The Resurrection of Jesus is historically probable, page 9

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 18-8-2012 @ 08:06 PM by mkmasn

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by mkmasn

Who cares what the Jews say?

I rest my case.

And, it's a theory because there is no proof. Even the so called lineage doesn't prove anything.

I'm done discussing this with you.

Okay, by that logic the Nazi's said the Holocaust never happened, must not have happened correct? Address the remainder of my post. What the Jews acknowledge is irrelevant. And "doesn't prove anything"? It proves your claim was inaccurate that Jesus was not a descendant of David, His mother is a direct relative through her father Heli.

edit on 18-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

So, just to get this straight...

Your theory proves "my" claim that Jesus wasn't a descendant to David.

Your theory doesn't prove anything. My claim was that the Jews don't believe Jesus to be their messiah because of the reason I stated.

But, since you can't read my posts, you decided, "Who cares what the Jews say?"

Thanks for letting me clarify.

NOW I'm done discussing this with you.

edit on 18-8-2012 by mkmasn because: had to fix your quote

reply posted on 18-8-2012 @ 08:09 PM by mkmasn

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by mkmasn

Okay bro, if its that important for you to believe Mary was not related to David be my guest. I do think you're doing so because of ego and not wanting to admit there is something you were not aware of. Heli was Mary's father.

Again, it doesn't matter. Mary can be God, for all I care. My ego has nothing to do with it.

Jews do not believe Jesus to be their messiah because he is not from the seed of David on his father's side. That's not the only reason, but it's a very simple one, which you've insisted on drawing out.

You're stating a theory, of which there are multiple.
edit on 18-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)

It seems to me that the whole lineage question is just highlighted more, the more we understand genetics. If Jesus truly was born from a virgin, and had no father, what proof do have that God even used Mary's egg? She may have just been a surrogate for God and Mrs God, and had no genetic influence at all.

The virgin birth throws the whole lineage thing down the drain, in my opinion.

Another thing. If Jesus had this awesome God DNA, why didn't he have children and share the perfection factor with the rest of humanity. How can we hope to be Jesus like if his DNA wasn't even human, and continues to elude us genetically?
edit on 18-8-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

Nice outside the box thinking.

Never thought about that, but it's a good one.

reply posted on 18-8-2012 @ 09:10 PM by NOTurTypical

reply to post by mkmasn

Why do you keep saying my theory? I didn't write the gospel according to Luke. Heli was Mary's father and his lineage goes to David through his son Nathan. So what do you have to refute the genealogy in Luke? Just that "Jews deny it"? Not only is that arbitrary but that's not "proof". Obviously some Jews didn't deny it because Christianity was began by Jews. I've even shown protocol in the Torah for inheritance and family heritage to pass to the eldest daughter if the father has no sons. And there is no references anywhere that Heli had a son or that Mary had a brother.

edit on 18-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-8-2012 @ 09:46 PM by mkmasn

You are stating a theory. The genealogy CLEARLY does not say it is Mary's. Read it. Go ahead. You know what? I'll post it for you.
Luke 3

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Wow. Who'da thunk it? No Mary.

Let's look at Matthew, too.
Matthew 1

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke says, VERY CLEARLY, Heli was JOSEPH's father, NOT MARY's. Then, Matthew CONTRADICTS Luke and says Jacob is JOSEPH's father.

The reason why you are stating a THEORY is because there IS a contradiction with NO EXPLANATION in the bible, except what YOU CAN ONLY ASSUME to be the one that proves Jesus is the Messiah. THERE IS NO PROOF.

If it weren't a THEORY, Jews wouldn't be Jews, they would be Christians, wouldn't they? But they're not. They're Jews who don't believe Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecy of the old testament.

But YOU'RE right. Not the Jews, because, "Who cares what the Jews say," right?

I can't believe I had to explain this to you repeatedly and the only thing you could say is

So what do you have to refute the genealogy in Luke?

