Tablet Ignites Debate On Messiah and Resurrection, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 6-7-2008 @ 03:07 PM by pureevil81

reply to post by sir_chancealot

good to see alot of people making excellent posts here. i just dont see what anyone thinks is going to cause a stir, oh no there was prophecy well this is new isnt it..........no its not new, personally i love prophecy, it is a gift, along with other gifts, this is a great find...keep up the good work guys..and gals.

reply posted on 6-7-2008 @ 04:35 PM by Anonymous ATS

I personally do not trust so-called "new" revelations or alleged ancient artifacts that would bolster anti-christian sentiment. Many of these so-called "finds" are fake. The chinese manufacture phony fossils as did 19th century evolution crazed college professors and archeologist who deliberately doctored up skulls of gibbons with iron-salts and filed down the teeth to make them look old. The humanists are so frightened of the truth they will accept a lie and promote it before acknowleging any reality of there being a divine entity like the God of the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ.

reply posted on 6-7-2008 @ 08:23 PM by Anonymous ATS

reply posted on 6-7-2008 @ 09:41 PM by fleabit

Originally posted by Shar
I'm not getting why we would be upset. To me it's just more proof of Jesus being here and resurrecting for me. More proof of Angels and Heaven and hell and The Bible. All Christians should be saying this is more proof.

Am I missing something that was suppose to make me upset?

They did not say the stone was written by a prophet. It may have been a popular story of sorts in that age. Which means that Jesus conformed to a common belief, than fulfilled a prophecy. Could be a big thing.

reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 01:04 AM by likepaincomefromheaven

I think this is the real debate:

“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Mr. Knohl said. “This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”

from the last paragraph of the article from NYTIMES

not a personal messiah who shed his blood for the redemption of sin but for the broad redemption of Israel.

Christian theology is based on being released from the curse of the law. So... is christian theology based on a misinterpretation?

reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 01:19 AM by FallenFromTheTree

In my view the leaders of the clergy gathered to figure out what traditions they would borrow
from all beliefs to put together something they could officially endorse as the real deal.

I can hear them saying...

The flood thing, yeah that's a keeper

Oh and the divine birth thing yeah, gotta have divine birth in there.

Resurrection, of course we gotta throw a few more miracles in there too.

Of course we can't allow women to have too much power, they already nag us too much as it is.

All cheer! :-)

reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 09:39 AM by Icarus Rising

reply to post by likepaincomefromheaven

Sin separates us from God. Christ shed His blood for the remission of sins to restore us to fellowship with the Father. That's what "covered in the blood of the Lamb" means. When God looks at a saved Christian, He no longer sees our sin, but the righteous blood of His unblemished Son. Christ is our "kinsmen redeemer", and yes, it is personal.

The Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah, so His salvation was offered to the Gentiles. This also was prophesied in the OT.

Christian theology is not based on being released from the curse of the law. It is based on the fulfillment of the law in the spirit through the work of Christ on the Cross. His sinless life, substitutionary death, and glorious resurrection. He is the propitiation for our sins, our Lord and Savior, rightly deserving of our praise and devotion.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^