The Tomb of Jesus Found - With His Remains? [Archive]

Sparko

February 27th 2007, 01:24 AM

Well the point they are making in the program is that if Jesus and Mary M. are not related biologically and yet they were burried in the same family tomb they must be related through marriage.

how do they even know if they were of the same generation? Mary could be his great aunt for all they know. Or grandson's wife. They said at least 4 generations were probably buried there. And there is an ajacent cave with even more ossuaries that could be relatives too. Not to mention they said the tomb was broken into a long time ago and there is no telling what was done in the tombs, what was moved around, or anything. there are just way too many unknowns and variables for them to make such specific claims as they seem to be making in the news stories about this show. I guess we will have to wait till it comes out next week, but that is my impression so far. Way too much bias on way too little info.

Just remember to keep as much skepticism about this find as you would any other such find dealing with religous figures. Just like some zealots like to take any find and claim it proves such and such religion (like the 'shroud of turin' folks, or the 'noah's ark has been found' people) there are just as many zeolots that want to disprove a religion. They will take any scrap of info and blow it out of proportion and claim it proves whatever they wish to claim.

mossrose

February 27th 2007, 12:00 PM

Well the point they are making in the program is that if Jesus and Mary M. are not related biologically and yet they were burried in the same family tomb they must be related through marriage.
The "crock" part is that they "found" ANY remains of Jesus.

He isn't there, He rose from the dead! There is nothing to find!

Maybe Mary married one of His brothers.

Or maybe it isn't the Mr. and Mrs. Joseph family plot at all. I am sure there were tons of people named Mary and Joseph who lived during that time.

Good grief, people! The issue here is not whether Jesus was married to Mary, but whether He rose from the dead or not! Besides, He was laid in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, not his familial one.

SteveF

February 27th 2007, 12:06 PM

Well, I wonder what descendant of Mary and/or Joseph and/or Jesus they are using to compare the DNA with.

What a crock, people.

:ahem:

My first thought was that James Cameron was hoping to DNA test God. His ego is certainly big enough to make him try.

Teallaura

February 27th 2007, 01:56 PM

My first thought was that James Cameron was hoping to DNA test God. His ego is certainly big enough to make him try.
:lmbo:

Teallaura

February 27th 2007, 02:00 PM

the reason they are checking the DNA "residue" is because their ARE no bones. they probably decayed long ago to dust. They are probably checking the dust.
The bones were removed and reburied back in the Eighties per Jewish custom.

Oh, and they don't know that the two weren't related (even assuming that they got the right DNA and it wasn't contaminated et al). They used mitochrodrial DNA so all they can say is that the two didn't share the same mom. Could have been paternally related step siblings or cousins and there would be no way to know.

Sparko

February 27th 2007, 03:12 PM

yeah there are way too many holes for them to be making specific claims about who these people are or what their relationships were.

Rusty T

February 27th 2007, 03:20 PM

Maybe I've read this all wrong, but didn't the researchers use Jerusalem proper as their population in calculating their statistics? Why not all of Palestine, considering that Jesus was from Galilee? If Jesus Christ, from Galilee could be buried in a Jerusalem tomb - why not Jesus from anywhere else in the whole of Palestine?

rusty

Sparko

February 27th 2007, 03:47 PM

Good thing they didn't find this tomb in Mexico. Everyone there is named Jesus, Maria and Jose.

JackC

February 27th 2007, 03:47 PM

The "crock" part is that they "found" ANY remains of Jesus.

He isn't there, He rose from the dead! There is nothing to find!

Maybe Mary married one of His brothers.

Or maybe it isn't the Mr. and Mrs. Joseph family plot at all. I am sure there were tons of people named Mary and Joseph who lived during that time.

Good grief, people! The issue here is not whether Jesus was married to Mary, but whether He rose from the dead or not! Besides, He was laid in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, not his familial one.

Knowing humanity, I doubt that this is the the find that they are claiming, however why does being raised from the dead imply that Jesus ascended to Heaven with His physical body?

I have heard that 'in the clouds' is a metaphor for the firmament or the ethereal plane upon which the physical rests and so could it not be possible that Jesus ascended leaving His physical body here, therefore it needing to be re-buried?

I mean really, it is a long strength to say that Heaven is in physical form or a place that supports physical form.

And scripture does say that flesh and blood returns to dust and cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

So it is certainly possible, and not unbiblical, that Jesus resurrected in a pseudo-physical form - a transfigured form (one different from what we don, but still able to move and function in the physical), but this form was discarded at ascension, being only clothing for this world?

His soul and Spirit ascending into Heaven?

Jack

Sparko

February 27th 2007, 04:16 PM

Knowing humanity, I doubt that this is the the find that they are claiming, however why does being raised from the dead imply that Jesus ascended to Heaven with His physical body?

I have heard that 'in the clouds' is a metaphor for the firmament or the ethereal plane upon which the physical rests and so could it not be possible that Jesus ascended leaving His physical body here, therefore it needing to be re-buried?

I mean really, it is a long strength to say that Heaven is in physical form or a place that supports physical form.

And scripture does say that flesh and blood returns to dust and cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

So it is certainly possible, and not unbiblical, that Jesus resurrected in a pseudo-physical form - a transfigured form (one different from what we don, but still able to move and function in the physical), but this form was discarded at ascension, being only clothing for this world?

His soul and Spirit ascending into Heaven?

Jack

That's completely heretical. Not to mention goes against what is told in Acts, where they watch Jesus physically rise into the clouds and are told by an angel he will return the same way. They didnt go "Hey look! he left his body behind. Let's bury it!"

and if you are talking about the resurrection itself, remember they went to the tomb and found no body. It wasn't like they found a body and then saw Jesus standing there too.

Teallaura

February 27th 2007, 04:21 PM

Um, because the Apostle's touched Him and He made a point of demonstrating that He was physically present. That is something of an indication of a physical resurrection. If He was physically resurrected then it's kinda dumb to assume He only ascended spiritually. Makes the Apostles even dumber - his physical body remains behind but they keep staring up into the clouds until an angel finally tells them to give it a rest? Why?

I'm going over to Archeology and see if someone's trotted out the 'peer reviewed paper' canard yet. :teeth:

Scruffy

February 27th 2007, 04:23 PM

and if you are talking about the resurrection itself, remember they went to the tomb and found no body. It wasn't like they found a body and then saw Jesus standing there too.

Going to the tomb and finding it empty are probably ancient ritual acts.

"The empty tomb theme is a common device in hero stories that are intended as an apotheosis and Dr. Price gave numerous examples of heroes who vanished suddenly at a significant time to become one with the gods, but with others trying to find him. In these sorts of stories one does not need a resurrection account, and as mentioned, Paul does not go for a reanimated dead body traipsing about. The evolution of the hero myth shows it growing ever more mystical over time, creating what our presenter called the Stained Glass Curtain, which occludes any clear vision into anything that may have actually transpired or in really knowing Jesus’ personhood. The late Joseph Campbell used to say that myths are other people’s religion. A problem occurs for the believer when s/he consigns a certain category of archetypal stories to mythology, and then her/his own religious beliefs and characters that s/he worships reflect the same storytelling devices as those s/he believes to be mythical stories only."
http://www.freethoughtassociation.org/minutes/2006/May10-2006.htm

Sparko

February 27th 2007, 04:29 PM

Going to the tomb and finding it empty are probably ancient ritual acts.

"The empty tomb theme is a common device in hero stories that are intended as an apotheosis and Dr. Price gave numerous examples of heroes who vanished suddenly at a significant time to become one with the gods, but with others trying to find him. In these sorts of stories one does not need a resurrection account, and as mentioned, Paul does not go for a reanimated dead body traipsing about. The evolution of the hero myth shows it growing ever more mystical over time, creating what our presenter called the Stained Glass Curtain, which occludes any clear vision into anything that may have actually transpired or in really knowing Jesus’ personhood. The late Joseph Campbell used to say that myths are other people’s religion. A problem occurs for the believer when s/he consigns a certain category of archetypal stories to mythology, and then her/his own religious beliefs and characters that s/he worships reflect the same storytelling devices as those s/he believes to be mythical stories only."
http://www.freethoughtassociation.org/minutes/2006/May10-2006.htm

:lmbo:

Scruffy, if the remains ARE Jesus then Christianity is false. It's as simple as that. JackC was trying to come up with a way that Christianity could still be true and it really be the body of Jesus in the tomb. Your argument basically just calls the Apostles liars and would, if true, fit in with "if the remains ARE Jesus then Christianity is false" conclusion.

Thanks for playing though.

Scruffy

February 27th 2007, 05:09 PM

Scruffy, if the remains ARE Jesus then Christianity is false.

Literally/exoterically false, not necessarily mystically/metaphorically/esoterically false.

JackC

February 27th 2007, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Sparko
Scruffy, if the remains ARE Jesus then Christianity is false.

Literally/exoterically false, not necessarily mystically/metaphorically/esoterically false.

My belief in Christ is not shaken whether or not this finding is real.

When Jesus said believe in the Only Begotten Son, He was not referring to his flesh and blood, which was begotten of Mary, but to what in Him was Begotten before the foundations of this world - and this world includes all the flesh and blood that is found here - dead or alive.

And belief in that cannot be shaken, no matter what mankind discovers or decides.

Jack

Sparko

February 27th 2007, 05:38 PM

My belief in Christ is not shaken whether or not this finding is real.

When Jesus said believe in the Only Begotten Son, He was not referring to his flesh and blood, which was begotten of Mary, but to what in Him was Begotten before the foundations of this world - and this world includes all the flesh and blood that is found here - dead or alive.

And belief in that cannot be shaken, no matter what mankind discovers or decides.

Jack

Don't worry Jack. there is no way to PROVE this was Jesus of Nazareth. The best they can do is toss out conjecture.

But if there WERE a way to absolutely prove without a doubt that they had found Jesus' body, then Christianity would be false because Jesus would not have resurrected.

Christianity rests on the resurrection of Christ.

1 Cor2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

If Christ did not rise from the dead then our faith is in vain.

That is why detractors of Christianity love when stuff like this tomb thing pop up and they all seem to jump on the bandwagon.

JackC

February 27th 2007, 05:55 PM

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Trout may have been making a funny, Sparko, but there is a deep truth in his words.

The warmth of God's burning Fire will warm, will sustain our Spirit for Eternity. First by burning away all that is false.

