Did Jesus Even Rise From The Dead?

Originally posted by darkelf

Originally posted by saint4God
Me too. Sorry we can't meet in church and talk more.

Well maybe we can meet somewhere higher.

Maranatha

Hey! Looking forward to that day ^_^. I guess the point I was trying to make though, is maybe church needs you more than you need them. Have you considered the possibility? I'd also like to know where you get your regular teachings from and how often you get them.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by grad_student
Even Paul admits that he isn't sure whether his experience was a dream or not.

Must have been one hell of a dream!

Why do you say that?

Originally posted by grad_student
I suppose the Romans had the same dream of the Trial of Jesus?

There are no Roman records of such a Trial, so I'm not sure why they would have had to have dreamed anything. Why can the trial not be fiction just like the rest of it?

Originally posted by grad_student
And then the subsequent fall of Rome, and rise of the Holy Roman Emperor, and the Crusades, they were all dreams also?

These are ordinary and well documented.

No one can prove that Jesus was married to mary no where in the Bible does it even say it. Nor will the old testiment predicts it happening. I have study the DV Code and there is no real prove. I am not saying it is not true,because God's will is God's will. But i personally say not because if you read revelations chapter 21 v 2 it says "I John saw the Holy City,the New Jerusalem,coming down out of heavenfrom god,PREPARED AS A BRIDE BEATIFULLY DRESSED FOR HER HUSBAND. But what ever happen is what happen so we might not know till the coming of christ.

Originally posted by slymattb
No one can prove that Jesus was married to mary no where in the Bible does it even say it.

More importantly, no-where does the Bible say he wasn't married. Jesus was called 'rabbi' even by his detractors. Such a title had marriage as a prerequisite. Jesus was clearly in charge of the wine at the wedding at Caana, which was the responsibility of the groom. Here we have two instances which strongly imply he was married, and nothing that counters it. The proper conclusion is that he was married. Considering how close Mary Magdeline was to him, it seems likely she was his wife, and it was more likely that she was 'the apostle he loved' rather than John.

Originally posted by slymattb
Nor will the old testiment predicts it happening.

The OT predicted he would be an earthly ruler, which implies plenty of women and numerous offspring.

Originally posted by slymattb
But i personally say not because if you read revelations chapter 21 v 2 it says "I John saw the Holy City,the New Jerusalem,coming down out of heavenfrom god,PREPARED AS A BRIDE BEATIFULLY DRESSED FOR HER HUSBAND.

The bride of Revelation is not a human bride, but a metaphor for the kingdom to come.

Originally posted by spamandham
More importantly, no-where does the Bible say he wasn't married. Jesus was called 'rabbi' even by his detractors. Such a title had marriage as a prerequisite.

Did it? Let's ask a rabbi. Wait a sec, somebody already did:

"Is there any such thing as a never-married bachelor Rabbi? The 'Messianic Rule' in the Dead Sea Scrolls said 30 years of age was when a man was 'mature' enough to serve the public as a Rabbi."

Rabbi Freeman Epstein answered:

"Hi Geoffrey. While it is recommended that rabbis be married, there is no requirement that rabbis be married. Rabbis can be married, unmarried, divorced, or widowers. Marital status has no bearing on one's doing his duties as a rabbi."
www.askarabbi.com...

Originally posted by spamandham
Jesus was clearly in charge of the wine at the wedding at Caana, which was the responsibility of the groom.

If you're out of wine, and there is a man there who is known to have performed miracles, would you not go to him? Who's to say the groom didn't go *shrug* when they were out?

Originally posted by spamandham
Here we have two instances which strongly imply he was married, and nothing that counters it.

Yeah, gonna haveta disagree with you here spamandham per above.

Originally posted by spamandham
The proper conclusion is that he was married. Considering how close Mary Magdeline was to him, it seems likely she was his wife, and it was more likely that she was 'the apostle he loved' rather than John.

Ooh! A conspiracy, do tell. Oops, already done again in the Da Vinci Code and cable documentary before that. If you're lookin' to make some cash on a conspiracy, I'd recommend something not copywritten.

