidence, particularly from hostile sources, is tremendous. Hostile sources are considered to be those who were definitely not followers of Christ; i.e., people who clearly were not out to propagate favorable belief in him. The fact that hostile sources cite Christ, as well as cite other New Testament personages and events, is evidence for both the existence of Christ and the general veracity of the Bible.
The important point of hearing the corroborating testimony by non-Christians writing in Christ's own era, and shortly thereafter, is simply the acknowledgment of Christ's existence. Naturally, because all of the proceeding testimony comes from people who did not conclude him to be God, it does not deal with Christ as favorably or thoroughly as writings by those who did.
It is also categorically true that proof of Jesus' divinity will not be found in writings that qualify as hostile. This is because if some ancient writer had seen and confirmed his miracles or realized his fulfillment of prophecy and then recorded "Yes, Christ actually did this or that which his followers speak of", that writer would no longer be considered hostile by today's skeptic. Right?
Therefore, only writers who reference Christ offhandedly or in a negative way are sources whom skeptics are likely to accept as neutral observers. Hence we are left with a collection of writings that, though by nature lack clear confirmation of Christ's deity, do at least confirm he walked the earth for even his enemies to see.
-- FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born around AD 38. He served Roman commander Vespasian in Jerusalem until the city's destruction in AD 70. Josephus personally believed Vespasian to be Israel's promised Messiah. When Vespasian later became emperor of Rome, Josephus served under him as court historian. 2 In AD 93, Josephus finished his work Antiquities of the Jews in which at least three passages specifically confirm portions of Scripture:
But to some of the Jews the destruction of Herod's army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism. 3
...convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned. 4
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;... 5
-- PLINIUS SECUNDUS (Pliny the Younger)
Pliny was the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Much of his correspondence has survived including a particular letter written circa AD 112 to the Roman emperor Trajan. This letter does not reference Christ directly, but it does establish several beliefs and practices of early Christians. This includes their loyalty to Christ even when it cost them their lives. Pliny's letter states:
In the meantime, the method I have observed towards those who have been denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were in fact Christians; if they confessed it, I repeated the question twice, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed.
...They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to perform any wicked deed, never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to make it good; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food - but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. 6
-- CORNELIUS TACITUS
Tacitus was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and later became governor of Asia. Around AD 116 in his work entitled Annals, he wrote of Emperor Nero and a fire which had swept Rome in AD 64:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome... 7
-- GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLAS
Suetonius was a chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian writing around AD 120 in his work Life of Claudius:
Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city. 8
-- LUCIAN
Lucian, the Greek satirist, wrote this rather scathing attack in The Death of Peregrine circa AD 170:
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed upon them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. 9
-- THE TALMUD
The Talmud is essentially the collection of Jewish oral traditions that were put into writing with additional commentary between the years of AD 70 and 200. From the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a includes:
On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of the Passover. 10
The facts in this passage are somewhat difficult to assimilate. Although Yeshu is referring to Jesus, the announcement that he was to be stoned (a lethal punishment) is followed by the statement that he was hanged (crucified). One possible explanation is that the Jewish leadership's call for his stoning preceded his eventual arrest by at least those forty days. This would be consistent with Scripture's accounts of his numerous near-stonings (John 10:31-33, 11:8).
Jesus' death by crucifixion may have then just been a matter of Roman involvement in the affair. Perhaps it is more likely that his sudden crucifixion (which immediately followed his arrest and dubious midnight trial) was gladly allowed by the Jewish leaders to pre-empt the normal forty day holding period for a condemned man. The leaders may have feared that, during this time, Jesus' followers might have been able to organize his release or stir up an outcry against them.
There are more yet
the problem with offering those as sources is that the consensus among historians is that those have been tampered with by the church in order to provide some evidence outside of the bible for the existence of jesus
-
Shouldnt have taken the bait, tbombz has shown an epic overconfidence in knowledge in areas where he has no clue. This is not a peraon with a state of mind that can be reasoned with.
I apologize for this comment, I went overboard. Sorry.
I don't wish to debate the topic tonigh- I told you what the straightforward meaning of it was, lets leave it at that.
