NON-BIBLICAL Evidence for the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ

Sorry pal. I don't speak Farci, so I can't translate the original text. Given the sheer quantity of sites that verify those words, and the sheer lack of sites that deny them, I'm going to go with the over. By all means, provide me the link to the debunking information.

So you never answered my question. Hows Occupy going?

[Edit]Google was unable to index the Supreme Leader's site. Call me surprised. Here are some gems from another site, discussing Khomeini's work. The site doesn't use those exact quotes, but it covers the material nicely.

http://www.al-islam.org/laws/al-khui/31.htm

http://www.al-islam.org/laws/al-khui/5.htm

By the way, why are you the only guy on the planet trying to debunk this stuff? Seems like if he didn't say it, there would be as much stuff out there denying it as there is repeating it, all heavily linked and cross referenced.

 

The Little Green Book - Ayatollah Khomeini (Supreme Leader of Iran 3 December 1979 – 3 June 1989)

This is an excerpt from page 25:

Here is the entire book (PDF)

 

question is why do i even bother trying to educate you two when you have no intention of ever trying to learn a single thing. That book is by a self acclaimed Islam hater who still doesn't provide any reference. For once do some research and find a credible source. If this is true it shouldn't be hard to find a credible source backing it up.

Obamanation, I'ts really interesting. Until few posts ago you didn't even know Khomeini had died over 20 years ago. Now you're an expert on his stands on being advocates and promoters of having sex with animals. pitty, for truly arrogant people like you

 

Intelligence is not exclusive to humans, animals are intelligent in some way too.
in His image = immortal soul (exclusive to humans only)

btw, aren't you an atheist; why would an atheist care what Khamenei or Khomeini said or didn't say??

 

Immortal soul?? no

Just because I'm atheist and against Khamenei and what Khomeini represented doesn't mean I'll spread whatever lie I can come up with or not try to stop those who do.

 

Evolution is still a theory. It is not settled, even with you. ( I know you said that earlier. ) So...
what is it that we are debating about? If it is not repeatable, not demonstrable, why do put it forth as if it is?
Isnt that dishonest? (This is a sincere question, not an insult, okay?)

I did not know that Einstein's work was still in the "theory" stage.

Uh oh... you are justifying war, specifically nuclear war, using evolution? Karl Marx did as much. Sure, facts are facts,
but motives are just as much facts. ( Just harder to know. ) Do you think it is okay to blow up your neighbor,
just because you dont like him and can say... "See, the fittest survive!" No one take me out of context
here. It is never right to blow up your neighbor to satisfy the dark cravings of evolution.

Those must be some "new age" methods. They are different than the ones I have seen, but it is close enough to
be used, in my "laymans" opinion.

The second law of thermodynamics pretty much negates evolution as well. I need ten percent, eh?
Where does that number come from? (Hopefully not from religion.) The example I gave you
negates the billions of years. More to consider :



Thanks to the thought that evolution was real, the Apollo 11 astronauts
thought their lunar lander would sink into the surface of the moon. They incorrectly concluded that because of
billions of years of dust collecting on the surface of the moon, that the legs of the lunar lander would sink
into the moon. Do you remember the spikes on the ends of the legs of the lunar lander? Then, of course,
the astronauts got out and started walking around... the supposition using evolution was not real, not correct.
They walked around without a problem. I am actually getting a bit tired of giving out more evidence here.
I want to help people to realize the truth, but it is getting tedious.

Is that ten percent?

 

Hey Onation, did you ever read this :

I am not putting a link to it.

 

You can, i just assumed you had sufficient integrity to not expose yourself as an intellectual coward and as someone who has difficulty defending their position. I guess i gave you more credit that you deserved.

Because i have already explained why their testimony is worthless, it's hardly my fault if you can't grasp that simple point.

 

stOx is not worth taking seriously because he is simply shallow, almost like DP's court jester. He's the local fool. When you read his posts, notice how simplistic and child-like they are. He is not capable of any real depth of understanding because he never reasons. Worse, it's like he forgets what he wrote two posts ago. He reminds me of the guy that ranted, "I read it so it must be true! I read it! I wrote it down, and then I read it! I believe everything I read! "

Evolution is a theory and it is settled. Only non-scientists that have never studied it object to evolution.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been PROVEN correct by experimentation and/or direct observation. Evolution is presently called a theory, but it verges on being a law, not just because of the preponderance of evidence but also because it has been used to predict the existence of evidence before the evidence was discovered (see below). The only thing that stops Evolution from being a Law is religious (non-scientific) objection.

Evolution is also consistent and analogous with the first creation story told in the book of Genesis. The majority of Christians believe in Evolution.

It's not. It's the LAW of Relativity. A theory becomes a law when the concepts it proposes can be used to accurately predict the results of an event or experiment before it takes place. For example, Relativity accurately predicts the effect of the Sun's gravity on Mercury's orbit.

 

Then ... so is yours. ... and of course, mine. There is therefore nothing else to talk about. See ya.

 

because they have never read their Bible
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1043-are-genesis-and-evolution-compatible

 

We may as well get into it then. Show me some proof for evolution. Show me something real, not fabricated by science and something the every day person can understand.

I may not be back for a while.

 

[QUOTE
Who ??

 

I was ready to answer until your "not fabricated by science" remark. Are you actually asking for non-scientific proof of science?

Angelic, the Old Testament is the book of the Jewish people. Judaism does NOT take the Old Testament literally. Instead, it uses many of the stories as teaching tools, much like Jesus taught in parables.

At some point, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, some Christians who have never read the writings of the great Thomas Aquinas decided that only select parts of the Old Testament will be taken literally and some parts of the Old Testament will not be taken literally. There was no clear delineation as to which and why. By taking the first creation story in Genesis literally (and deciding that the second Creation story in Genesis is wrong) they made the decision to break apart Christianity and rip it from it's Jewish roots. If Christianity is torn from it's Jewish roots it is diminished. Tearing Christianity from it's Jewish roots is an act of heresy.

 

I am asking for something that can be explained to the every day person and is by someone or some group not discredited. An example that could not be quoted is the IPCC group.

 

Jesus is not mentioned in ONE SINGLE COMTEMPORANEOUS document. NOT ONE! The earliest mention of the man (most Biblical scholars, even Christian apologists, accept the fact that the Josephus mention is a later forgery) dates to late in the second century. (Tacitus doesn't speak of the man named Yeshua, he speaks of a cult that claims to be named after a leader who was anointed.)

The fact that later writers agree with the Bible is not "extra-Biblical", nor is a claim from the second century about events in the first century evidence. If you want to present extra-Biblical evidence of the existence of the Biblical Jesus, post something that was written while he was alive, by someone who lived there. (Josephus was born after Jesus supposedly died, so he isn't a witness, so anything he might have written isn't evidentiary. Tacitus suffers even more.)

 

Who did he copy from? He was born in 37 or 38 AD. He may have lived until 100 AD. Who did he copy from?

 

so we evolved from animals, from fish to fish with legs to monkeys to humans, nice try satan! Any idea in what stage of this EVILution did we all of a sudden gain an immortal soul?

 

Angelic, you're clearly being stubborn and... silly. First you outright reject any discussion from Corwin and now you're calling him Satan? Lulz. Do yourself a favor and look at something else rather than yourself.

 

I'm speechless!! is that what you understood from (nice try satan) ?