Originally posted by spamandham
The OT predicted he would be an earthly ruler, which implies plenty of women and numerous offspring.

It also implies He would lead Israel to military victory. That's what happens when we 'assume' I guess.



[edit on 8-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Did it? Let's ask a rabbi. Wait a sec, somebody already did:

"Is there any such thing as a never-married bachelor Rabbi? The 'Messianic Rule' in the Dead Sea Scrolls said 30 years of age was when a man was 'mature' enough to serve the public as a Rabbi."

Amazing! You found a 2000 year old Rabbi. What is done today is irrelevant. It is the customs of that day that are relevant.

Originally posted by saint4God
If you're out of wine, and there is a man there who is known to have performed miracles, would you not go to him?

Which miracles did he perform prior to that? Who approached him about the wine? Who's wedding does the Bible say it was?

(answers: none, Jesus' mother Mary, it doesn't say)

Originally posted by saint4God
Yeah, gonna haveta disagree with you here spamandham per above.

By disagreeing, I assume you can provide Biblical references to back up your position that Jesus wasn't married?

Originally posted by saint4God
Ooh! A conspiracy, do tell. Oops, already done again in the Da Vinci Code and cable documentary before that. If you're lookin' to make some cash on a conspiracy, I'd recommend something not copywritten.

No conspiracy, just the evolution of a myth. Jesus starts out as a mystical noncorporeal entity (books of Enoch and Paul's writings), is transformed into a historical person later (with a wife), then transformed into god incarnate later, and the wife part removed.

There will in fact be a military victory. It is at the second coming. Most christians know full well that most jews expected a military/political leader that would throw off rome and renew the kingdom. They were so focused on that, that they missed the Messiah.
They were cut off, so that we could be grafted in, but the time of the Gentiles is not forever. The Last 7 Years , the time of Jacobs trouble, will see a revival of the jews to Christ.

According to Jesus Christ, Abraham saw Jesus day and was glad. So even the first 'jew' , the head patriarch, was a christian...ie...believe in and of Jesus Christ.

quote: Originally posted by spamandham
(The proper conclusion is that he was married. Considering how close Mary Magdeline was to him, it seems likely she was his wife, and it was more likely that she was 'the apostle he loved' rather than John.)

(Ooh! A conspiracy, do tell. Oops, already done again in the Da Vinci Code and cable documentary before that. If you're lookin' to make some cash on a conspiracy, I'd recommend something not copywritten)

I am going to have to say most likely saint4God is right it is most likely a conspiracy. Like so many others.

Spam what your reading is out side of the bible, and if it where true the bible would have said something about a holly family from the pure son of christ. It says nothing.

And your right the bible does not say its no true. But does the bible talk about things in life that are not true???? No of course not. It talks about those thing are true and living. If john was not the beloved son?? Why did he right revelations plus if we read john chapter 21 v 20 It says "Peter turned and SAW THAT THE DISCIPLE WHOM jESUS LOVED WAS FOLLOWING THEM. Now please read v22 "Jesus answered," If i want HIM(HIM) to remain alive until i return, what is that of you?"

So now we understand that the disciple is a man, If you go back to the supper a disciple leaned back against jesus. That was john.
No where did in the gospels does it talk about 13 disiples only 12. If you read acts chapter 1 v 13- 14 all the disciples are accounted for.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by slymattb]

[edit on 8-8-2005 by slymattb]

Originally posted by slymattb
I am going to have to say most likely saint4God is right it is most likely a conspiracy. Like so many others.

What do you base your estimate of the probabilities on?

Originally posted by slymattb
Spam what your reading is out side of the bible, and if it where true the bible would have said something about a holly family from the pure son of christ. It says nothing.

You're assuming that the Bible we have today was written by people who knew Jesus and we have those original writings. This isn't the case. Paul wrote most of the New Testament and admits he never knew Jesus. The writer of Acts (pressumed to be the writer of Luke) also admits that his information was passed down rather than being first hand, which implicates Matthew and Mark as being handed down stories as well since they are too similar in word usage to reasonably be separate accounts. John was written too late to reasonably be a first hand account.

