And now...

[Beelzebaby666]

For something cool to read.

Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Romanarmy.com - A history, archaeological and reenactment community - View Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera

 

[Starman3000m]

The claim that Yeshua's father was really a "Roman soldier" is an old story that was originated by the religious leaders of Orthodox Judaism; the same ones who accused Him of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God.

Anything goes when it comes to discrediting the Truth about who Yeshua was and IS.

 

[tommyjones]

The claim that Koresh's father was really a "soldier" is an old story that was originated by the religious leaders of christianity; the same ones who accused Him of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God.

Anything goes when it comes to discrediting the Truth about who Yeshua was and IS.

Just to put it in a more modern context......


David Koresh was born Vernon Wayne Howell in Houston, Texas in 1959 to a 15-year old single mother

 

[Starman3000m]

Just to put it in a more modern context......


David Koresh was born Vernon Wayne Howell in Houston, Texas in 1959 to a 15-year old single mother

Yep, and Koresh claimed that he was Yeshua incarnate! There are some of his followers who still believe that.

 

[tommyjones]

Yep, and jesus claimed that he was Yeshua incarnate! There are some of his followers who still believe that.

still not seeing it???

 

[Starman3000m]

still not seeing it???

tommy - please do not revise my words and post them as if they are my quotes. You are twisting my words to fit yours and they post as if they are my submittals.

When you revise anyone's comments please make note that they are your revisions and not those of the original person doing the posting.

Just common courtesy. Thanks

 

[tommyjones]

tommy - please revise my words and post them as if they are my quotes. You are twisting my words to fit logic and then post as if they are my submittals.



Just common courtesy. Thanks

man you are dense.


the coparision is that you dont beleive that koresh is the big Y any more than the people of his day thoght Jesus was.......

 

[Starman3000m]

man you are dense.


the coparision is that you dont beleive that koresh is the big Y any more than the people of his day thoght Jesus was.......

OK - What do you believe?

Was Yeshua The Divine Son of God or was He the son of a Roman soldier - or another man but not God.

 

[tommyjones]

OK - What do you believe?

Was Yeshua The Divine Son of God or was He the son of a Roman soldier - or another man but not God.

jesus was the son of people as was believed by the people of his religion at the time.

as far as yeshua, that is a made up entity from a book of superstition.

 

[This_person]

that is a made up entity from a book of superstition.

Which could very well be what people say about our science books 500 years from now. Look at how we view science 500 years ago. We laugh at how stupid they were, though they were trying to explain the unexplainable.

Yeah, I see how it all compares!

 

[wxtornado]

Which could very well be what people say about our science books 500 years from now. Look at how we view science 500 years ago. We laugh at how stupid they were, though they were trying to explain the unexplainable.

Yeah, I see how it all compares!

You're kidding, right?

Science seeks proofs. Science questions itself, and its axioms. Science is an evolving system. Science is not static or dogmatic. Science errs, and errs and errs, and every time it errs, it leaves little stones of solid fact behind, and these little stones conglomerate to form larger stones, and these larger stones become the cornerstones of future scientific advances.

Your belief bypasses all of this. It collects blocks, the composition of which are never questioned. I challenge you to question the foundations of your belief, right down to the smallest observable constituent. If God is your axiom, your first cause, your alpha and your omega, seek to determine the nature of that God.

Ask why cancer exists. Ask why Jesus had to die on the cross. Ask why the God of forgiveness could not find it in his heart to forgive the Angel he cast as the Devil. Ask how free-will and omnipotence can coexist. Question man, question.

I have good friends who believe in God, and whom I respect, but they question their faith, they question the nature of the scriptures, and they do not accept the omnipotence of God, Christians as they are. These are Christians I can respect. Thinking Christians, not blind, accepting Christians (or Muslims or otherwise for that). I cut God away with Occam’s Razor, but I do not expect others to do the same.

All I expect from my fellow Man is that they question their faiths, regardless of what their faiths may be. I question mine daily. I have as yet to find reason to add a deity to my world.

 

[toppick08]

You're kidding, right?

Science seeks proofs. Science questions itself, and its axioms. Science is an evolving system. Science is not static or dogmatic. Science errs, and errs and errs, and every time it errs, it leaves little stones of solid fact behind, and these little stones conglomerate to form larger stones, and these larger stones become the cornerstones of future scientific advances.

Your belief bypasses all of this. It collects blocks, the composition of which are never questioned. I challenge you to question the foundations of your belief, right down to the smallest observable constituent. If God is your axiom, your first cause, your alpha and your omega, seek to determine the nature of that God.