When we are all cast into His Fire, set on Fire, all that will remain is what is True and Real.

Meanwhile, this world and all that is in it should be held lightly. In otherwords, none of this matters...

10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Jack

Sparko

February 27th 2007, 07:55 PM

Albert Mohler was on Larry King Live last night along with James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici to talk about the subject.

Very interesting discussion.

Transcript is here, but the topic starts about halfway through the transcript. First part is about Laura Bush.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/26/lkl.01.html

Albert Mohler and William Donohue of the Catholic League pretty much tear up Jacobovici over and over. Simcha's defense was to keep repeating that he is not an archaeologist or a theologian but just reporting news. LOL.

Rayado

February 27th 2007, 09:25 PM

It gets better than that, Sparko:

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

Sparko

February 27th 2007, 11:27 PM

Thanks Rayado. I was looking for that verse but couldn't find it. :thumb:

Pate

February 28th 2007, 05:36 AM

There seem to be all kinds of ironies that are associated with this.

Of course, one of the most obvious ones is that (compared to the issue of James' Ossuary), some people from both side of the Christianity vs. Atheism/Agnosticism debate are making a turnaround of 180 degrees with regard to the evidential value of finding names in artifacts, that would seem to fit the NT records.

Secondly, some Christians (I think James White made a comment to this extent) are using the "every particular combination is extremely improbable, yet some must be actual"-defense that has a striking resemblance to how many atheists try to rebut the design arguments.

Thirdly, some sceptics are apparently willing to rely on very late and obscure historical sources in order to give significance to the names that are not so obviously associated with what we know about the historical Jesus.

Fourthly, it will be interesting to see how many of the fideistic Christians are either shaken by this, or find a new interest in a more evidentialistic approach to their faith.

Fiftly, it will be interesting to see how many of the Christ-mythers will find this evidence convincing and will suddenly become believers in the historicity of Jesus.

There are probably more things associated with this issue that would register in an irony-meter, but these are the ones that came to my mind first.

sylvius

February 28th 2007, 08:14 AM

....goes against what is told in Acts, where they watch Jesus physically rise into the clouds and are told by an angel he will return the same way.

it is not written that way, but:

Acts1:9
kai tauta eipwn blepontwn autwn ephrqh, kai nefelh upelaben auton apo twn ofqalmwn autwn

When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their eyes.

makes a big difference!

what is a cloud, Greek "nephelè", Hebrew "anan" ?

what are "the clouds of heaven"?

when heaven is closed there seem to be no clouds either, no clouds, no rain.

which goes back on Genesis 2:5

The mist in Genesis 2:6 is said to be a cloud; the cloud of clouds; Hebrew "ed", written "alef-dalet", 1-4, without which man couldn't be created.

Note what Rashi said on Genesis 2:7, "vayyitzer", "and He formed"
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8166&showrashi=true
[וַיִּיצֶר, with two “yuds,” hints at] two creations, a creation for this world and a creation for the [time of the] resurrection of the dead, but in connection with the animals, which do not stand in judgment, two“yuds” are not written in [the word וַיִּצֶר describing their creation. — [from Tan. Tazria 1]

and if you are talking about the resurrection itself, remember they went to the tomb and found no body. It wasn't like they found a body and then saw Jesus standing there too.

they found a young man sitting, an angel, with a message:

"you are looking wrong, in looking for the living among the dead"

"he is not here"

Sparko

February 28th 2007, 02:40 PM

You know I wonder how many of the "Jesus never existed" people will now decide that "Oh yeah he existed, and we have his body so that means Christianity is false."

:hehe:

PS - Sylvius, stop following me around like a lost puppy, it's embarrasing. :dog:

luv1another

February 28th 2007, 08:51 PM

mossrose

February 28th 2007, 08:54 PM

umm wasnt jesus put into a borrowed tomb from the guy that took his body? I doubt his family would have been placed in that same tomb.
apparently the name jesus, mary and joseph were very common names in that day.
that article doesnt say anything about bones but someone said to me they had found Jesus's bones...uh how could they? he wasnt there when mary and them went back to the tomb so why would his bones be there now :ahem:
:thumb:

Mary, at the time of Jesus' death, didn't live in Jerusalem. She lived in Nazareth.

Wouldn't the "family plot", with Joseph's remains, be in Nazareth? Not Jerusalem.

It's all a crock.

sylvius

March 1st 2007, 04:58 AM

[QUOTE]You know I wonder how many of the "Jesus never existed" people will now decide that "Oh yeah he existed, and we have his body so that means Christianity is false."

:hehe:

we never contended that Jesus never existed.

there are other things we claim:

nor the resurrection nor the immaculate conception are historical facts.

note that nowhere in NT is stated that Jesus resurrected from the grave.

resurrection is a reality of another order.

c.f., John 11:25-26

better watch TV coming sunday:

"Behold the place where they laid him"

you who claimed that the empty grave was proof of the resurrection.

Faith doesn't need no proof.

Teallaura

March 1st 2007, 10:30 AM

:lolo:

Rayado

March 1st 2007, 12:13 PM

nor the resurrection nor the immaculate conception are historical facts.

note that nowhere in NT is stated that Jesus resurrected from the grave.

I'm only going to say this once:

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

sylvius

March 1st 2007, 01:18 PM

I'm only going to say this once:

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

take then also into account what Paul wrote furtheron in the same chapter:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.

so the finding of a tomb with physical remnants of possible Jesus does'n't contradict the resurrection.

it just contradicts your silly convictions.

resurrection of the body is not an historical fact, but spiritual reality.

Rayado

March 1st 2007, 02:31 PM

take then also into account what Paul wrote furtheron in the same chapter:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.

so the finding of a tomb with physical remnants of possible Jesus does'n't contradict the resurrection.

Wrong for one very big reason--allow me to plagiarize myself from a previous post on 1 Cor 15.

.42-44: the key verses. Corruption v. incorruption, dishonor v. glory, weakness v. power, and soma psychikon v. soma pneumatikon

Corruption refers, of course, to sin and death. The distinction wouldn't even be there if there were no literal body. Paul is saying that just as corruptibility is a condition of our present bodies, incorruptibility will be a condition of the next one.

Soma psychikon v. soma pneumatikon--some English translations have become unclear due to modem Enlightenment dualism--whereas some English versions render physical v. spiritual as if to make a distinction, whereas when it was first translated to English no dualism existed.

Words literally translate to 'soulish body' and 'spiritual body'--which is the wrong words to use to contrast a physical body from a non-physical one.

There are big problems with assuming English translation over original Greek wording: had Paul actually wanted to stress a non-physical resurrection, he used the wrong words. Psychikos, meaning 'soulish' to those who used the word, would have been the target destination for the contrast, not the starting point. Pneumatikos,
therefore, was an akward destination if a non-physical resurrection was not what Paul had in mind. Paul ought to have used psychikos had he wanted to stress a non-physical resurrection. Somatikos (literally, bodily) would have been a far better starting point to begin the contrast with. Understanding the Greek of the phrase illuminates its true meaning.

One other thing to note: in Greek the ending '-ikon' refers not to what something is made of, but what something is animated or operated by. What this means is that if Paul were in fact referring to bodies (soma) and using the adjectives ofpsychikon and pneumatikon, he was using the wrong adjectives for what he wanted to describe.

Summing up: Paul contrasted the ‘soulish’ body with a spiritual one, not a physical one versus a spiritual one. Is this not an awkward target and destination for what you are claiming Paul says?

When Vitruvius (1st Century BC) spoke of an organon pneumatikon, he wasn't speaking of a machine made of air, was he?

Looking anew at v.42-44, we see that Paul was referring to the present state of humanity indwelt by the Spirit, but in the future humanity will be brought to life by the Spirit.

It becomes apparent that there is one soma pneumatikon currently in existence: that of the Messiah, who was raised from the dead, and as has been shown from Scripture thus far, has a physical body.

Never mind the actual physical resurrection body recorded by the Evangelists that could be touched, and could eat.

it just contradicts your silly convictions.Thanks for playing. Try again. And what are you calling silly, anyway? How juvenile.

resurrection of the body is not an historical fact, but spiritual reality.No, physical reality and historical fact. That's the entire point of the documentary. By its very nature it challenges the historicity of the Resurrection. And that challenge can be very easily refuted.

Sparko

March 1st 2007, 02:58 PM

If a "resurrection" is just the spirit going up to heaven then that was done when Jesus died on the cross. What was the whole 3 day waiting period for? did his spirit go up to heaven AGAIN??

And if "resurrection" is just your spirit going to heaven, then how is that any different from regular death? What is being resurrected? the word itself implies coming back to life physically.

sylvius

March 1st 2007, 03:32 PM

Wrong for one very big reason--allow me to plagiarize myself from a previous post on 1 Cor 15.

.42-44: the key verses. Corruption v. incorruption, dishonor v. glory, weakness v. power, and soma psychikon v. soma pneumatikon

Corruption refers, of course, to sin and death. The distinction wouldn't even be there if there were no literal body. Paul is saying that just as corruptibility is a condition of our present bodies, incorruptibility will be a condition of the next one.

Soma psychikon v. soma pneumatikon--some English translations have become unclear due to modem Enlightenment dualism--whereas some English versions render physical v. spiritual as if to make a distinction, whereas when it was first translated to English no dualism existed.

Words literally translate to 'soulish body' and 'spiritual body'--which is the wrong words to use to contrast a physical body from a non-physical one.

There are big problems with assuming English translation over original Greek wording: had Paul actually wanted to stress a non-physical resurrection, he used the wrong words. Psychikos, meaning 'soulish' to those who used the word, would have been the target destination for the contrast, not the starting point. Pneumatikos,
therefore, was an akward destination if a non-physical resurrection was not what Paul had in mind. Paul ought to have used psychikos had he wanted to stress a non-physical resurrection. Somatikos (literally, bodily) would have been a far better starting point to begin the contrast with. Understanding the Greek of the phrase illuminates its true meaning.

One other thing to note: in Greek the ending '-ikon' refers not to what something is made of, but what something is animated or operated by. What this means is that if Paul were in fact referring to bodies (soma) and using the adjectives ofpsychikon and pneumatikon, he was using the wrong adjectives for what he wanted to describe.

Summing up: Paul contrasted the ‘soulish’ body with a spiritual one, not a physical one versus a spiritual one. Is this not an awkward target and destination for what you are claiming Paul says?

