The Resurrection of Jesus is historically probable

Your post above the one I quoted was very good.

Originally posted by MamaJ

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Jesus doesn't fit the bill, unless you are to take a non literal approach to the bible. Seed of David. Since Jesus was born of a virgin, he doesn't come from David's bloodline.

So since we have to take a metaphorical approach to the bible in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, the whole thing is just a spiritual guide, not an historical account of what happened.

He could in fact be the seed of David throught the first man, Adam, who is like, you probably know by now, my vision of Jesus first incarnation to earth, as both were and are the son of God and the son of man, The first and the last.

Completely understand what you're saying. That would be a metaphorical seed, however, they were literally referring to a direct lineage from King David on the fathers side. Since Jesus' true father was no man of earth, we cant take it literally as most Christians would have us do.

I don't mind either way, mind you, I can see some literal truths and metaphorical truths in just about every spiritual book I've read.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by windword

 

You need to fit The Hanged Man in there somewhere.

At least according to fundamental Christian beliefs. But the interesting thing about the Fool is that it's not only the first but also the last card. When you finally find clarity, you become like a child again, which the fool also represents. Children are closer to the truth than most adults are. They see the world in wonder and don't discriminate against it. So you come full circle and realize there was nothing to realize.

edit on 16/8/12 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)

Aren't the translations for Crucifixion in Latin or Greek "hanged?" I remember reading this somewhere.

Edit: Can't find where I read that... it may have been from Latin or Greek, not sure. Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me.

edit on 16-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)

Paul and Luke both refer to the "Hanging" of Jesus, while Matthew, Mark, and John only refer to the "crucifixion," but they don't describe it. Nails are not mentioned anywhere, that I can find anyway.

Classic pictures and reenactments often show the 2 thieves are tied to their crossbar, while Jesus is nailed. But the bible doesn't make that distinction.

edit on 17-8-2012 by windword because: spelling

Thanks for that clarification.

I did some more digging, and it seems there was no word for crucifixion before Christianity. The roots of the word meant stake or gallows and tree. I'm on my phone or I would post some links.

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Jesus doesn't fit the bill, unless you are to take a non literal approach to the bible. Seed of David. Since Jesus was born of a virgin, he doesn't come from David's bloodline.

That's not true, Mary was also of the tribe of Judah and house of David.

So since we have to take a metaphorical approach to the bible in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, the whole thing is just a spiritual guide, not an historical account of what happened.

Not so fast, go check the genealogy of Mary.

reply to post by windword


That's a first century way to refer to a crucifixion. Well, one of a few ways. Even today we say Christ "hung" on the cross. It's just semantics.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Jesus doesn't fit the bill, unless you are to take a non literal approach to the bible. Seed of David. Since Jesus was born of a virgin, he doesn't come from David's bloodline.

That's not true, Mary was also of the tribe of Judah and house of David.

So since we have to take a metaphorical approach to the bible in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, the whole thing is just a spiritual guide, not an historical account of what happened.

Not so fast, go check the genealogy of Mary.

There is no genealogy of Mary in the bible, only Joseph, and Joseph was not Jesus' father.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Yeah, I don't know if Paul and Luke used the same Hebrew/Greek/Latin whatever, word for what happened to Jesus, as Matthew, Mark and John. But, I read, and don't ask me where, that hanging perpetrators from trees was common from way, way back, that some societies were more brutal at times than others.

For example, the Assyrians at one point skinned their criminals alive, paraded them through the streets in cages and then hung them on trees, outside the city.

I don't know if Romans were the first to use nails, or if they always used nails, but hanging was a common, universal sign of punishment.

Not to be confused with lynching type hanging. I have no idea the history of that.

I guess the French felt pretty progressive when they started using the guillotine, huh?

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Jesus doesn't fit the bill, unless you are to take a non literal approach to the bible. Seed of David. Since Jesus was born of a virgin, he doesn't come from David's bloodline.

So since we have to take a metaphorical approach to the bible in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, the whole thing is just a spiritual guide, not an historical account of what happened.

Yeshua's line is established through Mary and Joseph. The rites of adoption in those days would see Jesus as a decendant of Joseph's father Jacob. Because Jesus was not a blood son he wouldn't have the curse of Jeconiah on him (if Jaconiah's grandson didn't lift the curse) so yes, Yeshua does fit.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Jesus doesn't fit the bill, unless you are to take a non literal approach to the bible. Seed of David. Since Jesus was born of a virgin, he doesn't come from David's bloodline.

So since we have to take a metaphorical approach to the bible in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, the whole thing is just a spiritual guide, not an historical account of what happened.

Yeshua's line is established through Mary and Joseph. The rites of adoption in those days would see Jesus as a decendant of Joseph's father Jacob. Because Jesus was not a blood son he wouldn't have the curse of Jeconiah on him (if Jaconiah's grandson didn't lift the curse) so yes, Yeshua does fit.

edit on 17-8-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

Matters relevant to the child's status are determined by the status of the birth parents, not by that of the adoptive parents. The child's status as a Kohein, a Levi, a Jew, and/or a firstborn, are all determined by reference to the birth parents.

Judaism 101

reply to post by windword


Right, gallows, as they used it was not the gallows as we have come to understand. It was basically stake.

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Continued...

Jesus IS THE FLAMING SWORD (adam) cast out of the Garden of Edem and yes it has been a burden. But where they speak of baptism, think reincarnation and IT ALL MAKES PERFECT AND LOGICAL SENSE! :-)

His Grace is that we will upon his return have LIFE with PEACE!

We are still rectifying the beginning. The choice to choose life over knowledge. :-)

You're taking a literal interpretation to Matthew 10:34-36. What he was telling them was the message he came bearing and the faith in him would cause their families to disown them and become their enemies, and turn them in to be imprisoned or executed for apostacy. Case in point look what happened to those who believed in him, their own families were having them stoned to death. He brought the sword of truth to cleave the wicked from the righteous and his believers died for it.

We are not rectifying the beginning, that is not for us to do, that is what Messiah will do when he restores creation to what it was before the fall in the new heaven and earth. For our part we have to make the choice, life or death that much i do agree with you on.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bibledefender

 

A theory will never explain facts.
Historical facts are just stories - his story (the person who wrote it).
There is one universal truth, everything else is a theory.

edit on 16-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Yup. And, listing a bunch of 'if's' does not make a 'fact'. lol

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by bibledefender

 

Oh, and since the burden of proof was in your hands, you should have proved it when I asked you to, instead of wasting your time.

And now I want to debate you on the premise that Unicorns once existed.

We have horses. We have animals with horns. Ergo, Unicorns.

Your turn.

Originally posted by bibledefender

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bibledefender

 

There is nothing great about arguments.
Unless it is the only time you feel life. When the blood is rushing and you feel the heat of life it makes you feel alive.
Some only feel alive when they are in a drama.

edit on 16-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

However there is nothing wrong with debating ideas etc.

You didn't want to debate (discuss) an issue. You wanted to see which one of you could better follow some rules of a debate. And the best follower of the rules wins, making the topic irrelevant.

When you listed a bunch of 'if's in your op, you left yourself wide open for your opponent's very valid challenge of 'prove it.'

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by bibledefender

 

Oh, and since the burden of proof was in your hands, you should have proved it when I asked you to, instead of wasting your time.

And now I want to debate you on the premise that Unicorns once existed.

We have horses. We have animals with horns. Ergo, Unicorns.

Your turn.

"Oh... It... We... have no response. That was perfect."

"That's the way you do it! That's the way you debate!"

Lol.

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Jesus doesn't fit the bill, unless you are to take a non literal approach to the bible. Seed of David. Since Jesus was born of a virgin, he doesn't come from David's bloodline.

That's not true, Mary was also of the tribe of Judah and house of David.

So since we have to take a metaphorical approach to the bible in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, the whole thing is just a spiritual guide, not an historical account of what happened.

Not so fast, go check the genealogy of Mary.

There is no genealogy of Mary in the bible, only Joseph, and Joseph was not Jesus' father.

Yes, it's Christ's genealogy in Luke. Mary's father was Heli. And links to David through his son Nathan.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Yeah, I don't know if Paul and Luke used the same Hebrew/Greek/Latin whatever, word for what happened to Jesus, as Matthew, Mark and John. But, I read, and don't ask me where, that hanging perpetrators from trees was common from way, way back, that some societies were more brutal at times than others.

For example, the Assyrians at one point skinned their criminals alive, paraded them through the streets in cages and then hung them on trees, outside the city.

I don't know if Romans were the first to use nails, or if they always used nails, but hanging was a common, universal sign of punishment.

Not to be confused with lynching type hanging. I have no idea the history of that.

I guess the French felt pretty progressive when they started using the guillotine, huh?

People hung on crosses by Rome were also technically "hung" on trees. They cut the branches from trunks and didnt even take the time to remove the bark. The crossbeam was attached to the trunk of the tree.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


This whole thread has been based around "facts" and theories.

The theory you are proposing is that Luke's description is Mary's lineage.

One of the most widely held theories suggests that Matthew's account follows the lineage of Joseph, while Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This interpretation would mean that Jacob was Joseph's biological father, and Heli (Mary's biological father) became Joseph's surrogate father, thus making Joseph Heli's heir through his marriage to Mary. If Heli had no sons, this would have been the normal custom. Also, if Mary and Joseph lived under the same roof with Heli, his "son-in-law" would have been called "son" and considered a descendent. Although it would have been unusual to trace a genealogy from the maternal side, there was nothing usual about the virgin birth. Additionally, if Mary (Jesus' blood relative) was indeed a direct descendant of David, this would make her son "the seed of David" in keeping with Messianic prophecies.

There is another theory, though.

According to one of the oldest theories, some scholars assign the differences in genealogies to the "Levirate marriage" tradition. This custom said that if a man died without bearing any sons, his brother could then marry his widow, and their sons would carry on the dead man's name. For this theory to hold up, it would mean that Joseph, the father of Jesus, had both a legal father (Heli) and a biological father (Jacob), through a Levirate marriage. The theory suggests that Joseph's grandfathers (Matthan according to Matthew; Matthat according to Luke) were brothers, both married to the same woman, one after the other. This would make Matthan's son (Jacob) Joseph's biological father, and Matthat's son (Heli) Joseph's legal father. Matthew's account would trace Jesus' primary (biological) lineage, and Luke's record would follow Jesus' legal lineage.

about.com

What I find odd, though, is that somehow Luke's description is Mary's genealogy, yet Matthew is the one who mentions she is the wife of Joseph.

None of it matters, though, because he must be a descendant of the seed of David on his father's side

I have been reading ATS for a while but this thread encouraged me to join.

I would suggest reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins if you want to learn of the origins of religion.

We have to acknowledge that the scriptures were written hundreds of years after the supposed events and many scriptures conflicted with others. Constantine decided which scriptures would go into the bible and there are still conflictions. I would suggest that the bible is omitted as a source of evidence as it is basically a fictional book rather than recorded facts.

I don't like how you want us to use evidence to prove that there was no resurrection. There is no good proof that Jesus even existed so how are we meant to prove he was even crucified. There is no historical record of the crucifixion.

I could suggest to you the celestial teapot scenario whereby I tell you that there is a teapot orbiting somewhere between earth and mars. We both 'know' there is no teapot but you cannot prove to me that there is no teapot. By your logic that would mean that the teapot is there. In return we both 'know' that there is no god but how can I prove to you that something that isn't there isn't there?

reply to post by GafferUK1981


Richard Dawkins cannot really comment, if he does not know God then he does not know God. All he can do is comment on the God in a book.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Like my self Richard Dawkins is an atheist. Atheism is a natural progression, we first had polytheism - many gods, ie. Greek and roman. We then had and still have monotheism - one god, ie. Islam and Christianity. Now we have atheism - no god, the enlightened and intellectual elite.

Science has only ever reinforced atheism, do many biblical facts if the universe have been disproved by science. In my personal opinion if the bible is the word of god and god is omniscient then everything in the bible must be true. But if one thing in the bible is false then I believe it all must be as any errors show there is no god.