Ask why cancer exists. Ask why Jesus had to die on the cross. Ask why the God of forgiveness could not find it in his heart to forgive the Angel he cast as the Devil. Ask how free-will and omnipotence can coexist. Question man, question.

I have good friends who believe in God, and whom I respect, but they question their faith, they question the nature of the scriptures, and they do not accept the omnipotence of God, Christians as they are. These are Christians I can respect. Thinking Christians, not blind, accepting Christians (or Muslims or otherwise for that). I cut God away with Occam’s Razor, but I do not expect others to do the same.

All I expect from my fellow Man is that they question their faiths, regardless of what their faiths may be. I question mine daily. I have as yet to find reason to add a deity to my world.

Listen to the birds singing, and your heart.

 

[This_person]

You're kidding, right?

Science seeks proofs. Science questions itself, and its axioms. Science is an evolving system. Science is not static or dogmatic. Science errs, and errs and errs, and every time it errs, it leaves little stones of solid fact behind, and these little stones conglomerate to form larger stones, and these larger stones become the cornerstones of future scientific advances.

Your belief bypasses all of this. It collects blocks, the composition of which are never questioned. I challenge you to question the foundations of your belief, right down to the smallest observable constituent. If God is your axiom, your first cause, your alpha and your omega, seek to determine the nature of that God.

Ask why cancer exists. Ask why Jesus had to die on the cross. Ask why the God of forgiveness could not find it in his heart to forgive the Angel he cast as the Devil. Ask how free-will and omnipotence can coexist. Question man, question.

I have, and I've answered many of these questions with you. It's a foundation of being a man to me to question my beliefs on a daily basis. I've yet to come to a belief system I find more plausable. I urge you to do the same. I say this because you continually question, but do not actually seek answers. You've repeatedly been given many answers, yet ask the same questions. This is much like many scientists. They generally do this, or they dismiss evidence contrary to their beliefs, building their giant boulders of fluff, as the basic building blocks are not true.

I have good friends who believe in God, and whom I respect, but they question their faith, they question the nature of the scriptures, and they do not accept the omnipotence of God, Christians as they are. These are Christians I can respect. Thinking Christians, not blind, accepting Christians (or Muslims or otherwise for that). I cut God away with Occam’s Razor, but I do not expect others to do the same.

Yet, you say the only Christians you respect are the ones who do not actually believe. I submit to you that being a Christian to a God who is not omnipotent is like being married with no spouse - it just doesn't make sense. You have friends who call themselves Christians, who are not. You respect them because they are not, and deny respect to the people who actually stand behind, with conviction, their beliefs. You respect hypocrosy and belittle true faith. Again, I urge you to question your belief system.

All I expect from my fellow Man is that they question their faiths, regardless of what their faiths may be. I question mine daily. I have as yet to find reason to add a deity to my world.

And, I respect that you stand behind your faith, unwaveringly supporting that which you have no more proof of than I do.

I also hope that others question themselves, their beliefs, the foundations upon which they build their soul's homes (for those of us who believe we have them), etc. And, I hope they are open minded enough, true to the questioning they perform, that they also seek the answers, not just cynically ask the questions.

 

[tommyjones]

Which could very well be what people say about our science books 500 years from now. Look at how we view science 500 years ago. We laugh at how stupid they were, though they were trying to explain the unexplainable.

Yeah, I see how it all compares!

i wasn't comparing science and religion. I was comparing the story of a person who believed they were the son of god with another claiming to be the son of god.

an apples to apples comparision.

 

[This_person]

i wasn't comparing science and religion. I was comparing the story of a person who believed they were the son of god with another claiming to be the son of god.

an apples to apples comparision.

I wasn't comparing science to religion. I was comparing the perception of one series of stories over time with the perception of another series of stories over time.

An apples to apples comparison.

 

[tommyjones]

I wasn't comparing science to religion. I was comparing the perception of one series of stories over time with the perception of another series of stories over time.

An apples to apples comparison.

with science the more we know the more clarity we tend to have, or at least the less we depend on superstition.

but with people who claim to be gods, the less we know the better apparently. I mean the majority of people during jesus' time thought him to be nothing more than a jewish man.

so what you are saying is that in 500 years David koresh might have actually been jesus?

 

[This_person]

with science the more we know the more clarity we tend to have, or at least the less we depend on superstition.

but with people who claim to be gods, the less we know the better apparently. I mean the majority of people during jesus' time thought him to be nothing more than a jewish man.

so what you are saying is that in 500 years David koresh might have actually been jesus?