When Vitruvius (1st Century BC) spoke of an organon pneumatikon, he wasn't speaking of a machine made of air, was he?

Looking anew at v.42-44, we see that Paul was referring to the present state of humanity indwelt by the Spirit, but in the future humanity will be brought to life by the Spirit.

It becomes apparent that there is one soma pneumatikon currently in existence: that of the Messiah, who was raised from the dead, and as has been shown from Scripture thus far, has a physical body.

Never mind the actual physical resurrection body recorded by the Evangelists that could be touched, and could eat.

Thanks for playing. Try again. And what are you calling silly, anyway? How juvenile.

No, physical reality and historical fact. That's the entire point of the documentary. By its very nature it challenges the historicity of the Resurrection. And that challenge can be very easily refuted.

"silly" is the conviction that Jesus flew away through mid-air up to heaven; with body and all --

so that there even cannot be any physical remnants of him on earth to be found in a tomb.

Paul is speaking of two bodies.

like Rashi on Genesis 2:7.

formed [וַיִּיצֶר, with two “yuds,” hints at] two creations, a creation for this world and a creation for the [time of the] resurrection of the dead, but in connection with the animals, which do not stand in judgment, two“yuds” are not written in [the word וַיִּצֶר describing their creation. — [from Tan. Tazria 1]

sylvius

March 1st 2007, 03:39 PM

Sparko

March 1st 2007, 03:51 PM

who says resurrection means going up to heaven? OK even if the spirit wanders around on earth, as a ghost, then it still makes no sense to call it a resurrection. Besides Jesus said himself he was not a spirit when Thomas doubted him.

Luke 24:39 (English Standard Version)

See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

So if he was not a spirit and he had flesh and bones, then he was not a spirit and there were no bones left in his grave. He had the exact same wounds as he had before he died. That means it was the SAME body.

and why cannot a body be spiritual? A body can be spiritual, but not a spirit, if by "spiritual" you mean "righteous and dedicated to spiritual things"

For instance, I can say that you are a spiritual person becuase you clearly care about God and spiritual things. But you are NOT a spirit.

sylvius

March 1st 2007, 03:59 PM

OK even if the spirit wanders around on earth, as a ghost, then it still makes no sense to call it a resurrection. Besides Jesus said himself he was not a spirit when Thomas doubted him.

Luke 24:39 (English Standard Version)

See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

So if he was not a spirit and he had flesh and bones, then he was not a spirit and there were no bones left in his grave. He had the exact same wounds as he had before he died. That means it was the SAME body.

A body can be spiritual, but not a spirit, if by "spiritual" you mean "righteous and dedicated to spiritual things"

For instance, I can say that you are a spiritual person becuase you clearly care about God and spiritual things. But you are NOT a spirit.

everybody is spiritual;

we are spiritual beings.

also drunkards and thiefs.

Scruffy

March 1st 2007, 04:06 PM

What was the whole 3 day waiting period for?

"Three days and three nights" is a very old and very common symbolic mythological motif, by no means unique to Christianity. It was incorporated into the Christian mythos.

For instance, the mythological Phoenix :

"The earliest known reference to the Phoenix is by Hesiod in the 8th century BC. It is a pagan symbol as well as a religious and mythical one and appears in most cultures in some form.
[...]
In either case, the Phoenix remains dead for three days - symbolizing the dark of the moon - then rises from its own ashes. The Phoenix has dual symbolism, lunar in its associations with the moon, but also solar, being a fire-bird. The bird is the epitome of gentleness as it kills nothing, feeding only on dew and crushing nothing it touches.
[...]
Though descriptions and life-span vary, the Phoenix became popular in early Christian art, literature and Christian symbolism, as a symbol of Christ, and represented the resurrection, immortality, and the life-after-death of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament says: "I shall die in the nest and shall multiply my days like the Phoenix" [Job 29:18]. Christianity adopted the bird as a symbol of resurrection, of Christ rising again on the third day, triumphant over death."

http://www.helium.com/tm/146590/mythological-creatures-phoenix

"Another mythological motif which must surely arrest our attention at this time of year is that of the descent of the God or Goddess into the Underworld. Perhaps we see this most clearly in the Christian tradition. Beginning with his death on the cross on Good Friday, it is said that Jesus 'descended into Hell' for the three days that his body lay entombed. But on the third day (that is, Easter Sunday), his body and soul rejoined, he arose from the dead and ascended into heaven. By a strange 'coincidence', most ancient Pagan religions speak of the Goddess descending into the Underworld, also for a period of three days."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos049.htm

"Many gods besides Christ have been supposed to die, be resurrected and ascend to heaven. This idea has now been traced back to its origin among primitive people in the annual death and resurrection of crops and plant life generally. This explains the world-wide prevalence of the notion. Among still more primitive tribes, as Grant Allen showed, it is not yet understood that sown corn sprouts because of the spring sunshine, and they attribute the result to divine agency. To this end they are accustomed at seed time to kill their tribal god—either in human or animal form—and scatter the flesh and the blood over the sown fields. They believe that the seeds will not grow unless the god is sacrificed and added to them in this manner. When, therefore, the crops appears, they never doubt that it is their god coming to life again. It is from this erroneous belief of primitive tribes that Christianity today derives its belief in Christ's Death and Resurrection."
http://www.africawithin.com/jgjackson/jgjackson_pagan_origins_of_the_christ_myth4.htm#THREE

"Babylonian priests performed a kind of ritual drama at the New Year ceremony in ancient Mesopotamia. It, too, initiated the cycle of ceremonial renewal and involved a recitation of the Enuma elish, the Babylonian creation myth. The priests also reenacted some of the key events in the story of Marduk's victory over chaos and Marduk's assembly of an ordered cosmos. Unlike the other rituals of renewal we have considered, however, the Babylonian New Year did not take place in winter. It was called the akitu, and it was held at the equinox, either in spring or in fall. Records of intercalated months suggest that in Old Babylonian times the autumnal equinox started the year. Later, the New Year was celebrated in spring. Which date does not really matter. What counts is the choice of a turning point in time that was significant to the Babylonians. More than one reason must have suggested an equinox, and only hints of those original reasons remained in the ceremonies that continued to commemorate them.

In the first few days of the ceremony, Marduk was symbolically confined in what texts called "the Mountain." For three days Marduk remains in this underworld, a realm of chaos and the dead."

http://doormann.tripod.com/asssky.htm

Hmm, maybe the devil is up to more diabolical mimicry?

One of these days, exoteric Christianity is going to have to wake up and smell the esoteric coffee. I doubt that this whole "Jesus Tomb" thing will be the catalyst for that change, but someday something will be. It's only a matter of time.

Rayado

March 1st 2007, 04:11 PM

"silly" is the conviction that Jesus flew away through mid-air up to heaven; with body and all -- Do I need to remind you that you're saying this to the staff of this site?

And that it's uncouth and uncalled for when you insult the faith of the grand majority of the people here?

And you're calling the book of Acts silly, since Jesus ascending into heaven is precisely what is claimed by the New Testament. So I take offense to that as well. If this is how you treat Scripture, and orthodox Christians, you really don't have any business claiming the title of "Christian" in your profile.

so that there even cannot be any physical remnants of him on earth to be found in a tomb. Then what happend to the body? That is the million dollar question that is being asked by this documentary.

Paul is speaking of two bodies. Oversimplification: Paul is contrasting not the substance of the body (as I demonstrated from the Greek grammar he used), but the things which "power" them (corruptible soul versus the incorruptible Spirit of God). 1 Corinthians 15 makes no sense unless a physical resurrection is what is being described.

Soma is the greek word for "body" that Paul used. That did not change in his comparison.

Only the adjectives--psychikon, or soul, versus pneumatikon, or spiritual, is what is being contrasted. "Soul" is a very unusual word for Paul to use to contrast to something spiritual, and it's why your idea of a purely spiritual resurrection falls flat.

like Rashi on Genesis 2:7.
The really scary thing is that this actually dovetails with the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection, with Jesus being the evidence of the promise of the (physical) resurrection (which, understood, is God's last act of creation).

Bottom line, the interpretation you've offered contradicts your idea of a purely spiritual resurrection.

Sparko

March 1st 2007, 04:42 PM

everybody is spiritual;

we are spiritual beings.

also drunkards and thiefs.

So rather than acknowledge what I said is true, or even trying to debate it, you retreat into incomprehensibility again?

Nice.

I will count that as a concession.

sylvius

March 1st 2007, 04:44 PM

Do I need to remind you that you're saying this to the staff of this site?

And that it's uncouth and uncalled for when you insult the faith of the grand majority of the people here?
that be so then.

And you're calling the book of Acts silly, since Jesus ascending into heaven is precisely what is claimed by the New Testament.

there is written, Acts 1:9, "and a cloud took him out of their eyes"

So I take offense to that as well. If this is how you treat Scripture, and orthodox Christians, you really don't have any business claiming the title of "Christian" in your profile.

(your) Christianity is taking the bible-texts literal; and that's not how it is meant to be.

Then what happend to the body? That is the million dollar question that is being asked by this documentary.
the physical body decayed.

Oversimplification: Paul is contrasting not the substance of the body (as I demonstrated from the Greek grammar he used), but the things which "power" them (corruptible soul versus the incorruptible Spirit of God). 1 Corinthians 15 makes no sense unless a physical resurrection is what is being described.

You fool! What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies.
And what you sow is not the body that is to be but a bare kernel of wheat, perhaps, or of some other kind; but God gives it a body as he chooses, and to each of the seeds its own body.

Sparko

March 1st 2007, 04:52 PM

the physical body decayed.

So did jesus leave his physical body in the tomb and wandered around as a spirit for 40 days before going up to heaven or did he rise up in his body after three days and wandered around for 40 days on earth and then left his decaying body at the feet of the apostles when he went up to heaven?

sylvius

March 1st 2007, 05:06 PM

Rayado

March 1st 2007, 05:30 PM

(your) Christianity is taking the bible-texts literal; and that's not how it is meant to be. Judging from the fact that you have not and cannot asnwer the grammar Paul used, I reject the idea that the resurrection of Jesus was spiritual without hesitation.

And the resurrection accounts were intended to be read as historical. They are bioi, and such writings (gospels included) were intended as history, not myth. Does the name Simon Greenleaf ring any bells? His studies on the Gospels led him to the conclusion that they'd be allowed in a court of law as evidence. They pass the rules used for determining the validity of eyewitness accounts used in courts.

