(05-31-2013, 09:08 PM)Linuxephus™ Wrote: @"LiveFaster":
"@Linuxephus™ I have a theory if you may about Jesus i would like your input, ok The Romans documented crucifixion very well...they did many thousands of them (when the sparticus revolution took place they crucified 6000 in a day). They NEVER gave the body to the family as they needed to humiliate the body. They let it rot on the cross. So this is one discrepancy. And they did not crucify thieves...they crucified insurgents. This is why the legend of Jesus was more likely the legend of an insurgent. The Romans altered this story when they utilized christioanity in an effort to quiet the empire"
-->>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion
The Romans documented very well that any individual crucified was not specifically and solely an insurgent. Any criminal (thief, murderer, and so forth) --criminal used as a broad description of any Law Breaker without prejudice--.
Christ was listed as an "insurgent" because of the nature of the Bible's teachings which many in the Jewish community at that point in history thought to infer He had literally come to overthrow the Roman Empire.
Notwithstanding also the actual teachings that recruited disciples that stirred up the beginnings of Christianity to such an extent the Roman Empire viewed it as a threat to their authority by way of influence, leading in the long term to Christ's Crucifixion, along with [two] other men labeled as "common criminals" guilty of theft to be exact.
Crucification was a very common means of punishment and entertainment in the pursuit of that punishment in that era of history.
Documented by Josephus Flavius himself, among records that became a permanent part of the Vatican's Archive, including Scholars who are experts in their appropriate fields of expertise who have validated such with credentials accepted for the simple facts as they are.
Hence, this completely rebuts your use of "legend" on the additional grounds of History cannot lie, nor it can it be changed from events that have long since taken place.
How about brushing up on some of that research we spoke of versus giving me "cannon fodder" that you already know has an answer?
Most importantly of all: Their just so happens to be a book with thorough, dated evidence accompanied by several thousand (plural) year old documentation Dated before the literal birth of Christ that spoke of these exact events that took place, as translated from the Hebrew and Greek transcripts.
Yet to be adequately rebutted by even the most seasoned scientists currently living.
And after so many attempts via process of elimination, whatsoever remains, no matter how unlikely or how the the facts defy reason, remains the truth of it's own accord without need of justification.
Yet again why I choose to deal in facts by the very nature of obfuscating theory.
Regarding the Romans "utilizing Christianity as a means of control"; incorrect on the merit of thousands of killings wrought upon Christians.
Which means literal war was waged upon them versus "utilizing them as a means of controlling the population".
"Oh and whats your point of view about what pope francis said http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2013/may/29/pope-francis-open-heaven-atheists"
-->>The first impression I took was the Pope suddenly labeled himself as having the self claimed power of granting eternal life (specific to heaven) no matter the person.
Were that the case, I truly pity any fool dumb enough to willingly buy that load of crap.
Fortunately however, after reading the entire article, my factual conclusion is no man can save except that which Ascended who has the authority to grant salvation and forgiveness of sins for eternal life.
The new Pope should've been far more specific in what he meant. Thankfully his cronies covered that mistake up for him adequately enough to cast doubt on the vagueness of the statement made by the Pope.
Any individual is given free access to salvation and forgiveness on the grounds of it has Already Been Paid For By Christ Himself. Therefore it stands to good reason No Individual can Earn what is given Freely upon the act of repenting and acceptance of that gift, Freely.
Infer, come as you are. Not, "I must fix myself first."
No religion can lay claim to such, let alone no religion past or present makes mentions of an Arisen Savior that is proven to have no known burial site on the merit of the very Body having Ascended.

@Keepalive:
"So In Islam We Need Quran+ prophet converses.
But In Christianity
It say's that there Is God Father And God son and God Holy Spirit and three of them deserve the adoration..Do you believe in that?"
-->>It means exactly what you read my friend:
God The Father.
The Son Of God (notice the correct application of the word instead of the confusion of "God the son").
And the Holy Spirit.
The above being three separate entities that serve a single purpose.
Hence, as a quick explanation, the use of "We" numerous times starting out in Genesis.

"* I was mean in "Pure" the Ethics and the Good Actions..And this is the most of the Religion
And in Honest ,Honest In the Intention To find the Truth ,And Don't Consider your Self Bigger than it,and you Can't Make Wrong's,and not intentionally Hide the truth for some reasons..
I Believe that if you have honest intentions,To find the God Way..
God Will Accept you Even if you were in the Wrong one..
Cause logically, it's like this..(how God will Acounting me in Something i did it Without Intention?!)
I hope you the Best ,Cause you are a good&Wise Person."
-->>You've already answered your own inquiry here, and I've answered this very inquiry by having already stated what you have essentially reworded in 2 of my previous comments using differing words to explain the same conclusion.
The only thing I will add is this; We are not judged by what we Intent, nor by our Intentions. We are solely judged by our Actions, which leaves no excuse and makes One and All fully accountable for our own Actions.