More importantly, the later writings have more detail than the earlier writings in regard to the historical nature of Jesus. If you read them in the order they were actually written (including the noncanonical early christian writings), you can see the myth of Jesus evolving over time, as Jesus transforms from a spiritual savior (the books of Enoch and the writings of Paul) into a flesh and blood person who becomes god incarnate.

Originally posted by slymattb
And your right the bible does not say its no true. But does the bible talk about things in life that are not true???? No of course not.

The Bible is filled with negative clarifications just liek any other literary work. If it is your position the Bible makes only positive assertions, you've obviously never actually read it.

Originally posted by slymattb
It talks about those thing are true and living. If john was not the beloved son?? Why did he right revelations plus if we read john chapter 21 v 20 It says "Peter turned and SAW THAT THE DISCIPLE WHOM jESUS LOVED WAS FOLLOWING THEM. Now please read v22 "Jesus answered," If i want HIM(HIM) to remain alive until i return, what is that of you?"

Unless you are an inerrantist, this is not significant. There was plenty of time for 'she' to be changed to 'he', either before or after the oral tradition was originally recorded.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by saint4God
Did it? Let's ask a rabbi. Wait a sec, somebody already did:

"Is there any such thing as a never-married bachelor Rabbi? The 'Messianic Rule' in the Dead Sea Scrolls said 30 years of age was when a man was 'mature' enough to serve the public as a Rabbi."

Amazing! You found a 2000 year old Rabbi. What is done today is irrelevant. It is the customs of that day that are relevant.

Perhaps this is an educational opportunity for me. Are you saying the 'Messianic Rule' in the Dead Sea Scrolls is new?

Originally posted by spamandham
Which miracles did he perform prior to that?

How quickly we forget Jesus calling Philip and Nathanael. By now the people present were convinced he was the messiah that the prophets Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc. spoke of. Also, that between the 4 gospels, we're not able to tell a chronological series of events when comparing them side-by-side that I'm aware of. If so, I'd like to see the timeline. So it's certainly a very real possibility that he healed the sick, the blind, the paralytic, and drove out the evil spirits as evidenced by the beginning of the other 3 books.

Originally posted by spamandham
Who approached him about the wine?

Jesus' mom because "Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding." (John 2) Sounds to me it was a friend or extended family of Mary and Jesus and his disciples were along for the ride.

Originally posted by spamandham
Who's wedding does the Bible say it was?

(answers: none, Jesus' mother Mary, it doesn't say)

Mary's friend or extended family per above.

Originally posted by spamandham
By disagreeing, I assume you can provide Biblical references to back up your position that Jesus wasn't married?

I'm not here to prove the marital status of Jesus, sorry to disappoint. I can answer questions about what the Book says.

Originally posted by spamandham
No conspiracy, just the evolution of a myth. Jesus starts out as a mystical noncorporeal entity (books of Enoch and Paul's writings), is transformed into a historical person later (with a wife), then transformed into god incarnate later, and the wife part removed.

I wish skeptics could make up their minds. Did he or did he not exist? If so, was he or was he not married? If not, did he or did he not die for our sins? If so, did he or did he not come back and was witnessed by a large number of people? Does anyone see how off-topic this thread has gone? As soon as we can stick to one arguement, the sooner we can get to the bottom of it. Cluster-bombing doubt without honest consideration in the subject matter sounds like a self-inflicted headache which I'm very glad I'm not a part of.


[edit on 9-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Perhaps this is an educational opportunity for me. Are you saying the 'Messianic Rule' in the Dead Sea Scrolls is new?

No, I'm saying the answer she gave does not answer the question that was posed regarding historical customs, and instead answered with present day customs, which even allow for female rabbis (hence the answer to the question was answered by a female rabbi). If you want to know historical norms, you ask experts in history, not theology.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Which miracles did he perform prior to that?