-
I apologize for this comment, I went overboard. Sorry.
I don't wish to debate the topic tonigh- I told you what the straightforward meaning of it was, lets leave it at that.
i get the meaning, but the meaning misses the point. o'reilly was talking about that concept of ultimate causality when he made that comment. and making fun of him as if the question of ultimate causality is an answerable one is just plain ignorant.
-
(http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/user_photos/1180762/enhanced-buzz-22838-1297456308-20_fullsize.jpeg?60a4c272)
Socks are evil!
-
I apologize for this comment, I went overboard. Sorry.
I don't wish to debate the topic tonigh- I told you what the straightforward meaning of it was, lets leave it at that.
That part is clear, you have said NOTHING so far ;)
-
oh really? and what exactly is understood?
( X causes Y... but what caused X ? ) ;) :-*
the problem with offering those as sources is that the consensus among historians is that those have been tampered with by the church in order to provide some evidence outside of the bible for the existence of jesus
Nope not true, these sources are used on Biblical topics in universities, theologians across the globe accept these as valid history, even the non-Christian theologians.
-
i get the meaning, but the meaning misses the point. o'reilly was talking about that concept of ultimate causality when he made that comment. and making fun of him as if the question of ultimate causality is an answerable one is just plain ignorant.
no he wasn't, he gave other examples of what you may call 'secondary phenomenon' as proofs of God. you already know my stance on 'proofs of god' so no point in rehashing old arguments.
That part is clear, you have said NOTHING so far ;)
Better than spouting off nonsense ;) Now don't get your panties in a bunch about the jesus thing, I do believe he existed.
-
no he wasn't, he gave other examples of what you may call 'secondary phenomenon' as proofs of God. you already know my stance on 'proofs of god' so no point in rehashing old arguments.
im not trying to prove god exists. im just saying that you can not explain natural phenomena. you can only give an observed mechanistic history that led up to the event, but no assertion about causality can ever be made.
-
im not trying to prove god exists. im just saying that you can not explain natural phenomena. you can only give an observed mechanistic history that led up to the event, but no assertion about causality can ever be made.
Can't explain it, therefore god/aliens.
-
Can't explain it, therefore god/aliens.
-
This thread sucks
(http://medias.omgif.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/hypnotic-Jenn-Kaenin-bouncing-boobs.gif)(http://images3.sex.com/images/pinporn/2012/10/09/192/672934.gif)(http://images5.sex.com/images/pinporn/2012/06/27/192/352348-i-wanna-do-that.gif)(http://images4.sex.com/images/pinporn/2012/09/14/192/560782-sneak-attack.gif)(http://images5.sex.com/images/pinporn/2012/05/19/192/265539-taking-it-all-off.gif)(http://4gifs.org/gallery/d/203690-2/Lockers_buns.gif)(http://4gifs.org/gallery/d/203102-2/Carrie_Stevens_topless.gif)(http://4gifs.org/gallery/d/203642-2/Kristina_Rose.gif)
-
Nope not true, these sources are used on Biblical topics in universities, theologians across the globe accept these as valid history, even the non-Christian theologians.
.... you would be hard pressed to find any non-religious, agnostic historians who would claim that any of those references can be trusted as completely authentic and proof of a historical jesus. the idea that jesus didnt exist isnt something that the mainstream academic community has ever taken seriously, mainly because of the high population of christians among them.
-
Suck this!
-
Can't explain it, therefore god/aliens.
your the one adding "therefore". thats not me. i see no reason to add an explanation when an explanation isnt there to add. its foolish to pretend to know what you dont. just accept that ultimate causality is unreachable and leave it at that.
-
Indeed, no further discussion is possible when they simply assert their holy book is without error or otherwise divinely inspired and therefore beyond criticism.
Besides, we don't want to interfere with the Christian vs Muslim "argument" that is clearly in the works. These are always golden.
religion of peace vs. religion of peace :o who will come out alive?
-
Our savior.
-
your the one adding "therefore". thats not me. i see no reason to add an explanation when an explanation isnt there to add. its foolish to pretend to know what you dont. just accept that ultimate causality is unreachable and leave it at that.
I was jesting. Arguments about ultimate causality don't belong in this discussion, you brought that up. not me.