I don't have to refute anything, there is nothing to refute. Except a theory WITH NO PROOF, being argued because of a claim I DIDN'T MAKE.

edit on 18-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-8-2012 @ 10:06 PM by NOTurTypical

reply to post by mkmasn

The name of Joseph's father was also Heli, it was a common name. The Jewish Talmud also states that Mary's dad was named Heli. ( Chagigah 77:4). It's like two married people who both had fathers with the name of John. Jacob was Joseph's blood father, Heli was his father is law. Jacob and Heli were half-brothers, their children married. (Mary and Joseph)... both were of the tribe of Judah and the house of David.

reply posted on 18-8-2012 @ 10:25 PM by mkmasn

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by mkmasn

The name of Joseph's father was also Heli, it was a common name. The Jewish Talmud also states that Mary's dad was named Heli. ( Chagigah 77:4). It's like two married people who both had fathers with the name of John. Jacob was Joseph's blood father, Heli was his father is law. Jacob and Heli were half-brothers, their children married. (Mary and Joseph)... both were of the tribe of Judah and the house of David.

Right. So a possible reference to Mary makes your theory true? This is also taking into account the Miriam in the Talmud is really Mary, and the translation of LYBSLYM does not actually translate to Heli or even Eli.
Source

So why then wouldn't the Jews think Jesus was their messiah, even though there's a possible reference to Mary's lineage in one of their own Holy books?

You don't have to convince me, as I've already said. It's the millions of Jews who don't believe Jesus to be their messiah who you have to convince. Shouldn't be too hard with that possible reference to Mary in the Talmud.

edit on 18-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-8-2012 @ 10:26 PM by NewAgeMan

Here's my two cents on the issue, for whatever it's worth

-----------------------------------

While daVinci's Painting is indeed very funny, I don't think it captures the essense of what Jesus was intending, post-resurrection, which involved, I am convinced, an act of courage equal to what he was facing pre-crucifixion, which would involve the courage, to be happy, and to generate the domain of heavenly bliss and joy neccessary to "prepare a place" for his followers in this case, a heaven on earth (instead of ah.. beamed straight up). Furthermore, I don't think that Jesus did the actual planning by which he would "thread the needle", but instead "put it out there" ie: "there's something greater than Jonah here. Let all those with the ears to hear, hear" and allowed the causal effects of his workings, at all levels, to take care of the rest. In other words that he was entirely faithful and obediant unto death. For still further clarification on how this may have come about, or been brought about, and likely did (or something very close to it), this post I made I think explains the dynamic fairly well.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by jmdewey60

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NewAgeMan

. . . the bulk of the Gospels holds water and there is most assuredly a historical Jesus present in the midst of it all, it's unmistakable.
Paul said Jesus was resurrected, and that is the main thing and different Gospel writers can describe what they think happened when that fact was discovered and I don't think it is so defeating to their integrity that they don't match up. It could be there was an inclination to add some profundity to the telling that kind of goes over our heads today, not being in the same sort of cultural milieu as they were.
I think it is helpful to me to know that there are little hidden messages built in and to be open to finding them. I have been reading a couple authors who have spotted those things and I seek those out (in addition to the more mainstream sort of interpreters of course).

What, you don't think Jesus completed the whole ritual and finished what he started? Don't be absurd, it's no FUN without the resurrection, and it means everything. Did he totally die DIE? I don't care, all I know in examining the whole thing is that it was meaningful and that he knew what he was doing, and that he was obediant unto death. If his resurrection was "seeded" into the minds of people like Nocodemus and Joseph of Aramathea, or even a certain Roman soldier, that they came to recognize and understanding what he was doing, made it possible, makes no difference if Jesus was himself double-blind going into the ordeal, and suffer grievously he certainly did either way. I think he made it through by a mere thread, but that's just me. Nevertheless, the whole ritual as an enactment of an eternal evolutionary process of death and resurrection still functions, within the entire frame of prophecy, to a t (literally) That it was done in conjuction with the natural order also of the clockwork and the prophetic, communicative movement of the moon, the sun and the starry skies, well, let's just say it's the whole work, whether Jesus completely and utterly DIED and came back to life, or not!

Don't you see the marvel in it, in what he did, and why?

Read the passage involving the Road to Emmeus, and note how the resurrected Jesus, while still bearing physical wounds (now well on the mend), talked with his friends and explained everything to them, while employing the art of disguise, even asking for food when he was hungry, and you'll see. He made it! He went thorugh the eye of the needle, a "camel" or water bearer, across the desert of human history!