Compare them with the outlandish gnostic gospels--those, on the other hand, are myth from the very start.

the physical body decayed.Stop the presses! The Gospels contradict this statement. They clearly say that the body was not in the tomb on Sunday morning.

Would you mind explaining where the body went, then, for it to decompose in relatively undisturbed peace? And would you explain how you knew this, since this news has eluded everyone for nearly two thousand years?

We'll make this short and sweet: The resurrection is infintely more probable than any of the excuses given for why it might not have happened. They are, simply put, infinitely improbable.

You fool! What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies.
And what you sow is not the body that is to be but a bare kernel of wheat, perhaps, or of some other kind; but God gives it a body as he chooses, and to each of the seeds its own body. It does absolutely no good to try to contradict Scripture with Scripture. Paul compares the present, corruptible body with the seed and contrasts that with the harvest of the resurrection body, with Jesus being the firstfruits and promise of the resurrection--that much is obvious when these verses are taken into context with v.42-44. Paul was smart enough not to contradict himself within a space of about ten verses, you know. That God will be creating renewed physical bodies for the multitude of saints who have died in the last two millenia is a given. He's in the business of creation, after all.

JackC

March 1st 2007, 05:32 PM

So did jesus leave his physical body in the tomb and wandered around as a spirit for 40 days before going up to heaven or did he rise up in his body after three days and wandered around for 40 days on earth and then left his decaying body at the feet of the apostles when he went up to heaven?

Hello again Sparko,

I know that this is not commonly accepted scruptural understanding, but it is clearly in scripture...

Jesus was resurrected into a transfigured body - both soul and physical bodies being transfigured (changed from the perishable to the imperishable).

His physical body after resurrection was not like the physical flesh and blood body that we don, that he donned before he died, but one that he could manipulate, changing its form, passing through walls, appearing and disappearing. But then also being able to digest food and bear the wounds of his death, if he so desired.

This body was made from the dust of this world, however Jesus then functioning fully as a Son of God, was able to, by his own will, manipulate that dust as he chose.

When he ascended, the dust of this world remained here. As with other ascensions (the elevating of the soul and spirit through the clouds to the Kingdom), it could either be pulveried immediately into the dust from which it came, or it could be left as it was - then a 'dead' body, or one without the soul and spirit, slowly decaying to return to dust. The latter would require a burial, the former would be simply the disppearance of the physical body upon ascension.

For Jesus, I have long thought it was the former, his physical body, his transfigured phsyical body, the body he donned to function in this world, simply disintegrating into the dust from which it was made.

But of course, even though we are not told so, it could have been the latter. Hence finding a tomb of Jesus is moot in the face of Truth.

Jack

Sparko

March 1st 2007, 07:33 PM

Hello again Sparko,

I know that this is not commonly accepted scruptural understanding, but it is clearly in scripture...

Jesus was resurrected into a transfigured body - both soul and physical bodies being transfigured (changed from the perishable to the imperishable).

His physical body after resurrection was not like the physical flesh and blood body that we don, that he donned before he died, but one that he could manipulate, changing its form, passing through walls, appearing and disappearing. But then also being able to digest food and bear the wounds of his death, if he so desired.

LOL! so he faked his wounds to trick Thomas into believing it was his original body! You are calling Jesus a charlatan and a huckster!

Jack, yes his resurrected body had powers that his mortal body did not, such as being immortal for one. But it was not a DIFFERENT body, it was a changed version of the original body. The original body became immortal and glorified and raised to life. He didn't grow a new body like in Invasion of the Body Snatchers and leave his old body behind. Remember they went to the tomb and found it empty. Then Jesus specifically told Thomas that it was HIM. He was not a pod person or a ghost. He had him touch the wounds to prove that it was the SAME body!!!

When he ascended, the dust of this world remained here. As with other ascensions (the elevating of the soul and spirit through the clouds to the Kingdom), it could either be pulveried immediately into the dust from which it came, or it could be left as it was - then a 'dead' body, or one without the soul and spirit, slowly decaying to return to dust. The latter would require a burial, the former would be simply the disppearance of the physical body upon ascension.

Except the bible says clearly they saw jesus ascend bodily. He literally flew up into the air, and they watched until a cloud hid him from their eyes.

Acts1:9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

For Jesus, I have long thought it was the former, his physical body, his transfigured phsyical body, the body he donned to function in this world, simply disintegrating into the dust from which it was made.

Again, tomb: empty - Jesus makes a point to prove it is his own body and not a ghost or another body. Jesus flew bodily into the air and did not vanish in a puff of dust.

The bible does not leave any wiggle room Jack. It clearly teaches that Jesus rose in a glorified body that was the same body he died in. It was flesh and bone and did not vanish in a puff of dust.

The point is that we too will one day be raised physically with glorified bodies and they will be human bodies, not some pod people fake bodies made out of nanobot dust particles or whatever.

Sparko

March 1st 2007, 07:34 PM

Jesus is the resurrected one from the very beginning

cf. John 11:25-26

the 40 days are precisely at 4/5th of the 50 days from easter to pentecost.

it has symbolical meaning.

You avoid the question. You said he left his body behind to decay. Which time were you talking about? did he leave his body behind when he came out of the tomb, or when he ascended to heaven in front of his apostles?

Scruffy

March 1st 2007, 07:52 PM

LOL! so he faked his wounds to trick Thomas into believing it was his original body! You are calling Jesus a charlatan and a huckster!

/sigh

When are Christians going to realize that the true biography of Jesus (if there was a historical Jesus) was overlaid with ancient mythology at a later date? None of it should be taken literally. There was no literal resurrection. It's symbolic. Symbolic of powerful inner potentialities.Take a college class in comparative mythology or something.

Every religion and mythology is true - as metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery. But if a religion gets dogmatically trapped in it's own metaphors and symbols...interpreting them as historical literal fact, then it's in trouble. Yes, exoteric Christianity has been in trouble for a long, long time.

But Mystic / Inner / Esoteric Christianity doesn't dogmatically rest on historical claims of a literal resurrection. I strongly suggest that exoteric Christians put aside their preconceptions and look into it.

http://www.amazon.com/Inner-Christianity-The-forgotten-teachings/lm/300GKI17311T7

Rayado

March 1st 2007, 08:56 PM

But Mystic / Inner / Esoteric Christianity doesn't dogmatically rest on historical claims of a literal resurrection. I strongly suggest that exoteric Christians put aside their preconceptions and look into it.That's almost as funny as the documentary.

Scruffy

March 1st 2007, 08:58 PM

That's almost as funny as the documentary.

I haven't seen it yet, so I wouldn't know. I really haven't been paying too much attention to this whole "Jesus Tomb" thing, aside from reading Christian reactions.

Rayado

March 1st 2007, 09:08 PM

Stand to Reason's review (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=93335)

It's a stinker, that's for sure.

Sparko

March 1st 2007, 10:18 PM

/sigh

When are Christians going to realize that the true biography of Jesus (if there was a historical Jesus) was overlaid with ancient mythology at a later date? None of it should be taken literally. There was no literal resurrection. It's symbolic. Symbolic of powerful inner potentialities.Take a college class in comparative mythology or something.

Every religion and mythology is true - as metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery. But if a religion gets dogmatically trapped in it's own metaphors and symbols...interpreting them as historical literal fact, then it's in trouble. Yes, exoteric Christianity has been in trouble for a long, long time.

So all religions are true but Christians are wrong. Yeah that makes a lot of sense, scruffy. Everything is true as long as it fits with your preconceptions, but when they don't then its "overlaid with ancient mythology" and "metaphorical"

That's hilarious. So tell me, what do you base your beliefs on? Why do you think that Christianity is not based on historical facts and why do you think that all religions are true as metaphors of the human and cosmic mystery? What's your authority on the matter? Did some guru tell you this? Did you dream it up yourself? Did you read it in a book?

Scruffy

March 1st 2007, 10:52 PM

So all religions are true...

...metaphorically.

...but Christians are wrong.

Not all. Only the exoteric ones.

That's hilarious. So tell me, what do you base your beliefs on? Why do you think that Christianity is not based on historical facts and why do you think that all religions are true as metaphors of the human and cosmic mystery? What's your authority on the matter? Did some guru tell you this? Did you dream it up yourself? Did you read it in a book?

I pieced it together...mostly from restaurant placemats, sugar-packets, and Star Trek. :lol:

Seriously though, there are plenty of good sources of information that support the gist of what I said. Rayado and I had a long discussion along these lines in the Basketball court.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=90344

Sparko

March 1st 2007, 11:56 PM

...metaphorically.

Not all. Only the exoteric ones.

I pieced it together...mostly from restaurant placemats, sugar-packets, and Star Trek. :lol:

Seriously though, there are plenty of good sources of information that support the gist of what I said. Rayado and I had a long discussion along these lines in the Basketball court.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=90344

and why do you consider those sources to be reliable and the bible not?

Do you just find stuff that agrees with what you want to believe and say "hey that sounds good, I will believe THAT today"

Scruffy

March 2nd 2007, 12:51 AM

and why do you consider those sources to be reliable and the bible not?

Well, I guess because I actually took the time to investigate for myself with an open mind. I sought out many, many sources of information. I only posted some.

Now you have a choice. You can rationalize a reason to avoid reading those books and websites, or you can read them for yourself and wiegh the two sides in an open-minded way.

Maybe you would enjoy these two google videos first.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6312400129079706710
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3507614538091642471

The Bible has great esoteric teachings and deep mystical insight, it's not like I'm throwing it all away. Just because it's metaphorical doesn't mean we should throw it away, we just need to recognize it as metaphor so that we can figure out what it's really saying. Metaphors aren't "lies", nor are they "facts".

How do we do that? Comparative mythology, religion, mysticism. Offered at many colleges, or one can buy books about those subjects, surf the web, ect.

Shadow Phoenix

March 2nd 2007, 12:58 AM

Excuse me Scruffy. What exactly do you mean by "all religions are metaphorically true?"

Scruffy

March 2nd 2007, 01:08 AM

Excuse me Scruffy. What exactly do you mean by "all religions are metaphorically true?"

Basically I mean that when world mythology is read metaphorically as a unit, a deeply universal and spiritual meaning shines forth that transcends race, gender, religious label, nationality, ect. As a former Christian, it saddens me to see Christianity miss out on this.

