The Resurrection of Jesus is historically probable

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by mkmasn

 

Not true, there is an old testament "loophole" for fathers to pass the birthright, blessing, and inheritance to the oldest daughter if he has no sons:

Numbers 27:8:

"Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."

Numbers 36:6-7:

"This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."


Also take note of the genealogy in Matthew and you will notice a female's name, that of Ruth. Mary was of the seed of David through his son Nathan, and Joseph was if the seed of David through his son Solomon.

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

I've already shown that matters of status are determined by birth parents, not adoptive parents. Which means Joseph's lineage doesn't matter, and since it had to be on his fathers side, not mothers, it doesn't work.

In Matthew's genealogy, you'll also see the name of Mary, but not in Luke. That's what's odd, not that there are no womens names.

I don't know why we're arguing lineage... The point is that Jews are not Christians or Muslims, Christians are not Jews or Muslims, and Muslims are not Christians or Jews.

reply to post by mkmasn


It does NOT "have" to be on the father's side dogmatically. I just showed the protocol under the law if a father had no sons. There is no mention of Heli having sons or Mary having brothers. Her lineage goes directly to David through Nathan. What is all this drama for? I simple stated earlier that both Mary and Joseph were ofthe house of David. Christ certainly was a blood relative of the famous king through Mary.

Originally posted by mkmasn

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

no drama at all, but we've already gone over this. They're both theories...

reply to post by mkmasn


Please can you tell me if the god you believe in is Abrahamic or Aristotlean?

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by mkmasn

 

Please can you tell me if the god you believe in is Abrahamic or Aristotlean?

Does it matter?

God is God. We can name a million Gods and say they exist, but it's all just manifestations of one God. There are currently just about 7 billion different ways to have faith in God.

reply to post by mkmasn


Have you ever considered that there may not even be one god. The evidence could be right, ti be fair after thousands of years you would think there would be some evidence if gods existence but there isn't.

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by mkmasn

 

Have you ever considered that there may not even be one god. The evidence could be right, ti be fair after thousands of years you would think there would be some evidence if gods existence but there isn't.

Yes, I've considered it, but then everything would be attributed to chance. An infinitesimally small chance.

Have you ever considered that in order for the universe to be created, the universe would have to break the laws of physics?

The only thing that can break the laws of physics is God, since the laws of physics do not apply to God.

reply to post by mkmasn


I have considered that but you then have to ask if there is a god how was he created and that itself creates more questions than answers.

I think there is better odds that the universe was created without a god

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by mkmasn

 

I have considered that but you then have to ask if there is a god how was he created and that itself creates more questions than answers.

I think there is better odds that the universe was created without a god

I don't think you fully understand the odds...

Infinitesimally small that the universe was created, infinitesimally small this galaxy was created, infinitesimally small earth harbored living conditions, infinitesimally small a single celled organism evolved, infinitesimally small that single celled organism evolved into a multi cell organism, infinitesimally small the multi celled organism evolved into man.

That's just a very simple rundown. Each chance of something happening compounds on the chance of something else happening, which compounds on the chance of something else happening.

The odds of science's view become almost an impossibility when viewed as a probability. Plus, in order for that impossibility to happen, the laws of physics need to be broken for the entire thing to occur. Which makes the impossible chance of everything occurring without a God literally impossible.

That means:

Science: Impossible.
God: Possible.

Edit:
Yes, you've brought up a good point, there are more questions. But they are the same questions, which ultimately lead back to the same answer.

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.

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.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Where do the laws of physics need to be broken? From the big bang onwards the laws of physics have worked just fine and a god has been unnecessary. Granted we don't yet know what started the big bang but saying god did if us s lazy answer.

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Where do the laws of physics need to be broken? From the big bang onwards the laws of physics have worked just fine and a god has been unnecessary. Granted we don't yet know what started the big bang but saying god did if us s lazy answer.

Newtons laws of momentum make it very clear objects dont just start moving around and imploding for no reason. Let's call that reason God, because no matter how far back science is able to prove, there will be that one original burst of energy that put the whole thing in motion science will NEVER be able to prove.

reply to post by mkmasn


You are correct, that one incident is unknown but by no means should the conclusion ever be god did it because as I said that raises more questions than answers.

In the past god supposedly did a lot of things but science has proved them all wrong. The last hope for theists is the big bang which is ironic as according to the bible god created the earth in six days but we know that's complete rubbish. Theists have now disregarded that and latched onto the big bang as their last resort and eventually science will again dismiss that too.

What iscreligion left with? The god of the gaps! The rule of thumb is that if we do not know the answer then god did it. How utterly preposterous and lazy a notion that is.

I'm really sorry but although religion may be increasing in numbers, well Islam not Christianity, it's days are still numbered amongst the intellectual elite

reply to post by mkmasn


How is it a theory? Heli is her father and he is a descendant of Nathan, David's son. Who cares what the Jews say? David was her great great great grandfather by blood. How is that a theory?

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.

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by mkmasn

 

You are correct, that one incident is unknown but by no means should the conclusion ever be god did it because as I said that raises more questions than answers.

In the past god supposedly did a lot of things but science has proved them all wrong. The last hope for theists is the big bang which is ironic as according to the bible god created the earth in six days but we know that's complete rubbish. Theists have now disregarded that and latched onto the big bang as their last resort and eventually science will again dismiss that too.

What iscreligion left with? The god of the gaps! The rule of thumb is that if we do not know the answer then god did it. How utterly preposterous and lazy a notion that is.

I'm really sorry but although religion may be increasing in numbers, well Islam not Christianity, it's days are still numbered amongst the intellectual elite

I addressed your new questions.

You will continually have new questions which will ultimately lead to the same answer. For every "beginning" science proves, the question will be what caused it?

The "intellectual elite" as you call them, are comprised of not just scientists. Scholars of all different types are included, even Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Pagans.

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Where do the laws of physics need to be broken? From the big bang onwards the laws of physics have worked just fine and a god has been unnecessary. Granted we don't yet know what started the big bang but saying god did if us s lazy answer.

In your own words please explain the "Big Bang". How familiar are you with physics?

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.

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?