But he didn't know precisely HOW it was going to happen, until it happened, until he woke up naked, or bandaged, in that tomb, enough water to go three days, not even knowing until it happened how or who orchestrated it ie: he left it in God's hands. Mind you, upon awakening and realizing what happened, I'm sure he danced around in that tomb while praising God and shouted out, NICODEMUS! And laughing his ass off no doubt too!

And note the men in dazzling white, who the women encountered when they went to the tomb to treat the body as per custom, and what they said (no doubt there again either) with a very big smile..

When you consider the principal at the heart of it, it doesn't matter if there ARE any bones, because it's the kind of thing you just can't make any bones about!

The Humbled and Exalted Christ

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

~ Philippians 2:5-11
(Italics as it is written here)
www.biblegateway.com...

No doubt that he WAS crucified either.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

The Day of the Cross
www.bethlehemstar.net...

I wonder if the Jews became aware of the signs that accompanied Jesus' life and Great Work, if they would be convinced..?

See the link in my signature for more.

Best Regards,

NAM

edit on 18-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-8-2012 @ 10:40 PM by NewAgeMan

reply to post by mkmasn

The gospels both reveal and hide having been written as apocrypha, and there's a reason for Jesus' lineage problem, which isn't relevant really when what is born of flesh is flesh but of spirit, spirit.

reply posted on 18-8-2012 @ 10:42 PM by NOTurTypical

reply to post by mkmasn

What about the Jews who said Jesus was their Messiah? Why are they irrelevant? The Messiah had to come before the 2nd temple was destroyed, and Daniel prophesied to the exact day that He would come through the eastern gate and be presented as the Moshiyach Nagid. (Messiah the King). 10th of Nisan, 32 AD. He would be born of a virgin, be born in Bethlehem, would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, would die with the wicked and be buried with the rich.

Who else holds that same resume besides Jesus of Nazareth? And why do I need to convince millions of Jews? Furthermore, bringing up any number of people who believe anything as some sort of proof is just an argumentum ad populum.

edit on 18-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-8-2012 @ 10:46 PM by NewAgeMan

reply to post by NOTurTypical

According to this, the prophecy of Gabriel to Daniel even got the very day of the cross correct..! That's quite something, especially when it can also be verified according to an astonomical occurance coinciding with the passover, which Jesus recognized as a sign from his father pointing to the Great Work he was to perform.

edit on 18-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-8-2012 @ 11:46 PM by mkmasn

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by mkmasn

What about the Jews who said Jesus was their Messiah? Why are they irrelevant?

You tell me. You're the guy who said "Who cares what the Jews say?"

Jews can be Jewish by ethnicity or religion. An ethnic Jew who believes Jesus is the Messiah would be a Christian Jew. A Jew who practices Judaism would not be Christian. I can't believe we need to clarify this in a thread about religion.

I'm going back to being done discussing this with you. For some reason you think I am debating you, yet you can't even debate against my point. If we were debating, you'd be Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point).

I respect your beliefs, the same way I do everyone in regards to God. I'm not trying to convince anyone God doesn't exist, or Jesus wasn't the messiah, which is where I think you're misunderstanding me. I personally don't believe Jesus is our savior, but who's to say I'm right? But I will argue FOR God, so we have that in common.

I'm not a person who's going to list contradictions and say it makes the bible false. I'll point out contradictions within a certain context, but you will never hear me say any religion is wrong. I tend to think the premise behind Buddhism is correct, but if you eliminate the beef of most religions, the premise is correct within them as well... Buddhism just tends to simplify it.

The most important thing about religion, in my opinion, is that there is a moral story behind it. Living in goodness and treating people how you'd like to be treated are universals across most religions, and there's a reason why.

I do not consider myself a Buddhist, nor a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, or any other religion you can think of. I believe in God. One God worshipped 7 billion different ways.

