Are Royal Families really chosen by GOD?

reply to post by Billmeister


Those traditions/beliefs date way way back in history to the times way way before Noah when "the sons of God" did this and that and the other thing with "the daughters of men". See? This starts what is believed to be a bloodline "of God". Right or wrong that's where the idea comes from.

reply to post by Logarock


what god says in prophecy isn't exactly what god disires??
many times, what the prophecy is, is more of an outline of the consequences of past transgressions against god....so for him to say that the decendants on one person will consist of many kings, isn't preordained, or much of anything else, it's just God acknowledging man's freewill to chose his own path, whatever dark road he decides to take.
and well, Christ came to reverse the effects of all those transgressions and provide forgiveness. and he has chosen to work within the hearts of individuals, not through the the authoritarian ruler. For those who chose to follow him, he becomes their kings, their rulers, and well, although they may be going alone with all those silly rules that the authoritarian rulers decide to put into the place, to an extent, well......they do it more out of a courtesy to the world, and in faith that their God can peaceably replace those rulers with a more suitable form of governance over time, and they try to convince others to allow their god to speak to their hearts, and make him their king....so that day can come sooner. but, well, we all have to share this planet and as long as there is a large majority that desires to be ruled by men instead of God, well....they must be allowed to have their free will, and christ's followers really have little choice but to just go along with the charade. But, well, let that authoritarian rule step in between those followers and their God and well.....let's see how compliant they are then!

I am beginning to understand that some posters are commenting on the title of the thread exclusively, however, the actual premise of the thread was this discussion's intended direction.

I will definitely concede that, short of a royal family member participating in the discussion, all we can do is imagine what they are taught and/or believe are the reasons their bloodline(s) is (are) the chosen one(s).

Specifically to Dawnstar and Logarock you have contributed a wealth of insightful opinion to this thread, and for this I thank you.
However, neither of you was able to make the leap of faith to discuss the "what if" theory that Jesus Christ actually had descendants. Both of you emphasize the fact that the bible would have mentioned it if it were true, when I was urging us to use our collective imaginations to bypass this foundation of thought.

So, I ask the question once again, "If Jesus Christ has descendants, could they justifiably claim a divine right to rule?"

We have also, and understandably so, been looking at this from a judeo-christian perspective, but there are many royal families who claim a divine right to rule, who are of faiths other than these. The only examples brought up were of ancient Mayan and Egyptian royalty, but that was in a tangent discussing "demon worship". I would claim, once again, that this was seen exclusively through the judeo-christian perspective, because what we may consider "demons" they actually considered (and clearly called) gods.

the Billmeister

reply to post by Billmeister

no I didn't comment about that at all.....not even to say if it was true...
bar rabbis is translated to mean
son of the rabbi I believe, so was barrabis christ's son?

reply to post by dawnstar

The name was Barabbas.
Not Barabbis.

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..
if barabbis, regardless of how you spell it, was indeed christ's son, the choice that was given to the people seems a tad bit more interesting, doesn't kind of like, which one do you want as your messiah?? the dove, or the lion....and well, they chose the lion, who according to some, was at masada when it fell....

Originally posted by Billmeister
So, I ask the question once again, "If Jesus Christ has descendants, could they justifiably claim a divine right to rule?"

My friend,

I would like to expand your view just a bit. You are looking for a connection to Jesus which is not necessary for a claim to divine right to rule. What seperates royal blood from the blood of commoners? Does it not run red as any other? What blood line do they hail from? Is it not the same blood as Adam, the metaphorical first Man? Has science not confirmed through DNA that we all descend from a common ancestor, or common genetic string? Does not all faith teach that we all descend from the same common seed?

Yes! Yes! and Yes!

We all, each and everyone of us have a direct tie to Jesus Christ. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. We are all related to royalty of one name or another. Every single one of us descend from Adam. Every single one of us are Brothers and Sisters to Abraham, to Buddha, to Krishna, to Muhammed, Obama, Elizabeth, Yaser Arafat, Shimon Perez, Gadafi, Hitler, Mao, Christ, to everyone.

All of us have a divine right to rule. We have a divine obligation to rule. It is our Godly duty to rule.

The question is not who should rule, but what we should rule. That answer is ourselves and only ourselves.

With Love,

Your Brother

then again, there is another theory, it seems that some of the early texts have it as Jesus Barabbis..
Jesus, Son of the Father, or Jesus, Son of the Rabbi.
and well, in reality the two were the same man, and that part of the story is just made up....
Jesus was guilty of launching a revolt.
www.askwhy.co.uk...
and well, the just toned that part of the story to non existance.
but, well, I don't think that mainstream jews believe that Jesus was the messiah, there is some who do...
but, launching a revolt against the roman invaders was what the jews of roman times hoped he would do!
if there are decendant of Jesus, it wouldn't be necessary to find them to restore the line of david to the throne. any desendent that would fit the prophecies would do. since the current jews for the most part reject that he was the messiah, after all, they didn't do what they believed he would be sent to do. but then, there is an antichrist, and there is a christ. so maybe two messiah's will be found.

Originally posted by dawnstar
..what god says in prophecy isn't exactly what god disires??
many times, what the prophecy is, is more of an outline of the consequences of past transgressions against god....so for him to say that the decendants on one person will consist of many kings, isn't preordained, or much of anything else, it's just God acknowledging man's freewill to chose his own path, whatever dark road he decides to take.