How quickly we forget Jesus calling Philip and Nathanael. By now the people present were convinced he was the messiah that the prophets Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc. spoke of.

I don't know where you're getting that from. Church tradition holds that the water-to-wine trick was the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, which is supported by John 2:4 in which Jesus comments that his time had not yet come. You might argue he had a private ministry prior to that, but I see no Biblical evidence for it. You have to resort to noncanonical texts for that (such as the infancy Gospel of Thomas), which I doubt you would accept as more than fables. Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Originally posted by saint4God
So it's certainly a very real possibility that he healed the sick, the blind, the paralytic, and drove out the evil spirits as evidenced by the beginning of the other 3 books.

What's possible and what's supported by the text are two different things.

Originally posted by saint4God
Jesus' mom because "Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding." (John 2) Sounds to me it was a friend or extended family of Mary and Jesus and his disciples were along for the ride.

It sounds to me like it was originally Jesus' own wedding, and the part where the master of the banquet pulls 'the bridegroom' aside could easily have originally been 'Jesus'. The failure to mention who's wedding it was is evidence that it was not someone close to Jesus (in which case why is Mary so concerned about the wine) or evidence by omission that it was originally a story of Jesus' own wedding.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Who's wedding does the Bible say it was?

Mary's friend or extended family per above.

It doesn't say any such thing. All you have done is to speculate that it could be a friend and concluded that since the text does not preclude that, then it must be the case. Typical apologetic claptrap.

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm not here to prove the marital status of Jesus, sorry to disappoint. I can answer questions about what the Book says.

Ok then. Does the book say anything directly about Jesus' marital status?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
No conspiracy, just the evolution of a myth. Jesus starts out as a mystical noncorporeal entity (books of Enoch and Paul's writings), is transformed into a historical person later (with a wife), then transformed into god incarnate later, and the wife part removed.

I wish skeptics could make up their minds. Did he or did he not exist?

A myth may evolve independent of whether or not there is a historical figure at its root. There is evidence for the ahistoricity of Jesus of Nazareth in the noncanonical texts (and of course in the lack of a Nazareth in the first century), particularly in the books of Enoch, where the Son of Man is a spiritual being who's conquests happen in the spiritual realm.

So, no, he did not exist, and the myth also evolved over time.

Originally posted by saint4God
If so, was he or was he not married?

As the myth transformed him from spiritual being to physical being, a history was invented for him. Based on texts such as the infancy Gospel above, the original history had him quite human, which would have included being married. However, Paul's sexual hangups forced a revision in that part of the story.

Originally posted by saint4God
If not, did he or did he not die for our sins?

Since he never actually lived, he could not have died for our sins. (never mind that it makes no sense to demand the death of an innocent for absolution of sin)

Originally posted by saint4God
If so, did he or did he not come back and was witnessed by a large number of people?

No, he did not come back, and was not witnessed by a large number of people. The evidence for this is the lack of records of such an event. Even pagan Romans would have found zombies walking around Jerusalem to be a noteworthy event.

Originally posted by saint4God
Does anyone see how off-topic this thread has gone?

Don't try to act innocent. You are one of the most prolific posters in this thread and few of your posts have been on topic. Your purpose here is to evangelize, which is always off topic for ATS threads.

quote: Originally posted by saint4Godquote:
Jesus' mom because "Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding." (John 2) Sounds to me it was a friend or extended family of Mary and Jesus and his disciples were along for the ride.


Spamandham///
It sounds to me like it was originally Jesus' own wedding, and the part where the master of the banquet pulls 'the bridegroom' aside could easily have originally been 'Jesus'. The failure to mention who's wedding it was is evidence that it was not someone close to Jesus (in which case why is Mary so concerned about the wine) or evidence by omission that it was originally a story of Jesus' own wedding.

It doesn't say any such thing. All you have done is to speculate that it could be a friend and concluded that since the text does not preclude that, then it must be the case. Typical apologetic claptrap.

It sounds not as you see or read .....There is no speculation...it is written, they were invited to go.