So, I'm sorry we haven't come to an accord, but in the premise of our discussion, you were trying to prove Jesus as messiah, when I used the Jewish belief of not believing in Jesus as messiah to provide an example of why Jews, Christians and Muslims are not the same, religion-wise.

edit on 19-8-2012 by mkmasn because: spelling, finished my thoughts.

reply posted on 19-8-2012 @ 10:20 AM by MamaJ

This for me sums it up pretty good. No doubt Jesus is through the line of David! Forget about biological sense.... He was the first man who indeed HAD the tainted blood of a human... In my opinion.

This link though can sum it up....

www.gotquestions.org...

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 12:01 AM by bibledefender

Hello folks. Finally got a chance to write. Alot of interesting posts! And again, some not so

. I was just wondering, if there is anyone willing to have a formal debate on the historical evidence for the Resurrection. Yes a one on one, moderated debate. I am not a big fan of forums. For example, there are some posts that are entirely off topic

Using guidelines used by secular historians. Each side will have to provide historical evidence for thier claims. (Anyone can make empty claims) 10 posts each. 5 day reply deadline.

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 03:02 AM by eight bits

bibledefender

Well, I am a little confused. You mentioned a debate, but then you didn't have much time, but then you mentioned a debate again, and now you propose a long (ten posts each) debate.

No matter. I am not a historian, so I cannot imagine anybody being so interested in what I have to say as to sit on the sidelines, unable to contribute their own views, while I recite mine in alternation with yours. Also, and maybe it's because I'm an agnostic, but I have little to gain from persuading anybody that the Resurrection didn't happen, if such a thing were even possible.

However, I would appreciate an answer to the question which I posed to you before you left for the weekend (which I hope you enjoyed), which was

Thee: Well then what about the testimony of the witnesses to the resurrection?

Me: What witnesses?

Thank you.

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 05:44 AM by bibledefender

Originally posted by eight bits
bibledefender

Well, I am a little confused. You mentioned a debate, but then you didn't have much time, but then you mentioned a debate again, and now you propose a long (ten posts each) debate.

No matter. I am not a historian, so I cannot imagine anybody being so interested in what I have to say as to sit on the sidelines, unable to contribute their own views, while I recite mine in alternation with yours. Also, and maybe it's because I'm an agnostic, but I have little to gain from persuading anybody that the Resurrection didn't happen, if such a thing were even possible.

However, I would appreciate an answer to the question which I posed to you before you left for the weekend (which I hope you enjoyed), which was

Thee: Well then what about the testimony of the witnesses to the resurrection?

Me: What witnesses?

Thank you.

Yeah, sked changed a little. Without tipping my hand too much, I would answer your question. The witnesses I am talking about are those who saw Jesus alive after he died and was burried. That is all I will say for now, if you want to challenge that, put it in the debate.

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 06:32 AM by MamaJ

reply to post by bibledefender

You have to be present to debate and it's a forum so you have many posts to go back to and cite as much Proof to your claims when arguing with each post you disagree with.

Historically speaking, there's just not much proof ( facts) more than there is an opinion/ theory.

Many scholars disagree what resurrection even stands for as I side with the ones who believe it to be rebirth of the soul. :-)

Again, you have many pages to go back to if you really want to debate.

Go for it!

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 06:43 AM by bibledefender

No maam, I would start a new thread in the One-on-One Debate forums which are moderated and only a one on one discussion.

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 07:13 AM by MamaJ

reply to post by bibledefender

Oh...ok. Hmmmmm. Well I would be willing to debate Reincarnation and Karma being Laws of Nature.

In my opinion one cannot prove Jesus resurrected, we were not there and there is no evidence, just heresy.

One can prove reincarnation and karma though. :-)

edit on 20-8-2012 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 07:23 AM by bibledefender

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by bibledefender

Oh...ok. Hmmmmm. Well I would be willing to debate Reincarnation and Karma being Laws of Nature.

In my opinion one cannot prove Jesus resurrected, we were not there and there is no evidence, just heresy.

One can prove reincarnation and karma though. :-)
edit on 20-8-2012 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)

That sounds like an a-priori statement. Have you even looked at the evidence? What would you consider evidence? Have you employed the same aguidelines as historians when weighing the evidence?

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 08:10 AM by eight bits

bd and MamaJ

The lady has a point. You would have a better debate if it was the Resurrection versus something in particular, rather than just probably happened vs. probably didn't.

Although "prove it" may have been a bit too terse