Shadow Phoenix

March 2nd 2007, 01:15 AM

Basically I mean that when world mythology is read metaphorically as a unit, a deeply universal and spiritual meaning shines forth that transcends race, gender, religious label, nationality, ect. As a former Christian, it saddens me to see Christianity miss out on this.

Since you seem to think you know so well, what is this deeper meaning that is in all religions?

sylvius

March 2nd 2007, 03:57 AM

Judging from the fact that you have not and cannot asnwer the grammar Paul used, I reject the idea that the resurrection of Jesus was spiritual without hesitation.

that's nice.

for Paul also wrote:

Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, in an instant, in the blink of an eye, etc.
in an instant, in the blink of an eye, en atomw, en riph ofqalmou, "en atomwi, en ripèi ofthalmou" -- there is no time to hesitate.

hesitation, Hebrew "sufek", ; i.e., you doubt about God's
presence. "Sufek" has the gematria of Amalek; the arch-enemy of ....true Christianity.

you got two bodies, one corruptible, one incorruptible. That's what Pauls is saying.
yes ok , they are linked.
Jewish tradtion knows the luz-bone, a little bone that cannot decay; from which the body is rebuilt.
"Luz" = almond, like "shaked" -- from root "shakad" = to be alert, wakeful; to make haste.
Greek: "grègorein" -- I think Mark 13:37; and Mark 14:38 is alluding to this
"luz", from root "yalaz" = to turn.
from same root "chilazon" = snail; "chelzoni" = spiral,. The spiral transcends the circle.

And the resurrection accounts were intended to be read as historical. They are bioi, and such writings (gospels included) were intended as history, not myth.

They point away from the grave.

Does the name Simon Greenleaf ring any bells?
no

His studies on the Gospels led him to the conclusion that they'd be allowed in a court of law as evidence. They pass the rules used for determining the validity of eyewitness accounts used in courts.

Compare them with the outlandish gnostic gospels--those, on the other hand, are myth from the very start

"not all have room for the word, but only those to whom it is given." (Matthew 19:11)

Stop the presses! The Gospels contradict this statement. They clearly say that the body was not in the tomb on Sunday morning.

they point away from the grave.

Would you mind explaining where the body went, then, for it to decompose in relatively undisturbed peace? And would you explain how you knew this, since this news has eluded everyone for nearly two thousand years?
maybe in the in 1980 discovered tomb.

sylvius

March 2nd 2007, 06:06 AM

You avoid the question. You said he left his body behind to decay. Which time were you talking about? did he leave his body behind when he came out of the tomb, or when he ascended to heaven in front of his apostles?

Mark makes a distinction between "swma" , body, and "ptwma", corpse.

elqwn iwshf [o] apo arimaqaiaV euschmwn bouleuthV, oV kai autoV hn prosdecomenoV thn basileian tou qeou, tolmhsaV eishlqen proV ton pilaton kai hthsato to swma tou ihsou.
o de pilatoV eqaumasen ei hdh teqnhken, kai proskalesamenoV ton kenturiwna ephrwthsen auton ei palai apeqanen: kai gnouV apo tou kenturiwnoV edwrhsato to ptwma tw iwshf

Joseph of Arimathea, a distinguished member of the council, who was himself awaiting the kingdom of God, came and courageously went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.
Pilate was amazed that he was already dead. He summoned the centurion and asked him if Jesus had already died. And when he learned of it from the centurion, he gave the corpse to Joseph

"swma", body --
we knew already things about it;

o escen epoihsen: proelaben murisai to swma mou eiV ton entafiasmon.

She has done what she could. She has anticipated anointing my body for burial

and
kai esqiontwn autwn labwn arton euloghsaV eklasen kai edwken autoiV kai eipen, labete, touto estin to swma mou.

While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body."

about "ptwma", corpse, was said:

opou ean h to ptwma, ekei sunacqhsontai oi aetoi.

Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

so you might conclude that transformation took place at Golgotha.

Golgotha - to be read as "gal-gatha" -- ":gal" = (rolling) form, wave; "galgal"= wheel.
"gat" = press (cf. Getsemane = "gat shemen'= oil press) .

this in concordance with

kai meta hmeraV ex paralambanei o ihsouV ton petron kai ton iakwbon kai ton iwannhn, kai anaferei autouV eiV oroV uyhlon kat idian monouV. kai metemorfwqh emprosqen autwn

After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves. And he was transfigured before them

it is all about the sixth day; the sixth day of Genesis 1:31, day of creation of Adam; and also the day of the (first) sin; and the day on which Jesus was crucified, good friday.
and of course the sixth day of Sivan, i.e. Pentecost, fiftieth day after Jesus' corpse had been laid in the grave.

Scruffy

March 2nd 2007, 08:54 AM

Since you seem to think you know so well, what is this deeper meaning that is in all religions?

What, you expect me to hand to to you on a silver platter? No. The Journey counts for something. I'm not going to deprive you of the discovery and experience process. If you want to know so badly, take the journey yourself.

I'll point you in the right direction. That's my purpose here. But I can't take the Journey for you. If you won't take the journey yourself, either out of curiosity or a burning desire to get to the bottom of this, then any bite-sized chunks on a silver platter that I give you would be wasted on you anyway.

Sparko

March 2nd 2007, 12:34 PM

Mark makes a distinction between "swma" , body, and "ptwma", corpse.

ελθων ιωσηφ [ο] απο αριμαθαιας ευσχημων βουλευτης, ος και αυτος ην προσδεχομενος την βασιλειαν του θεου, τολμησας εισηλθεν προς τον πιλατον και ητησατο το σωμα του ιησου.<βρ /> ο δε πιλατος εθαυμασεν ει ηδη τεθνηκεν, και προσκαλεσαμενος τον κεντυριωνα επηρωτησεν αυτον ει παλαι απεθανεν: και γνους απο του κεντυριωνος εδωρησατο το πτωμα τω ιωσηφ

Joseph of Arimathea, a distinguished member of the council, who was himself awaiting the kingdom of God, came and courageously went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.
Pilate was amazed that he was already dead. He summoned the centurion and asked him if Jesus had already died. And when he learned of it from the centurion, he gave the corpse to Joseph

"swma", body --
we knew already things about it;

ο εσχεν εποιησεν: προελαβεν μυρισαι το σωμα μου εις τον ενταφιασμον.

She has done what she could. She has anticipated anointing my body for burial

and
και εσθιοντων αυτων λαβων αρτον ευλογησας εκλασεν και εδωκεν αυτοις και ειπεν, λαβετε, τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου.

While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body."

about "ptwma", corpse, was said:

οπου εαν η το πτωμα, εκει συναχθησονται οι αετοι.

Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

so you might conclude that transformation took place at Golgotha.

Golgotha - to be read as "gal-gatha" -- ":gal" = (rolling) form, wave; "galgal"= wheel.
"gat" = press (cf. Getsemane = "gat shemen'= oil press) .

this in concordance with

και μετα ημερας εξ παραλαμβανει ο ιησους τον πετρον και τον ιακωβον και τον ιωαννην, και αναφερει αυτους εις ορος υψηλον κατ ιδιαν μονους. και μετεμορφωθη εμπροσθεν αυτων

After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves. And he was transfigured before them

it is all about the sixth day; the sixth day of Genesis 1:31, day of creation of Adam; and also the day of the (first) sin; and the day on which Jesus was crucified, good friday.
and of course the sixth day of Sivan, i.e. Pentecost, fiftieth day after Jesus' corpse had been laid in the grave.

Despite your incoherent and off topic ramblings you still did not answer the question: When did Jesus leave his body behind? In the tomb or when he ascended into heaven?

Is that question too hard for you to answer? You were the one who said he left his body behind and it decayed. When did he leave it behind? in the tomb or at the feet of his apostles when he rose to heaven?

Why can't you give a simple answer? Are you afraid you will be trapped in your own inconsistancies? Are you afraid that you will say something that the bible will show to be false?

Or are you just :crazy:?

Shadow Phoenix

March 2nd 2007, 12:34 PM

What, you expect me to hand to to you on a silver platter? No. The Journey counts for something. I'm not going to deprive you of the discovery and experience process. If you want to know so badly, take the journey yourself.

I'll point you in the right direction. That's my purpose here. But I can't take the Journey for you. If you won't take the journey yourself, either out of curiosity or a burning desire to get to the bottom of this, then any bite-sized chunks on a silver platter that I give you would be wasted on you anyway.

You know, this is just a major cop-out. I do not see any reason to go on such a quest if I see no reason to believe that all religions have a hidden truth. I believe my religion is the one that is exclusively true and whenever any other religion disagrees with it on X point, then that religion is false.

Why should I believe otherwise?

sylvius

March 2nd 2007, 12:49 PM

Despite your incoherent and off topic ramblings you still did not answer the question: When did Jesus leave his body behind? In the tomb or when he ascended into heaven?

Is that question too hard for you to answer? You were the one who said he left his body behind and it decayed. When did he leave it behind? in the tomb or at the feet of his apostles when he rose to heaven?

Why can't you give a simple answer? Are you afraid you will be trapped in your own inconsistancies? Are you afraid that you will say something that the bible will show to be false?

Or are you just :crazy:?

on the cross stupie

Sparko

March 2nd 2007, 01:07 PM

on the cross stupie

So you are saying that the body on the cross never came back to life? It was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Aramatea and remained there forever?

Then why did the women and the apostles not see the body when they went to the tomb. Why did the angels at the tomb say he has risen?

The bible contradicts you Sylvius.

Rayado

March 2nd 2007, 01:12 PM

that's nice.

for Paul also wrote:

Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, in an instant, in the blink of an eye, etc. He actually said "et cetera?"

in an instant, in the blink of an eye, en atomw, en riph ofqalmou, "en atomwi, en ripèi ofthalmou" -- there is no time to hesitate. Correct. Paul stated that at the return of Jesus that some will still be alive, but most will be dead--which perfectly parallels what Jesus himself taught in the Gospels.

hesitation, Hebrew "sufek", ; i.e., you doubt about God's
presence. "Sufek" has the gematria of Amalek; the arch-enemy of ....true Christianity.

you got two bodies, one corruptible, one incorruptible. That's what Pauls is saying.
yes ok , they are linked.
Jewish tradtion knows the luz-bone, a little bone that cannot decay; from which the body is rebuilt.
"Luz" = almond, like "shaked" -- from root "shakad" = to be alert, wakeful; to make haste.
Greek: "grègorein" -- I think Mark 13:37; and Mark 14:38 is alluding to this
"luz", from root "yalaz" = to turn.
from same root "chilazon" = snail; "chelzoni" = spiral,. The spiral transcends the circle. Absolute rubbish. I do not accept the validity of gematria, and so any tortured gymnastics you put the text through means absolutely nothing to me--but it does show me that you cannot responsibly deal with a given NT text.

They point away from the grave. This doesn't even make sense. It doesn't answer the point I offered above.

noThat's a shame. Might want to check it out sometime. He made it pretty clear that the four Gospels would stand in a court of law.

"not all have room for the word, but only those to whom it is given." (Matthew 19:11)Which is true--you've rejected it all along, being only in favor of what you choose to believe. It's been given to you and you've rejected it.

they point away from the grave. See above.

maybe in the in 1980 discovered tomb.That's even funnier than the film itself. Would you like to explain why Jesus, executed for sedition, would have been allowed an honorable burial with his family? And why, oh, why, would they have been buried in Jerusalem instead of their homeland of Galilee? And the DNA tests they did on the Jesus ossuary were unable to lead to anything conclusive--on purpose.

The tenth ossuary is the silver bullet to the case the documentary makes--it was unmarked so they ignored it and left it in storage the whole time without touching it. So with the Talpiot tomb ruled out, would you like to try again and say where Jesus' body decomposed at?

sylvius

March 2nd 2007, 01:49 PM

Paul stated that at the return of Jesus that some will still be alive, but most will be dead--

where he is mentioning the return of Jesus here?

he is telling a mystery, secret:

All we will be transformed

the last trumpet has to be understood i.c.w. "yom kippur".

"yom kippur" ending with the blowing of the shofar. Your fate being sealed then.

which perfectly parallels what Jesus himself taught in the Gospels. --

Jesus saying: it is not given to everyone to see; but to few, some;

I do not accept , etc.

you're certainly not among the ones mentioned in Mark 4:20

This doesn't even make sense.

you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene who has been crucified, HE IS NOT HERE.(...) GO (...)TELL(...)He will go before you into Galilee. THERE you will see him as he did tell .
He will

It doesn't answer the point I offered above.

what point?

That's a shame.
I don't know the guy.

Might want to check it out sometime. He made it pretty clear that the four Gospels would stand in a court of law.
to speak for whom?

Which is true--you've rejected it all along, being only in favor of what you choose to believe. It's been given to you and you've rejected it.
what has been given; and waht i rejected?

That's even funnier than the film itself. Would you like to explain why Jesus, executed for sedition, would have been allowed an honorable burial with his family? And why, oh, why, would they have been buried in Jerusalem instead of their homeland of Galilee? And the DNA tests they did on the Jesus ossuary were unable to lead to anything conclusive--on purpose.

The tenth ossuary is the silver bullet to the case the documentary makes--it was unmarked so they ignored it and left it in storage the whole time without touching it. So with the Talpiot tomb ruled out, would you like to try again and say where Jesus' body decomposed at?

it IS a possibility

it MIGHT BE that they found remnants of Jesus there.

you reject it beforehand.

and not wihtout reason...

for IF it is true, IF indeed they found remnants of Jesus, then your whole belief-system is about to collapse.

remember word of Jesus;

The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.

Scruffy

March 2nd 2007, 02:11 PM

You know, this is just a major cop-out.

You know, something told me you would say that. You expect it all handed to you in a quick and easy sound-byte on a silver platter, and then when you don't get it you call "cop-out." Well guess what. I call "sloth" on you.

I think I see what you're doing, I've seen it before. Demand it all up front, and if it's delivered - label it, fit it into preconceptions, and hand-wave it away. And If it's not delivered, call "cop-out." Hmph.

Now I'm going to rant a bit. Some Christians will bend-over backwards and perform all sorts of verbal and theological gymnastics to remain willfully ignorant of information that could upset them. Psychological defense mechanisms. If you're too scared or can't be bothered to read a darn book or two that's your choice, but I certainly hope you don't have the nerve to call yourself open-minded or intellectually honest. Or brave. Sorry if I'm being overly-harsh, but when percieve sloth and willful ignorance it really pisses me off.

I do not see any reason to go on such a quest if I see no reason to believe that all religions have a hidden truth.

You're not looking for a reason. You're closing your eyes, so of course you don't see it. Open your eyes first, then you'll see.

I'll tell you what. I challenge you to watch these two google videos, all the way through, and actually take some time to reflect on them. These videos are a pretty good quality and serve as a good basic introduction to the basic gist of what I'm saying. After, prove to me that you watched them both and that you understand the gist of what they're saying. There will be a test.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6312400129079706710
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3507614538091642471

After you have watched them, if you are honestly still adament that there is "no reason" whatsoever to go on such a quest, then at least I won't be able to accuse you of being too scared to watch them.

Shadow Phoenix

March 2nd 2007, 02:21 PM

You know, something told me you would say that. You expect it all handed to you in a quick and easy sound-byte on a silver platter, and then when you don't get it you call "cop-out." Well guess what. I call "sloth" on you.

Um. No. I call that laziness on your part. You promise something but you don't deliver. Tell me this. Is this great truth that all religions teach a horizontal truth or a vertical truth?

I think I see what you're doing, I've seen it before. Demand it all up front, and if it's delivered - label it, fit it into preconceptions, and hand-wave it away. And If it's not delivered, call "cop-out." Hmph.

You mean kind of like how you fit all religions into your preconception that all religions are equal? I didn't demand it all. I asked. I would think if this truth is so important you'd share it. If you wanted to know the truth of my faith, I'd gladly tell you.

Now I'm going to rant a bit. Some Christians will bend-over backwards and perform all sorts of verbal and theological gymnastics to remain willfully ignorant of information that could upset them. Psychological defense mechanisms. If you can't be bothered to read a darn book or two that's your choice, but I certainly hope you don't have the nerve to call yourself open-minded or intellectually honest. Or brave. Sorry if I'm being overly-harsh, but when I see what I think is sloth and willful ignorance it really pisses me off.

Whine whine whine. I've heard all of it before. Personally, I have no hesitancy to reading other religions. I think there's a lot of good in many of them. I just don't think their foundation is rooted in the truth. Now please tell me. Why aren't you more open-minded to my claim that my religion is exclusively true and you're wrong for disagreeing? Why aren't you open when the Muslims make the same claim?

Am I open-minded. You bet I am! I'm open-minded to the truth. If my mind takes in an idea I think is nonsense, I'll shoot it right back out. Am I intellectually honest? Yep. I accept claims I don't like because they're true.

You're not looking for a reason. You're closing your eyes, so of course you don't see it. Open your eyes first, then you'll see.

Thank you Dr. Phil. It's nice ot know you're the one who can see while everyone else is blind. How's the view from that high horse?

I'll tell you what. I challenge you to watch these two google videos, all the way through, and actually take some time to reflect on them. These videos are a pretty good quality and serve as a good basic introduction to the basic gist of what I'm saying. After, prove to me that you watched them both and that you understand the gist of what they're saying.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6312400129079706710
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3507614538091642471

After you have watched them, if you are honestly still adament that there is "no reason" whatsoever to go on such a quest, then at least I won't be able to accuse you of being too scared to watch them.

Another time. I am due at work in 40 minutes so watching an hour long video doesn't fit into the schedule. Perchance I can this Thursday when I have sufficient free-time.

I would seek to know this. Which other religion has it as a foundation point in history that the Word became flesh?

Scruffy

March 2nd 2007, 02:26 PM

Another time. I am due at work in 40 minutes so watching an hour long video doesn't fit into the schedule. Perchance I can this Thursday when I have sufficient free-time.

Ok, that's fair. Afterwards I'll answer your questions if those videos don't answer them first.

How's the view from that high horse?

Overwhelming, it's quite a responcibility that I didn't really ask for.

sylvius

March 2nd 2007, 02:28 PM

So you are saying that the body on the cross never came back to life? It was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Aramatea and remained there forever?

Then why did the women and the apostles not see the body when they went to the tomb. Why did the angels at the tomb say he has risen?

The bible contradicts you Sylvius.

so you're thinking Jesus didn't really die?

he just kept himself dead?

and the Centurion impressed by his loud cry just thinking he was dead?

oh yes and what about the piercing of his side?

I say, Jesus, as every normal person, like you and me, was resurrected from his Luz-bone.

Teallaura

March 2nd 2007, 02:51 PM

What, you expect me to hand to to you on a silver platter? No. The Journey counts for something. I'm not going to deprive you of the discovery and experience process. If you want to know so badly, take the journey yourself.

I'll point you in the right direction. That's my purpose here. But I can't take the Journey for you. If you won't take the journey yourself, either out of curiosity or a burning desire to get to the bottom of this, then any bite-sized chunks on a silver platter that I give you would be wasted on you anyway.
Which sounds suspiciously like 'I don't know'. It's odd that you think a journey can't be taken even when the destination is known. Or isn't that metaphorically true?

Sparko

March 2nd 2007, 02:59 PM

so you're thinking Jesus didn't really die?

he just kept himself dead?

and the Centurion impressed by his loud cry just thinking he was dead?

oh yes and what about the piercing of his side?

I say, Jesus, as every normal person, like you and me, was resurrected from his Luz-bone.

Jesus died on the cross. His human body died. His spirit left his body and went to the Father. His spirit was divine and did not die.

Three days later his spirit was reunited with his body and it was resurrected as a glorified imortal body. He still has that body because when he left earth he rose into sky with it. He didn't leave any body behind in the grave or at the feet of the disciples. The bible clearly says this. Jesus himself says he will raise himself after three days.

And there is no "Luz" bone. We have found many sealed ossuaries where the bodies have decomposed into nothing but dust, even the bones. If there were a Luz bone it would have still been there. Besides, if you don't believe in a physical resurrection in a physical body, then why do you believe in a Luz bone? What do you need a bone for to create a spirit body?

Scruffy

March 2nd 2007, 03:02 PM

Which sounds suspiciously like 'I don't know'. It's odd that you think a journey can't be taken even when the destination is known. Or isn't that metaphorically true?

Have you read the Basketball court debate between Rayado and myself regarding all this? If not, I suggest you do so and maybe even explore those books and websites I present in that thread.

