It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Royal Families really chosen by GOD?

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


in a language that seems to find vowels pretty much interchangable....

jesus is referred to as rabbi many times in the scriptures, only, well, traditionally, one of the reqiurements to having that title was to marry, have children, like all good jews were expected to do..



Hay I am not trying to be mean at all here but you are talking about Hebrew. The NT was written in greek which has no such vowel problem. Please do just a little research before diving into this area.


I think that debating biblical semantics is a slippery slope.

It is an oral history, eventually transcribed by a team of scribes, whose tablets were brought together to form the first "official" written records. You are correct that this was in Greek for the New Testament, however it was then translated into Latin which was the most popular version for a long period of history, and subsequently, to all the modern languages of today. We cannot assume that the original message was passed down without alterations.

the Billmeister




posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Billmeister
I guess, that if you believe that specific bloodlines where put in place directly by an almighty being to ensure some sort of order on the earth, then perhaps the answer is yes.

Since I do not believe this to be the case, my real question becomes "do they really believe that they are chosen by God"......

.........
The possible honest answers are:
1) Yes, now bow down before my greatness.
2) No but, it sure is a great socio-political tool to ensure I keep my palace and jewels.
3) No, our ancestors thought like that, but now we are just milking it for as long as we possibly can.


In China and East Asia, rulers justified their rule using a similar concept called the Mandate of Heaven. It was similar to the European notion of the divine right of kings in that both sought to legitimize rule from divine approval. However, while the divine right of kings granted unconditional legitimacy, the Mandate of Heaven was conditional on the just behavior of the ruler.

source
edit on 21-1-2011 by Billmeister because: added definition of "Divine Right"

edit on 21-1-2011 by Billmeister because: to add interesting difference with the Asian interpretation

edit on 22-1-2011 by ropaq50 because: (no reason given)


Romans 13:1-5 provides the basis for the belief that the "royals" are devinely appointed.
If one finds oneself in a position of power...and you embrace and believe this biblical quote...then the answer is YES....the royals DO believe they are appointed by the Almighty
edit on 22-1-2011 by ropaq50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...so true...
edit on 22-1-2011 by majestic3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Money is the ruler of all evil... It is harder for a rich man to get into heaven then it is to put a camel through the eye of a needle.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Answer: No God does not pick Royalty......................WAR chooses Royalty check the history books. e.g Present UK Royalty French, German lineage William the Conqueror.
p.s edit don't count the spouses, their line doesn't count.
edit on 22-1-2011 by DreamerOracle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ropaq50
Romans 13:1-5 provides the basis for the belief that the "royals" are devinely appointed.
If one finds oneself in a position of power...and you embrace and believe this biblical quote...then the answer is YES....the royals DO believe they are appointed by the Almighty


Interesting indeed, I'll add the quote of Romans 13:1-2


13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

*I encourage all to read on, because it is clear that worldly leaders (i.e. monarchs, presidents, autocratic dictators, emperors...etc) are the topic at hand. Source

The royal families may not believe that they are chosen by God, but unless they give an order that forces one to go against His word, then they can at least rule knowing they have His backing.
I wonder how going to war fits in to all of this with the whole "thou shall not kill" thingy?

Very relevant quote, thanks for the addition.

the Billmeister

p.s.
I'll repeat, once again, that this is exclusively from a judeo-christian viewpoint, but the Japanese emperors, Indian maharajas, Egyptian pharaohs etc... all claimed a divine right, yet did not hold the bible as being absolute truth.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
Answer: No God does not pick Royalty......................WAR chooses Royalty check the history books. e.g Present UK Royalty French, German lineage William the Conqueror.
p.s edit don't count the spouses, their line doesn't count.
edit on 22-1-2011 by DreamerOracle because: (no reason given)


Looking to history, this can obviously not be denied.
Some very relevant posters have brought up the notion of "destiny", so perhaps it was their destiny to conquer or usurp a kingdom... they could, therefore, justify their rule by claiming to be chosen by God.

But, once again, this thread is about what the royal families believe . Once they have claimed the right to rule, and a few generations have come and gone, do the heirs truly believe that they are chosen by God, or do they milk this as a tool of political control?

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by blangger
Money is the ruler of all evil... It is harder for a rich man to get into heaven then it is to put a camel through the eye of a needle.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I understood the Divine Right of Kings to mean that God placed the soul of the person he chose to be monarch each time in the body of the unborn heir to the throne. He wouldn't put the soul of a peasant, or a lazy bum in that body after all.


"And then the Romans came along with their gods that they had borrowed from the Greeks. They invaded Greece and conquered them and stole all their gods and renamed them with Roman names because the Roman gods before that were kind of crap, you know – Jeff, the god of biscuits, and Simon, the god of hairdos. You know, the Greeks had the god of war, the god of thunder, the god of running around and jumping and stuff, so they said,“Oh, let’s get some of those! Thank God they’ve got some real gods, cause we have these crap gods, you know." --Eddie Izzard, Dressed to Kill
edit on 1/23/2011 by linux2216 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Billmeister

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


in a language that seems to find vowels pretty much interchangable....

jesus is referred to as rabbi many times in the scriptures, only, well, traditionally, one of the reqiurements to having that title was to marry, have children, like all good jews were expected to do..



Hay I am not trying to be mean at all here but you are talking about Hebrew. The NT was written in greek which has no such vowel problem. Please do just a little research before diving into this area.


I think that debating biblical semantics is a slippery slope.

It is an oral history, eventually transcribed by a team of scribes, whose tablets were brought together to form the first "official" written records. You are correct that this was in Greek for the New Testament, however it was then translated into Latin which was the most popular version for a long period of history, and subsequently, to all the modern languages of today. We cannot assume that the original message was passed down without alterations.

the Billmeister


Semantics? Are you serious?

For one thing its not an oral history but fisrt parson eye witness account. Also many versions use nothing but the greek and pass over the latin altogether. As far as alterations and assuming the we have very old examples of the greek by which have been shown almost zero alterations when these older documents are compared to the newer copies. You are simply laying out this modern day tripe brewed up to lead the unlearned down the path. This "slippery slope" idea would only come from someone that really didnt know anything about it.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Semantics? Are you serious?

For one thing its not an oral history but fisrt parson eye witness account. Also many versions use nothing but the greek and pass over the latin altogether. As far as alterations and assuming the we have very old examples of the greek by which have been shown almost zero alterations when these older documents are compared to the newer copies. You are simply laying out this modern day tripe brewed up to lead the unlearned down the path. This "slippery slope" idea would only come from someone that really didnt know anything about it.


Yes, in life, as on ATS, I try to keep an open mind, and that is how it was taught to me by my university professor in my "philosophy of the bible" course... he was also a practicing minister.

I imagine you are referring to the apostolic books, because the authors of the other books are unknown, and it is still a debate among biblical scholars today. For example "Acts" is considered by some as a "sequel" to the Gospel of Luke.
In all cases, however, there is no signature, and this is where the debate begins.

The interesting thing is, even with the exact same wording, different schools have emerged because of differing interpretations.

Let me address the question at hand which dealt with Barabbas:



According to early Greek texts, Barabbas' full name was Jesus Barabbas.[8] Later texts shorten his name to just Barabbas.
Abba has been found as a personal name in a First Century burial at Giv'at ja-Mivtar, and Abba also appears as a personal name frequently in the Gemara section of the Talmud, dating from AD 200–400.[9] These findings support "Barabbas" being used to indicate the son of a person named Abba or Abbas (a patronymic).
Abba means "father" in Aramaic, and appears both translated and untranslated in the Gospels. A translation of Bar-Abbas would be son of the father. Jesus often referred to God as "father", and Jesus' use of the Aramaic word Abba survives untranslated in Mark 14:36 (in most English translations). This has led some authors (named below) to speculate that "bar-Abbâ" could actually be a reference to Jesus himself as "son of the father".


It is interesting to note that the apostles, and Jesus' mother tongue was Aramaic, but historic records do indicate that Koine Greek was heavily used in the region.

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   

edit on 25-1-2011 by Billmeister because: Double post... I apologize.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Billmeister

Originally posted by Logarock
Semantics? Are you serious?

For one thing its not an oral history but fisrt parson eye witness account. Also many versions use nothing but the greek and pass over the latin altogether. As far as alterations and assuming the we have very old examples of the greek by which have been shown almost zero alterations when these older documents are compared to the newer copies. You are simply laying out this modern day tripe brewed up to lead the unlearned down the path. This "slippery slope" idea would only come from someone that really didnt know anything about it.


Yes, in life, as on ATS, I try to keep an open mind, and that is how it was taught to me by my university professor in my "philosophy of the bible" course... he was also a practicing minister.

I imagine you are referring to the apostolic books, because the authors of the other books are unknown


What other books? Paul epistles are ect are fairly clear as are others.


and it is still a debate among biblical scholars today. For example "Acts" is considered by some as a "sequel" to the Gospel of Luke.
In all cases, however, there is no signature, and this is where the debate begins.

The interesting thing is, even with the exact same wording, different schools have emerged because of differing interpretations.


This point has nothing to do with your direction that the manuscripts are fouled up. You are just dancing around here. What did you do take one bible related class and now an exbert?




According to early Greek texts, Barabbas' full name was Jesus Barabbas.[8] Later texts shorten his name to just Barabbas.


Ok what or which texts? Name one, name the well know texts used where the name was shortened and which translations were effected.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

What other books? Paul epistles are ect are fairly clear as are others.


I apologize, I'm not quite sure what you mean here.



This point has nothing to do with your direction that the manuscripts are fouled up. You are just dancing around here


I have never claimed that the manuscripts are fouled up my claim was that debating biblical semantics of the documents from which these manuscripts were based can be a "slippery slope". The example that was brought up by another poster, on which this particular tangential discussion is based was of Barabbas.



Some early texts of Matthew present Barabbas' name twice as Jesus bar Abbas. According to the United Bible Societies' text, Matthew 27:17 reads: "...whom will ye that I release unto you? Jesus Barabbas [Greek: Iesous ton Barabbas] or Jesus which is called Christ [Greek: Iesous ton legomenon Christon]?"
source

However, the actual text is not what I was discussing, we were discussing semantics. This example is one where some interpret as Bar (son of) Abbas (Family name... from a Koine Greek interpretation) and some interpret as Bar (son of) The Father (abbas in Aramaic). We can see that the meanings and interpretations can lead to vastly different.


What did you do take one bible related class and now an exbert?


I have never, nor do I claim to be any kind of expert. In fact in other posts, I emphasized that I am NOT, by any means a biblical scholar. I do not read Koine Greek and, unfortunately, have never had access to the original manuscripts to confirm any of this, so I must, in keeping an open mind, allow room for doubt.

This viewpoint, that my professor stressed, is one I try to keep in mind...
GOD is infallible, but by definition humans ARE fallible, therefor, anything produced by a human has a potential for error.

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Some more food for thought, but I really do not want to stray too far from the OP.
Only, it is always very interesting to discuss topics with knowledgeable people such as yourself.

The Catholic New World, in discussing the epistles of Paul:


... when scholars began analyzing the Bible with the tools of literature and history, they noticed that some of the Pauline letters seemed to have a different voice, used different vocabulary and seemed to reflect different, possibly later historical situations than what occurred in Paul’s lifetime. Experts suggested that some of the epistles were written after Paul’s death by close disciples and collaborators who wanted to apply his thought to new circumstances and questions.
Others noticed that parts of the letters did not flow naturally — thoughts are broken off and seem to be picked up later. These scholars proposed that what we have today (For example, the Second Letter to the Corinthians,) is a patched-up document put together from two or more letters by an editor.
These are not farfetched ideas. The ancient world was not as hygienic about authorship as we are. (The book of the Prophet Isaiah seems to reflect not one, not two, but three distinct authors writing as the prophet.)

Source article

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Yes Paul dictated and wrote some in his "own hand".



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 



I looked at the source your posted And found this.


A possible parable
There is no evidence independent of Mark that it was ever the custom at feasts for the Romans to release a prisoner requested by the Jews. No other such release is recorded, even as a passing mention, nor does such a Passover custom appear in the Old Testament. Conversely, Pontius Pilate's historic disregard for Jewish sensibilities and Jewish custom is well documented. From an imperial perspective, such a practice would make no sense, and releasing a prisoner accused of murdering soldiers would certainly undercut morale. This "practice" of releasing a prisoner is said by some analysts to be a literary creation of Mark, who needed to have a contrast to the true "son of the father" in order to set up an edifying contest, in a form of parable.

A critical analysis of possibly fictive elements in Mark's series of ironic parallels, and a comparison with Homer's contest between the beggars for the approval of the suitors in the Odyssey, is laid out in detail in Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark[1] (sol.sci.uop.edu...).



The problem I have with this sort of schoolership is that it comes to wild conclusions based on its lack of ability to discover supporting documents. Now lack of documentation can certainly be a problem. In this case the problem is they have about as much reason to come to their conclusions as they do to believe Mark made the story up. Zero.

Look at this reasoing...


From an imperial perspective, such a practice would make no sense, and releasing a prisoner accused of murdering soldiers would certainly undercut morale.


It really does make sense. The sense of it is right there in the story. Pilate wasnt a political dolt and he saw that the bigger fish here was Jesus King of the Jews. He had the Jews between a rock and a hard place by having to pick between their King and a partisan leader. Either way the Jews were going to stink. Pilate put to death the King and so was able to weaken the Jewish position then by saying that they prefered a political revolutionary. Had the Jews chosen to save their King this would have been an afront to Ceasar even though they were the ones that brought Jesus there in the first place Pilate knew their real heart. Anyone that knows a little Roman histroy knows about thier handeling of the kings of other nations and tribes. In that respect there was an imperial perspective. There are other political intrigues here with respects to Pilate in this area of scripture.

As well, undercutting morale really is a reach. Any soilder knows the politics of being a soilder. When decisions like this are made by your superiors you just keep on soildering. And certainly the soilders knew what was going on here. In fact they took a great deal of pleasure in mocking and beating Jesus....great for morale. The guy that wrote this has been watching to many movies.

In fact I dont see this as a scholarly attempt to come to the truth, but to undermine the bible.

They skip from questioning the veracity of Mark based on their inability to find another sourse to total speculation that isnt very well thought out.


This "practice" of releasing a prisoner is said by some analysts to be a literary creation of Mark, who needed to have a contrast to the true "son of the father" in order to set up an edifying contest, in a form of parable


The fact is Mark did not need a contrast of any sort! There is no edifying contest here either. Thus no parable. Any halfwit should be able to see what they are trying to do here and how their construct is formed to lead the reader down the path.

I pity the way students have been robed of their wits by the educational system we have had in this country for some time.

edit on 26-1-2011 by Logarock because: ex



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


I definitely don't think we are disagreeing.

In fact, and correct me if I'm wrong, we both arrive to the conclusion:
"Do not miss the forest for the trees!"

By this I mean, it is the bible's message that is important, and not a socio-historical, forensic analysis of the original manuscripts and their association to subsequent translations and editions. (Though I'm sure someone has written a very interesting dissertation with that exact title!)

In the same way as actions are more important than words when practicing one's faith, so too is the message more important than the words in studying the bible.

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 



Unless one is trying to distort. I am never going to get along with someones larger picture of the forest that doesnt know his trees. In this case someones defending is faith action enough. I would rather listen to a rank sinner that knows his stuff than some holy dolt.

But back to OP!



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


barabbis is not greek or latin...
it is hebrew, or arabic...
bar...like in bar mitzvah, is hebrew, bar mitzvah means the son of the covenant....mitzvah means the covenent...
so the bar in barabbis is son of....
okay, the last part could be abbis, which is either hebrew or arabic,,,,and hebrew was never that good about vowels...the were usually left ouf of writing. so, it could be abbas..
which means... "lion" in Arabic. (Austere: (1) severely simple in appearance. (2) strict, stern).
abba, is father...
so, we have Jesus....the Son of God.....and then we have Barabbis..which could concievable be translated as the Son of The Father...God.....to add to this that there are a few old documents that have Jesus Barabbis....

so, well, considering that Christ stormed into the temple, overthrew the moneychangers and drove them out of the temple area, well......that barabbis was really more than just a thief, that he was arrested for rioting, well.....
the two could be one, the rabbis could mean rabbi, which they called jesus rabbi, it could have been christ's son....or, barabbis and christ could be one in the same.....
regardless, I can't see how you can say that jesus wasn't prone to disrespecting the ptb of the time!




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join