(John 2:1-12).
Only one Evangelist — John, makes the narration on the first miracle performed by Jesus Christ (turning water into wine at a wedding or “marriage,” at Cana in Galilee.
This occurred on the third day of His departure with Philip and Nathanael from Galilee. Cana was a small township, located 2-3 hours walk toward north of Nazareth and was called Galilean as distinct from the other one — situated close to the city of Tyre. Nathanael was a native of Galilean Cana.

By reason of hospitality, Jesus was invited as an ordinary person, like an acquaintance. His Mother was there already, having presumably arrived there earlier. The family that was celebrating the wedding was not rich.
That’s why, during the celebrations,
a shortage of wine was uncovered.
Blessed Virgin took an active part in the activities, which threatened to mar the innocent enjoyment of the family’s jubilation.
Her Soul, filled with goodness, manifested for the first time Her consideration and intercession for people before Her Divine Son.
“They have no wine,” — She says to Her Son,
counting on His miraculous help for these poor people.
“Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me?”
The use of the word “woman” should not be construed as even slightly disrespectful — this form of address was well recognised in the East. During the severest moments of His sufferings on the cross, the Lord likewise addresses His Mother, entrusting Her welfare to His beloved Disciple (John 19:26).

The first miracle at the wedding at Cana in Galilee.

quote: Originally posted by saint4God
If so, did he or did he not come back and was witnessed by a large number of people?

Spamandham///
No, he did not come back, and was not witnessed by a large number of people. The evidence for this is the lack of records of such an event. Even pagan Romans would have found zombies walking around Jerusalem to be a noteworthy event.

QUOTE///
“Then he released Barrabas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified,” i.e. having confirmed the Sanhedrin’s death sentence, Pilate supplied them with soldiers to carry out the death sentence on the Lord Jesus Christ, by crucifixion.
(Mat. 27:1-2, 11-32; Mark 15:1-19; Luke 23:1-25 and John 18:28-19:16)

“Some of the guard,” (that ran from the Lord’s tomb) who apparently were in charge and responsible for leaving their post,
informed the high priests of everything that had occurred. Namely them and not Pilate, because they were placed under their command and not the procurator’s. The high priests assembled the Sanhedrin and decided to bribe the guards into slandering the truth of the Lord’s Resurrection.
“They bought His blood,” — states Saint Chhrysostom — “when He was alive, and with His crucifixion and resurrection, they again are using money to undermine the authenticity of the resurrection.”
“Tell them, ‘His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept’” — that’s what they taught the soldiers to say.
“Their words are completely unbelievable and have no plausibility,” reasons Saint Chrysostom: “In what manner did His disciples steal the body, these poor and simple people, who didn’t even dare show themselves? And wasn’t there a seal placed at the tomb? Wasn’t this area surrounded by many guards, soldiers and ordinary Jews?….
And for what purpose would they steal Him?
Is it so that they could invent a teaching on resurrection?
But how would thoughts of something like this enter the minds of people that wish to live in anonymity?
And how did they leave the stone sealed?
How did they remain undetected by some many guards?
And of what benefit would it be to them, if Christ didn’t resurrect?
” All the exponents of the Bible rightly note, that all the endeavors by the Sanhedrin — to retain the Lord’s Pure Body in the tomb as secure as possible, was seemingly conceived and executed to purposely confirm the authenticity of the event,
with all historical clarity, which the members of the Sanhedrin wanted to eclipse and present as a lie.
After all,
the stealing of bodies was completely unheard of among the Jews,
fearing defilement through coming into contact with a corpse. (Num. 19:11-12).

Bribing of the
Guard.

Originally posted by saint4God
Does anyone see how off-topic this thread has gone?


Spamandham///
Don't try to act innocent. You are one of the most prolific posters in this thread and few of your posts have been on topic. Your purpose here is to evangelize, which is always off topic for ATS threads.

No one is Evangelizing but telling it like it is written.
The post is '' Faith, Spirituality & Theology » Did Jesus Even Rise From The Dead?

"Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" (I Tim. 3 16):

IX
helen

Originally posted by helen670

Originally posted by spamandham
It doesn't say any such thing. All you have done is to speculate that it could be a friend and concluded that since the text does not preclude that, then it must be the case. Typical apologetic claptrap.

It sounds not as you see or read .....There is no speculation...it is written, they were invited to go.

We weren't discussing whether or not there were invitations. We were discussing who's wedding it was.

Originally posted by helen670

Originally posted by saint4God
If so, did he or did he not come back and was witnessed by a large number of people?

Spamandham///
No, he did not come back, and was not witnessed by a large number of people. The evidence for this is the lack of records of such an event. Even pagan Romans would have found zombies walking around Jerusalem to be a noteworthy event.

QUOTE///
“Then he released Barrabas to them...

How does quoting from the same book of mythology prove it is not mythology?

Jesus Christ and His Apostles were invited to the wedding at Cana..
Why would Christ question turning water into wine if it was His Own wedding?
Would not He just go ahead and do the miracle?


As for your Reply to Mythology,
what references do you get your information from?

And for that matter, how do we know that History in the last 100 yrs is true?
Could all books of past History be a Myth also?

IX
helen

Originally posted by spamandham
No, I'm saying the answer she gave does not answer the question that was posed regarding historical customs, and instead answered with present day customs, which even allow for female rabbis (hence the answer to the question was answered by a female rabbi). If you want to know historical norms, you ask experts in history, not theology.

Hm. So are we saying we don't know or are you saying you have a verifiable fact stating that rabbis must be married to be called such during Jesus' time?

Originally posted by spamandham
I don't know where you're getting that from. Church tradition

Hehe, I don't have a whole lot of church tradition. I get my info on this topic from the Book.

Originally posted by spamandham
holds that the water-to-wine trick was the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, which is supported by John 2:4 in which Jesus comments that his time had not yet come.

Mom knew something though didn't she? She told the servants "do whatever he tells you to". I don't think she was expecting her son to stand up and say to the servants "go forth to the market and buyeth some wine", do you? The implication was he was perfectly capable of performing miracles. I don't think he'd have any disciples otherwise. To say he would completely undermines all the skepticism apparent in the gospels.

Originally posted by spamandham
You might argue he had a private ministry prior to that, but I see no Biblical evidence for it. You have to resort to noncanonical texts for that (such as the infancy Gospel of Thomas), which I doubt you would accept as more than fables. Infancy Gospel of Thomas

There are pluses and minuses in thereafter texts, a discussion for another thread perhaps. I'd encourage anyone to read the Bible and decide for themselves.

Originally posted by spamandham
What's possible and what's supported by the text are two different things.

Per above, that previous miracles were shown to mom & crew before anything in front of a large gathering.

Originally posted by spamandham
It sounds to me like it was originally Jesus' own wedding, and the part where the master of the banquet pulls 'the bridegroom' aside could easily have originally been 'Jesus'. The failure to mention who's wedding it was is evidence that it was not someone close to Jesus (in which case why is Mary so concerned about the wine) or evidence by omission that it was originally a story of Jesus' own wedding.

I agree it wasn't someone close to Jesus. Again, I think the gospels would read a whole lot different if Jesus was married than just a paragraph on water to wine. Also, he would not have made the bridge-groom analogies if he were already married. Makes it dimished to the point of meaninglessness.

Originally posted by spamandham
It doesn't say any such thing. All you have done is to speculate that it could be a friend and concluded that since the text does not preclude that, then it must be the case. Typical apologetic claptrap.

LOL! And that statement is a typical anti-believer claptrap statement. We're discussing something not written, so we both need to read and understand what we do know so that we can put together what we don't know in a way that makes both logical and reasonable sense. I don't know what good name-calling does in this kind of discussion but we can throw labels at each other all day long. Just don't expect to reap anything except division and resentment.

Originally posted by spamandham
Ok then. Does the book say anything directly about Jesus' marital status?

Nope.