Also maybe you could watch those videos I posted for ApologiaPhoenix.

sylvius

March 2nd 2007, 03:43 PM

[QUOTE]Jesus died on the cross. His human body died. His spirit left his body and went to the Father. His spirit was divine and did not die.
Hi Sparko!

don't we have such spirit too?

Three days later his spirit was reunited with his body and it was resurrected as a glorified imortal body.
that's totally new theology!

never read before such thing.

it is not in the bible either.

He still has that body because when he left earth he rose into sky with it. with holes in hands and side and all? How you know that?

He didn't leave any body behind in the grave

maybe in the in 1980 discovered family-tomb, who knows?

The bible clearly says this. Jesus himself says he will raise himself

raise himself? like a Baron von Münchhausen?

I cannot remember to have read such.

"he will stand up" - or "he will be raised"

And there is no "Luz" bone.
but there is an aqueduct of Sylvius, why then not a Luz-bone?

We have found many sealed ossuaries where the bodies have decomposed into nothing but dust, even the bones. If there were a Luz bone it would have still been there.

Luz is the name of the place where Jacob dreamt of the ladder up to heaven, and God made promises to him. Jacob on his flight for Esau his twin-brother who wanted to kill him.

Besides, if you don't believe in a physical resurrection in a physical body,
wait, i didn't say that.
Resurrection is of another order, the resurrected reality is a reality beyond time and space.

then why do you believe in a Luz bone?

Spanish "luz" = light.

the name "zohar" is a play on that.

Hebrew "zohar" = brilliance.

i like it.

remember John1:4
'in it was life, and the life was the light of men"

in the here and now is something eternal.

"luz'' -- a nut, almond.

What do you need a bone for to create a spirit body?

without it you are dead as a door-nail.

Rayado

March 2nd 2007, 04:30 PM

where he is mentioning the return of Jesus here?

he is telling a mystery, secret: Some secret, considering he spilled the beans and the beans have stayed spilled for nearly two thousand years.

All we will be transformed

the last trumpet has to be understood i.c.w. "yom kippur".

"yom kippur" ending with the blowing of the shofar. Your fate being sealed then.So? Even if everyone is raised from the dead, that still doesn't change the fact that God is going to judge those who rejected him.

If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Paul was specifically addressing Christians when he spoke about the glorified body, not the fate of all of humanity.

Jesus saying: it is not given to everyone to see; but to few, some; What verse is that, specifically?

you're certainly not among the ones mentioned in Mark 4:20:lmbo: Yeah...insult me when you can't answer me. Your evasion has been noted.

you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene who has been crucified, HE IS NOT HERE.(...) GO (...)TELL(...)He will go before you into Galilee. THERE you will see him as he did tell .

He willNow you're not making any sense at all. Why are you quoting verses that confirm a physical resurrection?

what point?:ahem:

I don't know the guy.I'd hope not, considering he wrote his book on the harmony of the Gospels in the first half of the 19th century.

to speak for whom?The validity of the eyewitnesses to the empty tomb, and the truthfulness of the authors of the Gospels.

what has been given; and waht i rejected? God himself, as the case happens to be.

It is he whom you have rejected.

it IS a possibility

it MIGHT BE that they found remnants of Jesus there.

you reject it beforehand. I do reject it becuase it's already been refuted by actual scholars and archaeologists.

So what was your excuse against the resurrection last week, before this tomb suddenly became relevant?

and not wihtout reason...You better believe it wasn't without reason that I rejected this documentary.

for IF it is true, IF indeed they found remnants of Jesus, then your whole belief-system is about to collapse. That's right--for once.

But it's not going to happen because the whole thing is flawed from the very beginning. As a challenge to Biblical faith it is completely impotent, devoid of substance, and wanting for strength.

remember word of Jesus;

The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.Kind of like how the case for the Talpiot tomb is getting ruined! :lol:

Sparko

March 2nd 2007, 04:47 PM

Hi Sparko!

don't we have such spirit too?
Our spirit only exists as long as God sustains it. Jesus' spirit is self sustaining as it is God himself.

Three days later his spirit was reunited with his body and it was resurrected as a glorified imortal body.
that's totally new theology!

never read before such thing.

it is not in the bible either.

Are you that ignorant? It is said in all 4 gospels. And summarized in

1 Cor2:3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

with holes in hands and side and all? How you know that?Acts chapter one says he rose into the sky.

Acts 1:9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes

raise himself? like a Baron von Münchhausen? So do you even read the bible sylvius or just commentaries about the bible from loonies like yourself?

John 2:19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." 20The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

John 10:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=10&verse=18&version=31&context=verse)
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

sylvius

March 2nd 2007, 05:06 PM

What verse is that, specifically?

He also said to them, "Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power."

:lmbo: Yeah...insult me when you can't answer me. Your evasion has been noted.

"a hundred fold" is Hebrew "meah shearim" with gematria 666.

it is about grain, grain-meausures, i.c.w. tithing.

note that "luz" has gematria 43, which is 1/10 x 430, gematria of "nefesh" = soul .

but you don't accept such things.

that's why you don't' belong to this category of hearers of the word.

Now you're not making any sense at all. Why are you quoting verses that confirm a physical resurrection?

:ahem:

:ahem:

The validity of the eyewitnesses to the empty tomb.

these stories were made up.

sylvius

March 2nd 2007, 05:40 PM

Our spirit only exists as long as God sustains it. Jesus' spirit is self sustaining as it is God himself

Genesis 2:7 reads: .

.And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

soul of life -- "nishmat chayim" --"
living soul - "nefesh chayah"

"neshamah" = divine soul
"nefesh"= animal soul.

"chayim" = life
"chayah"= beast.

How could Jesus die if his spirit was self-sustaining? (other than our spirit?)

if so, it would have been a play; kind of magic-tric.

Are you that ignorant? It is said in all 4 gospels.

no it ain't.

you say his spirit left his body at the cross and then after three days returned into his body .

Acts chapter one says he rose into the sky. it is no history.

So do you even read the bible sylvius or just commentaries about the bible from loonies like yourself?
John 2:19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." 20The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

it is not saying;
"" after Jesus had raised himself from the dead his disciples recalled, etc."

John 10:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=10&verse=18&version=31&context=verse)
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."[/QUOTE]

that is something.

what to think about?

Rayado

March 2nd 2007, 05:44 PM

He also said to them, "Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power."

There are two different ways I could refute your use of this. The first is to explain my position and show why it is correct.

That's too boring for me. And way too easy.

So we'll take the second path.

When, then, according to your interpretation of this verse, did the kingdom of God come in power?

"a hundred fold" is Hebrew "meah shearim" with gematria 666.

it is about grain, grain-meausures, i.c.w. tithing.Bzzzzt! Wrong. It's about the people who hear the gospel and respond to it and then spread the gospel themselves.

Look at the parable sometime, namely verses fourteen and fifteen. Jesus himself says it refers to people and not tithing. You cannot ignore the clear intention of Jesus who spoke the parable, or the author of the book, becuase it doesn't say what you believe.

note that "luz" has gematria 43, which is 1/10 x 430, gematria of "nefesh" = soul . Sorry, you're committing the logical fallacy of confusing quantity with quality. It's the same thing that's wrong with the Bible Wheel.

but you don't accept such things. And, as you said earlier, not without reason.

that's why you don't' belong to this category of hearers of the word. Wrong: Becuase I know how that verse is to be interpreted, I can confidently say that I have faith.

these stories were made up.And this is why I really distrust your handling of Scripture--you employ an enormous double standard when using it.

You eithersay that it's reliable when you're torturing the meaning with gematria, in spite of clear context and sound hermeneutical rules, or when it doesn't say what you want it to, you say it was made up and is unreliable.

Which means that you want to say that it's both reliable and unreliable at the same time. And you've shown no reason why some of it is reliable and the rest of it isn't. And because of that enormous inconsistency, I have no reason to trust your use of Scripture.

sylvius

March 2nd 2007, 05:50 PM

When, then, according to your interpretation of this verse, did the kingdom of God come in power?

right now

Rayado

March 2nd 2007, 05:57 PM

Sparko

March 2nd 2007, 07:42 PM

OK I am going back to ignoring Slyvius. Whenever I give him a clear argument and verse, instead of actually answering clearly he resorts to playing dictionary games with words in an attempt at obfuscation.

Rayado, you are not going to get anywhere discussing anything with him. Take comfort in the fact that nobody reading his posts will understand anything he says anyway so I doubt anyone will be led astray.

Teallaura

March 2nd 2007, 11:43 PM

Have you read the Basketball court debate between Rayado and myself regarding all this? If not, I suggest you do so and maybe even explore those books and websites I present in that thread.

Also maybe you could watch those videos I posted for ApologiaPhoenix.Or maybe I could find out what you have to say before bothering to look at a bunch of stuff that is right now very likely total junk. I'm not impressed by 'go read this' and less impressed by someone who can't answer a straight question without resorting to it.

If and when you give enough of an answer to show that there might be something worth looking at I'll consider it. Otherwise, it's just crud you are dredging up because you're too lazy or incapable of arguing for yourself.

Or maybe it's a metaphor for actual debate? :cs:

sylvius

March 3rd 2007, 04:33 AM

:doh:

We'll try this again.

Jesus said that some standing there then--the group that he was addressing--would still be alive when the kingdom of God came in power. You mean to tell me that there are people still alive that heard Jesus speak?

no, Jesus didn't say that, but:
He also said to them, "Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power."

it is a big difference.

most people are blind against God's Kingdom.

right after this verse comes the story about the transfiguration of Jesus.

and note what the Gospel is about:

"The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God has drawn near" (Mark 1:15), i.e., right in this moment.

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."(Mathew 18:20)

note that "in the midst" is Hebrew "b'kerev" -- from root ""karav' = to approach, draw near.
"karov" = near, "b'karov'"= soon.

sylvius

March 3rd 2007, 07:23 AM

Acts chapter one says he rose into the sky.

Acts 1:9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes

you might ask why the bodily ascension of Jesus is only mentioned here, and in no other place; since it seems to be such fundamental experience for your Christian conviction.

same about the empty grave.

why is there only mentioning of it in the four Gospels?

why didn't Peter mention it in his speeches?

And why didn't Paul never mention it?

same with the immaculate conception - virgin birth.

i think Acts 1:9 is written after Daniel 7:13.

it is not the description of an historical event.

it is kind of parable.

like the stories of the empty grave and the immaculate conception.

Scruffy

March 3rd 2007, 08:58 AM

Or maybe I could find out what you have to say before bothering to look at a bunch of stuff that is right now very likely total junk.