You know I have no problem with this but its just not there in that area of scripture. Show me how this comment is more of a resignation to things to come, which god would still have had to know about to be resigned to them anyway. No this is more of a picture of God setting at the controls of human history.

Its safe to say that when one is told something that doesnt take place for hundreds of years that there is some pre-arrangement going on there, outside forces at work and not human path and freewill choice. Freewill is much much less a concept that has any substance when compared to preordaination in scripture. It gets way to much air time. This is becouse freewill is measurable in so many ways easy to wrap the human mind around it, easy to judge self and others by it as if it were some sort of law. But the real law is firend that God interjects himself into things and in some cases starts the ball rolling long before you were born.

reply to post by Logarock

and I could carry this line of reasoning even further...
that each and every person on this planet is right in the exact spot god intends them to be in. weather they are trying to live as a saint, or in some dark alley shooting up drugs that we bought with the money that he stole off the dead guys body after he killed him.
That him being in that dark spot is just part of God's grand plan. but well, that isn't too conducive to the desire for those in power to use the religions to convince the masses to behave themselves very much is it?

if god is omnipresent, he knows what the possible futures are gonna be better than any other power in the universe. maybe he just saw that this was in just about all the possible futures and keow that it would be. and foretold it? ya he might have manipulated a little here and there to bring it about, but the trend in that direction was clearly there.

reply to post by dawnstar


Ok these are good points but they bring no challange to God making statements about some peoples future or the future of nations and people.

Trying to upset this by claiming the dope head behind a dumpster flys in the face of preordination is like trying to make a claim against the father of the "other" kid that went to college instead of dope school.

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 did, and posted what I found....
I believe that God also foretold of the various times that the jewish people were taking captive and led to various countries......the bible claims that this was god's judgement regarding the sins that they were committing, but were they?
or were they merely what he saw as the consequences of those actions that they were making?

even if god did stand up the line of david to be rulers, does that mean that he desires for us to be be like for all time? or did he provide an out for us, since well, this was never his intention to begin with, and susposedly we are to be working for the kingdom of heaven, manifested on the earth...seems to me, that that kingdom would have been more like what he had originally laid out, that what was because of the people's desire to reject those ways.

Given that we have NO EVIDENCE of god's existence, I don't think it really matters. They also didn't have any evidence when the kings/queens first came up...which makes it very clear it's nothing but a way to control the masses.

Just like today's politicians use religion to control the masses.

reply to post by MrXYZ

there really isn't any hard evidence that god doesn't exist either, or that yes, he exists but much of what is said about him was just men putting words in his mouth to control. it is something that each person should be allowed to chose what he wishes to believe.

Originally posted by dawnstar
I did, and posted what I found....
I believe that God also foretold of the various times that the jewish people were taking captive and led to various countries......the bible claims that this was god's judgement regarding the sins that they were committing, but were they?
or were they merely what he saw as the consequences of those actions that they were making?

I could buy into this fair enough if not for the fact that he steped in several times and supernaturaly kicked their enemies rear ends for them. At these points god was more focused on making them the nation he said he would rather than leaving them to the consequences.

even if god did stand up the line of david to be rulers, does that mean that he desires for us to be be like for all time? or did he provide an out for us, since well, this was never his intention to begin with, and susposedly we are to be working for the kingdom of heaven, manifested on the earth...seems to me, that that kingdom would have been more like what he had originally laid out, that what was because of the people's desire to reject those ways.

Ok fair enough but if we go back before the kings we have the prophets and/or the old family patriarch and judges. So in this earthly kingdom without a king where are the others then becouse there was always a leader of some type or another. If we go back to the original lay out were and who are our prophets, judges and so on? The peole were never a leaderless mob.

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

there really isn't any hard evidence that god doesn't exist either, or that yes, he exists but much of what is said about him was just men putting words in his mouth to control. it is something that each person should be allowed to chose what he wishes to believe.

Of course they can believe whatever they want...but for all I care, I need EVIDENCE to believe in something, which explains why I don't believe in god(s) or pink unicorns.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

there really isn't any hard evidence that god doesn't exist either, or that yes, he exists but much of what is said about him was just men putting words in his mouth to control.

Of course they can believe whatever they want...but for all I care, I need EVIDENCE to believe in something, which explains why I don't believe in god(s) or pink unicorns.

Yea or to put wax in peoples ears so they cant hear.

reply to post by IAMIAM


Yes indeed, once again, we are in complete agreement.

I was trying to spur the discussion on, however, I did accentuate that we were taking a heavy judeo-christian approach. However, as those are the roots of, I assume, the majority of us here on ATS, such a slant is almost inevitable, not necessarily negative.

You are a wise person, and I appreciate your posts.

the Billmeister

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Billmeister

 

no I didn't comment about that at all.....not even to say if it was true...
bar rabbis is translated to mean
son of the rabbi I believe, so was barrabis christ's son?

Very interesting, I must admit that I am no biblical scholar.

Though my "philosophy of the bible" course at university was one of the most interesting one's and I keep telling myself that I must go back and reread it, and reread it, and reread it!

the Billmeister