Originally posted by spamandham
A myth may evolve independent of whether or not there is a historical figure at its root. There is evidence for the ahistoricity of Jesus of Nazareth in the noncanonical texts (and of course in the lack of a Nazareth in the first century), particularly in the books of Enoch, where the Son of Man is a spiritual being who's conquests happen in the spiritual realm.

So, no, he did not exist, and the myth also evolved over time.

Why then are you on this thread given the topic?

Originally posted by spamandham
As the myth transformed him from spiritual being to physical being, a history was invented for him. Based on texts such as the infancy Gospel above, the original history had him quite human, which would have included being married. However, Paul's sexual hangups forced a revision in that part of the story.

You mean like this one?: "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5) Hm, who does he NOT mention having a wife. If you said Jesus, 10 points.

Originally posted by spamandham
Since he never actually lived, he could not have died for our sins. (never mind that it makes no sense to demand the death of an innocent for absolution of sin)

Then what are you doing on this thread?

Originally posted by spamandham
No, he did not come back, and was not witnessed by a large number of people. The evidence for this is the lack of records of such an event. Even pagan Romans would have found zombies walking around Jerusalem to be a noteworthy event.

Does it say he walked among pagan romans?

Originally posted by spamandham
Don't try to act innocent.

Hehe. I can act on a board? Most impressive

Originally posted by spamandham
You are one of the most prolific posters in this thread and few of your posts have been on topic. Your purpose here is to evangelize, which is always off topic for ATS threads.

Gosh, how pinned am I? I say I'm here to help and by golly I'm accused of not only that, but spreading good news, which is the truth, which is on topic, which is within the guidelines of ATS, which is also according to their slogan - Deny Ignorance - that is so proudly waived. Your turn spamandham, tell me why you are here please. As a courtesy.


[edit on 9-8-2005 by saint4God]

Ive been tryin to follow this and want to make sure I understand correctly.

To be a Rabbi, you must be married?
This is an attempt to say that Jesus married Mary Magdelene who wasnt at the wedding...and
Because the bible doesnt say that "Jesus Christ never got married" therefore it is perfectly fine to assume He did" ?

Wow.
Is there anything else the bible doesnt say about Jesus that we can assume is true?
Did Jesus own a 44? Drive a 57 Chevy?
ugh

John 1

Joh 1:48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
Joh 1:50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
Joh 1:51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

The wedding that Jesus was invited to didnt happen until John 2.

Originally posted by jake1997

John 1

Joh 1:48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
Joh 1:50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
Joh 1:51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

The wedding that Jesus was invited to didnt happen until John 2.

That only poses a problem to those who believe the stories represent actual history as recorded from a single person, rather than a hodegpodge of stories compiled and edited along the way. I wouldn't expect an Biblical inerrantist to be capable of comprehending the latter viewpoint.

Originally posted by helen670
Jesus Christ and His Apostles were invited to the wedding at Cana..
Why would Christ question turning water into wine if it was His Own wedding?
Would not He just go ahead and do the miracle?

Because his time for public ministry had not yet come, just as the text states.

Originally posted by helen670
As for your Reply to Mythology,
what references do you get your information from?

Be more specific. I have a wide array of sources I draw from depending on the point.

Originally posted by helen670
And for that matter, how do we know that History in the last 100 yrs is true?
Could all books of past History be a Myth also?

I would say the majority are mythological to greater and lesser degrees, but it doesn't matter. An approximate knowledge of history is good enough for general edification.

Originally posted by saint4God
Hm. So are we saying we don't know or are you saying you have a verifiable fact stating that rabbis must be married to be called such during Jesus' time?

I don't know. I've been trying to answer this question for some time and have yet to get a firm answer. We know that it was customary for rabbi's to be married, and to begin ministry no earlier than 30. Jesus seemed to be following the rabbinical customs, which implies he was married, but does not prove it. That implication combined with the fact that there were women following Jesus and the disciples around and no suggestion of impropriety by other parties, increases the case that Jesus was married in the early tradition. Jesus is said to have been fully human, which includes sexuality of some form.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
I don't know where you're getting that from. Church tradition

Hehe, I don't have a whole lot of church tradition. I get my info on this topic from the Book.