(05-31-2013, 09:08 PM)Linuxephus™ Wrote: @"LiveFaster":
"@Linuxephus™ I have a theory if you may about Jesus i would like your input, ok The Romans documented crucifixion very well...they did many thousands of them (when the sparticus revolution took place they crucified 6000 in a day). They NEVER gave the body to the family as they needed to humiliate the body. They let it rot on the cross. So this is one discrepancy. And they did not crucify thieves...they crucified insurgents. This is why the legend of Jesus was more likely the legend of an insurgent. The Romans altered this story when they utilized christioanity in an effort to quiet the empire"
-->>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion
The Romans documented very well that any individual crucified was not specifically and solely an insurgent. Any criminal (thief, murderer, and so forth) --criminal used as a broad description of any Law Breaker without prejudice--.
Christ was listed as an "insurgent" because of the nature of the Bible's teachings which many in the Jewish community at that point in history thought to infer He had literally come to overthrow the Roman Empire.
Notwithstanding also the actual teachings that recruited disciples that stirred up the beginnings of Christianity to such an extent the Roman Empire viewed it as a threat to their authority by way of influence, leading in the long term to Christ's Crucifixion, along with [two] other men labeled as "common criminals" guilty of theft to be exact.
Crucification was a very common means of punishment and entertainment in the pursuit of that punishment in that era of history.
Documented by Josephus Flavius himself, among records that became a permanent part of the Vatican's Archive, including Scholars who are experts in their appropriate fields of expertise who have validated such with credentials accepted for the simple facts as they are.
Hence, this completely rebuts your use of "legend" on the additional grounds of History cannot lie, nor it can it be changed from events that have long since taken place.
How about brushing up on some of that research we spoke of versus giving me "cannon fodder" that you already know has an answer?
Most importantly of all: Their just so happens to be a book with thorough, dated evidence accompanied by several thousand (plural) year old documentation Dated before the literal birth of Christ that spoke of these exact events that took place, as translated from the Hebrew and Greek transcripts.
Yet to be adequately rebutted by even the most seasoned scientists currently living.
And after so many attempts via process of elimination, whatsoever remains, no matter how unlikely or how the the facts defy reason, remains the truth of it's own accord without need of justification.
Yet again why I choose to deal in facts by the very nature of obfuscating theory.
Regarding the Romans "utilizing Christianity as a means of control"; incorrect on the merit of thousands of killings wrought upon Christians.
Which means literal war was waged upon them versus "utilizing them as a means of controlling the population".
"Oh and whats your point of view about what pope francis said http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2013/may/29/pope-francis-open-heaven-atheists"
-->>The first impression I took was the Pope suddenly labeled himself as having the self claimed power of granting eternal life (specific to heaven) no matter the person.
Were that the case, I truly pity any fool dumb enough to willingly buy that load of crap.
Fortunately however, after reading the entire article, my factual conclusion is no man can save except that which Ascended who has the authority to grant salvation and forgiveness of sins for eternal life.
The new Pope should've been far more specific in what he meant. Thankfully his cronies covered that mistake up for him adequately enough to cast doubt on the vagueness of the statement made by the Pope.
Any individual is given free access to salvation and forgiveness on the grounds of it has Already Been Paid For By Christ Himself. Therefore it stands to good reason No Individual can Earn what is given Freely upon the act of repenting and acceptance of that gift, Freely.
Infer, come as you are. Not, "I must fix myself first."
No religion can lay claim to such, let alone no religion past or present makes mentions of an Arisen Savior that is proven to have no known burial site on the merit of the very Body having Ascended.

@Keepalive:
"So In Islam We Need Quran+ prophet converses.
But In Christianity
It say's that there Is God Father And God son and God Holy Spirit and three of them deserve the adoration..Do you believe in that?"
-->>It means exactly what you read my friend:
God The Father.
The Son Of God (notice the correct application of the word instead of the confusion of "God the son").
And the Holy Spirit.
The above being three separate entities that serve a single purpose.
Hence, as a quick explanation, the use of "We" numerous times starting out in Genesis.

"* I was mean in "Pure" the Ethics and the Good Actions..And this is the most of the Religion
And in Honest ,Honest In the Intention To find the Truth ,And Don't Consider your Self Bigger than it,and you Can't Make Wrong's,and not intentionally Hide the truth for some reasons..
I Believe that if you have honest intentions,To find the God Way..
God Will Accept you Even if you were in the Wrong one..
Cause logically, it's like this..(how God will Acounting me in Something i did it Without Intention?!)
I hope you the Best ,Cause you are a good&Wise Person."
-->>You've already answered your own inquiry here, and I've answered this very inquiry by having already stated what you have essentially reworded in 2 of my previous comments using differing words to explain the same conclusion.
The only thing I will add is this; We are not judged by what we Intent, nor by our Intentions. We are solely judged by our Actions, which leaves no excuse and makes One and All fully accountable for our own Actions.

Sorry for the late reply.Your computer antivirus is man made "artificial" we are not.
"He did the Defects for a Reason."
that's the sickest thing i have ever heard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

and randomness can form order
Google Metronome experiment

Now Self-organization of molecules is an entire field of chemistry, with thousands of successful experiments showing exactly this: structures formed from a 'random' solution of monomers.
Molecular biology is nothing but solutions of polymers that can combine, bind, recognize etc to form larger systems of staggering complexity, without the help of magic. DG=DH-TDS does the trick. I understand that many cultures solve the "how everything came to be" with a god or gods created the universe out of nothing and truly i believe that if we wish to persuade this question courageously then we must ask the next question "where did god came from?" and if we decided that this is an unanswerable question why not save the step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? or if we say that god always existed why not save the step and conclude the universe always existed? Is life more meaningful with the concept of god? miling:

“The meaning of life is from within us, it is not bestowed from without, and it far exceeds in both its beauty and permanence any heaven of which men have ever dreamed or yearned for” – Richard Taylor

(06-14-2013, 03:43 AM)LiveFaster Wrote: -snip-

(06-14-2013, 06:00 AM)Linuxephus™ Wrote:

(06-14-2013, 03:43 AM)LiveFaster Wrote: -snip-

LOLing...he hasn't been back since your last comment before this one.:wacko::lol: