How did you reach your conclusion


That's a really cool find. I wish I could see it clearer. i'd also like to know the name of the archaeologist who discovered it, the date and article describing it. I'd like to know also if the coin was traded or was just made as an honorary piece by a Christian minter. If this is authentic then it may add more significance to the story about Jesus teaching the jews to "render unto Ceasar, the things which are Ceasar. And unto God, the things which are God's." Then showing the coin of Ceasar and probably flipping it back to the guy who showed it to him. I'd wonder if the Jesus coin was in mint at that time.

Tell ya what, just Google "Jesus coin". The one on Live Science dot com is the best.
Thanks for the info. I googled and found this which answers some of my questions. But Still pretty awesome.
Coin of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
it was minted by a Christian pilgrim around the 11th century

There you have it- PROOF that someone in the 11th century was a christian

I can prove that there are people in the 21st century who think the same thing, What's your point?
 
Existence itself lends credence to the concept that the supernatural exists. How can a pile of random chemicals have developed to a point of creating life or even a consciousness is inconceivable to me without a secondary 'supernatural' component. This means that there must be a creative force of some sort out there.
 
Existence itself lends credence to the concept that the supernatural exists. How can a pile of random chemicals have developed to a point of creating life or even a consciousness is inconceivable to me without a secondary 'supernatural' component. This means that there must be a creative force of some sort out there.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609605585/ref=cm_rdp_product]Amazon.com: The Origin of Minds: Evolution, Uniqueness, and the New Science of the Self (9780609605585): Peggy La Cerra, Roger Bingham: Books[/ame]
 
You know.......life CAN generate spontaneously on this planet. Scientists have even proven that by a certain chemical soup of things already here, when combined and heat and electricity are applied, they generate DNA and RNA strands.

Now.......considering the origins of the earth (meteor showers, electrical storms), and considering that there is geothermal water with the right mix, why is it so hard to believe?

But..........then again..........in Genesis when God creates the Universe, He is called "Elohim", which when translated, means "God of many powers", of which one would definitely be electricity.

Why is it that specific name is used at the beginning of the Bible?

I'll tell you..........God exists. Science (our understanding based on our history and development) is just now getting to the point where they have developed the tools to the point where we can actually see evidence of Him.

I mean..........the Hubble telescope didn't exist when Copernicus and Galileo were trying to convince the church that the Earth revolves around the Sun. We now know better.

Theology constrained science for a very long time. I hope that science doesn't try to constrain theology.
 
Last edited:
Existence itself lends credence to the concept that the supernatural exists. How can a pile of random chemicals have developed to a point of creating life or even a consciousness is inconceivable to me without a secondary 'supernatural' component. This means that there must be a creative force of some sort out there.

Now there is sound logic.
 
You know.......life CAN generate spontaneously on this planet. Scientists have even proven that by a certain chemical soup of things already here, when combined and heat and electricity are applied, they generate DNA and RNA strands.

Now.......considering the origins of the earth (meteor showers, electrical storms), and considering that there is geothermal water with the right mix, why is it so hard to believe?

But..........then again..........in Genesis when God creates the Universe, He is called "Elohim", which when translated, means "God of many powers", of which one would definitely be electricity.

Why is it that specific name is used at the beginning of the Bible?

I'll tell you..........God exists. Science (our understanding based on our history and development) is just now getting to the point where they have developed the tools to the point where we can actually see evidence of Him.

I mean..........the Hubble telescope didn't exist when Copernicus and Galileo were trying to convince the church that the Earth revolves around the Sun. We now know better.

Theology constrained science for a very long time. I hope that science doesn't try to constrain theology.

True science and not what is speculation by the mouth of a scientist, always agrees with true religion.
The elements themselves are eternal. They just get organized and reorganized. But never disintigrate into nonexistence. They MUST however be organized in order to create life. God uses the laws of nature to do this. Some of these laws we have not discovered yet but nonetheless they exist.

The problem is with thinking you are smarter than you really are. Then pride confounds further learning.
 
Hypothesis is speculation dude.

Generally, new things come around when someone looks at something we are currently using, refines it and comes up with a new use for it.

They speculate about what is possible.
 
☭proletarian☭;1820953 said:
Existence itself lends credence to the concept that the supernatural exists. How can a pile of random chemicals have developed to a point of creating life or even a consciousness is inconceivable to me without a secondary 'supernatural' component. This means that there must be a creative force of some sort out there.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609605585/ref=cm_rdp_product]Amazon.com: The Origin of Minds: Evolution, Uniqueness, and the New Science of the Self (9780609605585): Peggy La Cerra, Roger Bingham: Books[/ame]
On dial-up. Can't view video.
 
Why is that video irrelevant? Because YOU don't believe it has any credence?

Remember.......they told the Wright Brothers that flight was impossible.