Then provide your references. I've already asked you this once. The Bible does not say who's wedding it was. This is a rather odd omission if it was the wedding of a close family friend or relative.

Originally posted by saint4God
I agree it wasn't someone close to Jesus.

Then why was Mary so concerned about the wine?

Originally posted by saint4God
Again, I think the gospels would read a whole lot different if Jesus was married than just a paragraph on water to wine.

Not if they were penned after the myth had already evolved substantially. All that would be expected to be found would be traces of it, which is exactly what we find.

Originally posted by saint4God
Also, he would not have made the bridge-groom analogies if he were already married. Makes it dimished to the point of meaninglessness.

I don't know why you say that. The bride/groom analogies are clearly symbolic language, not literal language. You know that.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Ok then. Does the book say anything directly about Jesus' marital status?

Nope.

Then why do you insist he wasn't married?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
A myth may evolve independent of whether or not there is a historical figure at its root. There is evidence for the ahistoricity of Jesus of Nazareth in the noncanonical texts (and of course in the lack of a Nazareth in the first century), particularly in the books of Enoch, where the Son of Man is a spiritual being who's conquests happen in the spiritual realm.

So, no, he did not exist, and the myth also evolved over time.

Why then are you on this thread given the topic?

Whether or not he was historical is a critical point in answering the question "Did Jesus even rise from the dead". If he was not, then he didn't rise from the dead. That doesn't seem complicated.

Originally posted by saint4God
You mean like this one?: "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5) Hm, who does he NOT mention having a wife. If you said Jesus, 10 points.

You get 10 points each for answering each of the following questions:
- what famous figure did Paul never quote
- name a significant person whose miracles Paul never mentions
- name a person who Paul never said was crucified by Pilate or from the city of Nazareth
- name a person who Paul showed no interest in whatsoever regarding his place of birth, hometown, place of crucifixion, location of his tomb, etc.
- name the person who Paul never identifies as having been recently on earth
- (fill in the X) Paul says he saw X using the same language he uses when he talks about Peter seeing X, and we know Paul saw Jesus in a vision
- In Romans 8:26, Paul says "we do not know how to pray". Name the person who gave us The Lord's Prayer in response to the same complaint by his disciples, and yet Paul seems oblivious to that

Paul does not mention Jesus' having a wife because Jesus was a spiritual being to Paul, and not a historical human. His death and resurrection were in the spiritual domain, just as stated in the books of Enoch.

Originally posted by saint4God
Then what are you doing on this thread?

You can't get rid of me that easily.

Originally posted by saint4God
Does it say he walked among pagan romans?

No, but it does say many were raised from the dead and walked around the holy city seen by many.

Quote from spamandham///
Then why was Mary so concerned about the wine?

Well, I would have to say Mary was a nice person who cared about the people...This was a celebration!

Jesus Christ was married?
Let's see....
If indeed Christ was married would not His enemies(the Scribes and Pharisees)have said this about Him to accuse Him!

Who actually performed the marriage ceremony?
Himself?
Now what does Jesus Christ say?
Would He violate His own Laws?

If on the other hand there was no celebrant, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Christ pronounced Himself married; but this can only be interpreted as adultery/fornication, whether measured by Jewish standards based on the Old Testament, or by Christian standards. And considering that Christ Himself redefined and condemned adultery, He could not then violate His own teaching:“You have heard that it was said, you shall not commit adultery; but I say to you, that every one who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery in his heart.” [Matt. 5:27-28]


And in the Old Testament the punishment for adultery was death by stoning:


“If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” [Lev. 20:10]

ON THE DA VINCI CODE

''But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
not even Christ has been raised: and if Christ has not been raised,
then our preaching is in vain,
your faith also is in vain.'' [1Cor 15:13-14]

IX
helen

[edit on 8/10/2005 by helen670]