-
.... you would be hard pressed to find any non-religious, agnostic historians who would claim that any of those references can be trusted as completely authentic and proof of a historical jesus. the idea that jesus didnt exist isnt something that the mainstream academic community has ever taken seriously, mainly because of the high population of christians among them.
Well there is always your handful of naysayers but the general consensus is the evidence is overwhelming that he existed and it`s much more then 90% of historical figures in antiquity from Alexander the great to Sargon of Akkad, from Hamurabi to the Pharaoh`s of Egypt(most of them).
If you make this argument you have to make the same argument about almost every historical figure.
-
Well there is always your handful of naysayers but the general consensus is the evidence is overwhelming that he existed and it`s much more then 90% of historical figures in antiquity from Alexander the great to Sargon of Akkad, from Hamurabi to the Pharaoh`s of Egypt(most of them).
If you make this argument you have to make the same argument about almost every historical figure.
Hell, even Christopher Hitchens said he probably did exist.
-
I was jesting. Arguments about ultimate causality don't belong in this discussion, you brought that up. not me.
ultimate causality has everything to do with the meme about the tides.
-
Well there is always your handful of naysayers but the general consensus is the evidence is overwhelming that he existed and it`s much more then 90% of historical figures in antiquity from Alexander the great to Sargon of Akkad, from Hamurabi to the Pharaoh`s of Egypt(most of them).
If you make this argument you have to make the same argument about almost every historical figure.
the evidence is not overwhelming. the lack of willingness to seriously consider the idea that he never existed is what is overwhelming. the amount of evidence for King Tut, who was alive over a thousand years before the supposed life of jesus, FAR surpasses the "evidence" for jesus. that alone should tell you sometihng.
-
Hell, even Christopher Hitchens said he probably did exist.
its a mistake to correlate a belief in god with a belief in jesus. likewise, its a mistake to correlate a denial of god with a denial of jesus.
one shouldnt correlate anything religious with the idea of god. religion and metaphysics are two separate topics.
-
Hell, even Christopher Hitchens said he probably did exist.
-
ultimate causality has everything to do with the meme about the tides.
that's again, your interpretation and you are entitled to it. I don't see it that way.
-
that's again, your interpretation and you are entitled to it. I don't see it that way.
what the fuck else do you think bill could have possibly been talking about ? ::)
-
what the fuck else do you think bill could have possibly been talking about ? ::)
hey dipshit, I already told you so. The tide thing was but one example in his idiotic argument. His 'ultimate cause' is god. OMG I jummped up and came back down, its proof God pushed me down ::) This is the silly ass shit that keeps me from getting in these discussions.
-
hey dipshit, I already told you so. The tide thing was but one example in his idiotic argument. His 'ultimate cause' is god. OMG I jummped up and came back down, its proof God pushed me down ::) This is the silly ass shit that keeps me from getting in these discussions.
he was trying to prove god exists and his proof was the impossibility to explain natural phenomena in scientific terms. making fun of his comments on the basis that it is possible to explain natural events is ignorant. period. he is wrong to assume causality proof of god but the morons making fun of him because they think they have an answer as to why the tides behave the way they do are even worse.
-
TV is an excellent source on information. This guy has been on TV for 40 years.
-
True.
I'm all for people debating on a topic, but it becomes all too obvious when people have an anti-God agenda, because they start with the blanket statements that are FACT, and they couldn't even tell you where they heard these 'FACTS'.
Saddest part, is that people who make these statements are usually the same guys who profess to be 'individuals' who don't follow the crowd and 'make up their own minds', without realising that their opinions are straight out of a hollywood movie, written by anti-christ homosexuals.
booooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooom
-
Jonah DID live three days inside the belly of a whale. If you do research on this, you can learn that there are two different species of whale that have mouths big enough to swallow a man, and that whales have 4 chambers for digestion. Chamber one is for food storage while other food is being digested, similar to the Orad portion of the human stomach in some ways I suppose. Jonah could have been preserved alive in chamber one for three days. Chamber two contains acid for breaking down food, but food is only transferred there after the whale has finished absorbing other food he's already ingested.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom
BABAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!