What is truth for someone over in Utah is exceedingly irrelevant when you're on the island of Ibiza during the summer.

Might wanna try to loosen your bias dude.
 
You know.......life CAN generate spontaneously on this planet. Scientists have even proven that by a certain chemical soup of things already here, when combined and heat and electricity are applied, they generate DNA and RNA strands.

Not quite. They created amino acids. Big difference.[
I mean..........the Hubble telescope didn't exist when Copernicus and Galileo were trying to convince the church that the Earth revolves around the Sun. We now know better.

You don't need Hubble to know that's the case; you can discern that by watching the sky and measuring shadows- if you're good enough with mathematics.
 
Why is that video irrelevant? Because YOU don't believe it has any credence?

Remember.......they told the Wright Brothers that flight was impossible.

What is truth for someone over in Utah is exceedingly irrelevant when you're on the island of Ibiza during the summer.

Might wanna try to loosen your bias dude.
Truth is objective. It is the same to everyone, everywhere. What is subjective is our interpretation of the truth.

There is an infinite number of views of a mountain. Not one of them is the same, but your vantage point does not change the mountain, only your understanding of it.
 
your vantage point does not change the mountain, only your understanding of it.
Yet the mountain doesn't exist until someone sees the world in which it resides.

Physics will really fuck with your philosophy.
 
☭proletarian☭;1823196 said:
your vantage point does not change the mountain, only your understanding of it.
Yet the mountain doesn't exist until someone sees the world in which it resides.

Physics will really fuck with your philosophy.
No, objective. It exists whether we want it to, see it, experience it or not. It's existence is not dependent on our subjective knowledge or observation of it. Otherwise, nothing would exist beyond our own experience. There would be no reason to explore for nothing would exist there to find. It is independent of us.

I'm reminded of the movie "Pleasantville". In it there is a geography scene in which all streets loop back on one another and the world is only that in town in an endless warping of space. I won't tell you what happens once things start going wrong, because it's really a nice revelation for the finale.
 
Last edited:
Inside that church, there was a coin, with the name AND LIKENESS of Christ on it.
Would you supply a link for that please?

Here ya go....
Thanks for the link....but did you not read this:

This coin is believed to have been brought to Tiberias from Constantinople where it was minted by a Christian pilgrim around the 11th century. It's backside bears the inscription "Jesus Christ King of Kings."

The moment I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior.


Before then I was in and out of jail and not a penny to my name. Now I have a net worth of 2. 8 million, I own four thousand acres of land 800 head of cattle, twelve horses, two businesses, (one a bail bond agency I recently started another one a investment recovery firm that I co-own). I've retired after twenty years from Boots and Coots International Well Control formerly Red Adair IWC and began a second career with an Engineering/Construction firm.
Odd that you should get you all that yet your god allows African children to die for the want of a glass of clean water.
 
☭proletarian☭;1823196 said:
your vantage point does not change the mountain, only your understanding of it.
Yet the mountain doesn't exist until someone sees the world in which it resides.

Physics will really fuck with your philosophy.
No, objective. It exists whether we want it to, see it, experience it or not. It's existence is not dependent on our subjective knowledge or observation of it. Otherwise, nothing would exist beyond our own experience. There would be no reason to explore for nothing would exist there to find. It is independent of us.

I'm reminded of the movie "Pleasantville". In it there is a geography scene in which all streets loop back on one another and the world is only that in town in an endless warping of space. I won't tell you what happens once things start going wrong, because it's really a nice revelation for the finale.

Good analogy, but I think physics or any other scientific theory or opinion can go only so far to explain the universe and all that is in it. For instance, there is much agreement among the scientific community that there is a finite aspect to the universe and a countable number of objects within it. Yet common sense tells us that they have no way of knowing that.

Because there is a finite aspect to much of our personal experience, it does not automatically follow that there is a finite aspect to all experience or all that is. We know that simply by understanding that no matter how many numbers we add to a total of anything, there will never be a maximum number of numbers that can be added. That is the best illustration of infinity that I can think of, and I believe, perhaps intuitively, that it is not the only illustration of infinity that exists.

We can believe that the mountain exists, believe the characteristics of the mountain and the organic and inorganic materials that make it up, its geological history, and its probable geological future so far as we know within the ability of humankind to understand that. And yet despite humankind's awesome ability to understand and learn, there is infinitely more about each minute particle of that mountain that we do not know than we do. What forces created the particle? Where did the original substance of the particle come from? How did it come about?

To assume that it was all by some cosmic happenstance, including the miracle of the human hand, the magnificent capacity of the human brain--to think that there is not some higher intelligence behind all that to me is beyond rational credibility. I think if even I had not personally experienced God, I would have to believe in some form of intelligent design--an author of the science we have--based on nothing more than laws of probability.
 

Forum List

Back
Top