No, what I was saying was that hundreds of years ago we thought the world consisted of four elements (three of which made a couple of decent songs ). The concept of an "atom" would have been laughed out of existence. Bleeding someone to heal them was thought a good idea. In fact, we were absolutely certain of these "truths", scoffing at those that did not accept these basic "facts". Now, we laugh at how stupid those people were. I strongly suspect that 500 years from now, people will look at evolution and think "how stupid were these cretins?" while laughing.

As with David Koresh, I suspect at least some people thought Jesus was more than just a Jewish guy. Certainly the elder rabbis did, as well as a dozen or so that followed him very closely, giving up their livlihoods to do so. When David Koresh rises from the dead, I suspect he may have a following that treats him like Jesus has for a couple of millenia now, too. Until then, I think he'll just be a dead lunatic. If he does it, he'll probably have a religious following that lasts. But, for now, we only have one guy who did that, so people follow Him, instead.

 

[tommyjones]

No, what I was saying was that hundreds of years ago we thought the world consisted of four elements (three of which made a couple of decent songs ). The concept of an "atom" would have been laughed out of existence. Bleeding someone to heal them was thought a good idea. In fact, we were absolutely certain of these "truths", scoffing at those that did not accept these basic "facts". Now, we laugh at how stupid those people were. I strongly suspect that 500 years from now, people will look at evolution and think "how stupid were these cretins?" while laughing.

As with David Koresh, I suspect at least some people thought Jesus was more than just a Jewish guy. Certainly the elder rabbis did, as well as a dozen or so that followed him very closely, giving up their livlihoods to do so. When David Koresh rises from the dead, I suspect he may have a following that treats him like Jesus has for a couple of millenia now, too. Until then, I think he'll just be a dead lunatic. If he does it, he'll probably have a religious following that lasts. But, for now, we only have one guy who did that, so people follow Him, instead.

the only reason you have to believe that happened is a story that was wrtiien many years after the alleged incident by someone who was most definately not there.

so if my grandson writes a book about koresh rising from the grave......and people begin to believe it happened......

besides, how do you knw that he didn't assend directly to heaven in the fire?

 

[tommyjones]

No, what I was saying was that hundreds of years ago we thought the world consisted of four elements (three of which made a couple of decent songs ). The concept of an "atom" would have been laughed out of existence. Bleeding someone to heal them was thought a good idea. In fact, we were absolutely certain of these "truths", scoffing at those that did not accept these basic "facts". Now, we laugh at how stupid those people were. I strongly suspect that 500 years from now, people will look at evolution and think "how stupid were these cretins?" while laughing.

As with David Koresh, I suspect at least some people thought Jesus was more than just a Jewish guy. Certainly the elder rabbis did, as well as a dozen or so that followed him very closely, giving up their livlihoods to do so. When David Koresh rises from the dead, I suspect he may have a following that treats him like Jesus has for a couple of millenia now, too. Until then, I think he'll just be a dead lunatic. If he does it, he'll probably have a religious following that lasts. But, for now, we only have one guy who did that, so people follow Him, instead.

where do you get that idea?

if they thought he was the son of god why didn't they follow him?

 

[This_person]

the only reason you have to believe that happened is a story that was wrtiien many years after the alleged incident by someone who was most definately not there.

so if my grandson writes a book about koresh rising from the grave......and people begin to believe it happened......

besides, how do you knw that he didn't assend directly to heaven in the fire?

You're right, I have the stories. The reports of witnesses. The miracles in my own life. That's all I have to go on.

If your grandson writes such a book, and people believe it, more power to him. Maybe my religion is all based on lies (other than the miracles I've witnessed in my life). :shrug: It is possible. I don't think they're lies, but you are right - neither of us was there, so all we have to go on are the stories. Now, no one of any credibility denies Jesus's existance, the question is whether or not He was the son of God, per the stories. So, I've got that going for credibility - He was there. Since Apple hadn't invented the laptop yet, not too many people wrote much down right away about things, but there were certainly other stories that talked of His existance than His followers, so I buy that virtually anyone would admit He was there. Outside of that, you're absolutely right, billions of people who've followed the stories over the last two thousand years (give or take) could be following lies.

Sort of like the lies of what makes up the earth, wind, fire, and water - at one point being "nothing, those are what makes up everything else". Sort of like the "mistakes" as to how old the Grand Canyon is. The "knowledge" that science gains us is transient much of the time. That's the kindest way I can think to put it. But, at the time, it's iron-clad fact . Or, maybe not.

Can you admit that much of what we "know" today could also be false, as I admit to you that the very foundations of my religion could, possibly, be false? And, in doing so, can you therefore acknowledge that much of the argument for science, today, is based upon faith, not actual knowledge? And, therefore, acknowledge that being a science-based atheist is just as much a faith based situation as being religious?