You sure sound hostile. Ok, I'll give you a little sample. I'll try to start in the beginning, and if you want to pursue it, I'll take you on in another thread or something.

So, "in the beginning..." there was the most basic, universal, and influential category of mystical experience, which is called by many in a wide sense the "Unity" category. It's old...very old, and it's independent of race, gender, religion, etc.

The experience of "Unity" involves a process of temporary ego loss and is generally expressed in one of three ways: The ego is absorbed into that which transcends it, or as an inward process by which the ego gains pure awareness of self, or as a combination of the two. This latter is described by William James, "In mystic states we both become one with the Absolute and we become aware of our oneness".

2.2.1 Union with God

“Union” with God signifies a rich family of experiences rather than a single experience. “Union” involves a falling away of the separation between a person and God, short of identity. Christian mystics have variously described union with the Divine. This includes Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) describing unification as “mutuality of love,” Henry Suso (1295-1366) likening union with God to a drop of water falling into wine, taking on the taste and color of the wine (Suso, 1953, p. 185), and Jan van Ruysbroeck (1293-1381) describing union as “iron within the fire and the fire within the iron” (see Pike, 1992, Chapter 2). Generally, medieval Christian mysticism had at least three stages, variously described, in the union-consciousness: quiet, essentially a prelude to the union with God, full union, and rapture, the latter involving a feeling of being “carried away” beyond oneself (see Pike, 1992, Chapter 1).

2.2.2 Identity with God

Theistic mystics sometimes speak as though they have a consciousness of being fully absorbed into or even identical with God. Examples are the Islamic Sufi mystic al-Husayn al-Hallaj (858-922) proclaiming, “I am God” (see Schimmel, 1975, Chapter 2), and the Jewish kabbalist, Isaac of Acre (b. 1291?), who wrote of the soul being absorbed into God “as a jug of water into a running well.” (see Idel, 1988, p. 67.) Also, the Hasidic master, R. Shneur Zalman of Liady (1745-1812) wrote of a person as a drop of water in the ocean of the Infinite with an illusory sense of individual “dropness.” And, the (heretical) Christian mystic, Meister Eckhart (c. 1260-1327/8) made what looked very much like identity-declarations (see McGinn, 2001 and Smith, 1997). It is an open question, however, when such declarations are to be taken as identity assertions, with pantheistic or acosmic intentions, and when they are perhaps hyperbolic variations on descriptions of union-type experiences.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/

Paradox, ineffability, and bliss are common characteristics of a Unity experience. It is not always clear whether the experience, a mystical object, or both, are supposed to be paradoxical. The sense of distinction between self and other, subject and object is temporarily lost somehow, and consciousness seems to expand to include everything and everyone. It's hard to use language at that point, because words by their very nature create distinctions. During the Unity state there are no distinctions. All a mystic can really think or say at that point is, "I AM..."

Unity experiences vary in intensity, and can occur spontaneously. There are other categories of mystical experience which influenced the development of mythology and religion as well, but the Unity category is the most influential, representing the "top of the mountain". The highest spiritual state a Human can achieve. It's the goal of every mystical tradition and by extention every religion.

One of the overwhelming feelings that the mystic walks away with from a Unity experience is that all is ONE, at the most fundamental level, beyond normal waking consciousness.

So then debate, theology, philosophy, and mythology start and diversify where mysticism stops. What is the nature of that which mystics "merge" with? What do we call it? What is it's relationship to us? What does it want, anyway? Do we "merge" with it again after death? How and why can we even "merge" with it in the first place? Are we fundamentally the same as that which we "merge" with, but normal waking consciousness keeps us from realizing it?

How an ancient culture answered these kinds of questions is found in the layers of it's mythology. Expressed through various literary devices, such as metaphor, and various categories of symbolism. Since these are based on universal mystical experiences at their roots, cross-cultural similarities permeate every level of mythology and religion at fundamental levels. Toss in the large amount of cultural influence mythologies and religions had on each other as they evolved, and we have yet another factor contributing to the similarities among mystical traditions and the religions/mythologies that they inform.

"...The universe was not there; only I was.
Adam wasn't there; only I was.
That light of unity was "I"; I am the Everlasting, and I am
the prophet Elias.
The universe gets its light from me;
Adam took his form from me;
I am the All-Wise, the Knower, the Judge of all judges."

-Jalaluddin Rumi (1207-1273)

If we dig more deeply, however, we find within each of these religious traditions an inner, or esoteric, stream of teachings given by their mystics—those men and women who claim to have had a direct Realization, or Gnosis, of the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Moreover, if we compare the testimonies of these mystics about the Nature of this Reality, we find that, despite vast separations in time, place, language, and culture, they are strikingly similar—so much so that many scholars have come to view their teachings as constituting a single perennial philosophy which, like some irrepressible flower, keeps blooming again and again in the human psyche.

http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/traditions.html

Shadow Phoenix

March 3rd 2007, 11:34 AM

You sure sound hostile. Ok, I'll give you a little sample. I'll try to start in the beginning, and if you want to pursue it, I'll take you on in another thread or something.

So, "in the beginning..." there was the most basic, universal, and influential category of mystical experience, which is called by many in a wide sense the "Unity" category. It's old...very old, and it's independent of race, gender, religion, etc.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Wanna fit this into a creation framework. Are we talking oscillating universe? Reincarnation? One-time Big Bang cosmology. What?

The experience of "Unity" involves a process of temporary ego loss and is generally expressed in one of three ways: The ego is absorbed into that which transcends it, or as an inward process by which the ego gains pure awareness of self, or as a combination of the two. This latter is described by William James, "In mystic states we both become one with the Absolute and we become aware of our oneness".

Odd. In Christianity, God turns us into reflections of himself while keeping ourselves ourselves still. There is no I to lose because I am a good thing.

Paradox, ineffability, and bliss are common characteristics of a Unity experience. It is not always clear whether the experience, a mystical object, or both, are supposed to be paradoxical. The sense of distinction between self and other, subject and object is temporarily lost somehow, and consciousness seems to expand to include everything and everyone. It's hard to use language at that point, because words by their very nature create distinctions. During the Unity state there are no distinctions. All a mystic can really think or say at that point is, "I AM..."

Except in Christianity, we are made to be separate from God but reflect him. I note also that you say paradox and not contradiction.

Unity experiences vary in intensity, and can occur spontaneously. There are other categories of mystical experience which influenced the development of mythology and religion as well, but the Unity category is the most influential, representing the "top of the mountain". The highest spiritual state a Human can achieve. It's the goal of every mystical tradition and by extention every religion.

Hate to inform ya of this, but my religion does not have my goal to be to have an awesome experience. That's just a bonus. My goal is to glorify God in truth. Unfortunately, your religion seems to be more about me than about God.

One of the overwhelming feelings that the mystic walks away with from a Unity experience is that all is ONE, at the most fundamental level, beyond normal waking consciousness.

Would you care to tell me why Jesus was such a terrible teacher then?

All of his apostles believed in a dualism in which God and creation are separate. All of the ECF did. In fact, no one took Jesus's teachings that way until 1800 years later when some people supposedly found the real truth. Good teachers speak most clearly to their own students. If Jesus was teaching Monism, why did his apostles all teach dualism?

So then debate, theology, philosophy, and mythology start and diversify where mysticism stops. What is the nature of that which mystics "merge" with? What do we call it? What is it's relationship to us? What does it want, anyway? Do we "merge" with it again after death? How and why can we even "merge" with it in the first place? Are we fundamentally the same as that which we "merge" with, but normal waking consciousness keeps us from realizing it?

If you approach the ancients assuming they were like you, it is hardly a shock you think like that. Yet do you see any traces of such in the Hebrew writings of the Old and New Testaments?

How an ancient culture answered these kinds of questions is found in the layers of it's mythology. Expressed through various literary devices, such as metaphor, and various categories of symbolism. Since these are based on universal mystical experiences at their roots, cross-cultural similarities permeate every level of mythology and religion at fundamental levels. Toss in the large amount of cultural influence mythologies and religions had on each other as they evolved, and we have yet another factor contributing to the similarities among mystical traditions and the religions/mythologies that they inform.

I consider this massive question-begging. You do know the Hebrews were exclusivists who did not borrow from others around them. Right? (Yeah yeah. Read the Jesus Mysteries. I've heard enough Christ copycat myths. Been there. Done that.)

Also, why should I take the OT as metaphorical? Why not take the works of Moses as recounting actual historical events?

"...The universe was not there; only I was.
Adam wasn't there; only I was.
That light of unity was "I"; I am the Everlasting, and I am
the prophet Elias.
The universe gets its light from me;
Adam took his form from me;
I am the All-Wise, the Knower, the Judge of all judges."

-Jalaluddin Rumi (1207-1273)

I should believe it because?

(By the way, I even see dualism in it and not monism. If all is one, then what is the judger judging?)

Scruffy

March 3rd 2007, 01:21 PM

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Wanna fit this into a creation framework. Are we talking oscillating universe? Reincarnation? One-time Big Bang cosmology. What?

Um...it was a figure of speech. Lighten up, all of you. Jeesh. :ahem:

I addressed some of your comments in that debate between Rayado and myself. Have you read it? If not, why? Do I need to copy-and-paste the entire thread for you?

(Yeah yeah. Read the Jesus Mysteries. I've heard enough Christ copycat myths. Been there. Done that.)

This must be the part I was talking about earlier where you take what I say, label it, fit it into your preconceptions, and hand-wave it away. Do you still plan on watching those videos, or have you now managed to convince yourself that there is no need? :hmph:

Shadow Phoenix

March 3rd 2007, 10:27 PM

Um...it was a figure of speech. Lighten up, all of you. Jeesh. :ahem:

I addressed some of your comments in that debate between Rayado and myself. Have you read it? If not, why? Do I need to copy-and-paste the entire thread for you?

Yeah. Considering he did a number on you, I don't know why you'd want to broadcast it.

This must be the part I was talking about earlier where you take what I say, label it, fit it into your preconceptions, and hand-wave it away. Do you still plan on watching those videos, or have you now managed to convince yourself that there is no need? :hmph:

Oh I am Dr. Phil. I'm just curious if my label applies or not. Do you think there are other figures that share the story of Christ in history?

Scruffy

March 4th 2007, 08:45 AM

I'm just curious if my label applies or not. Do you think there are other figures that share the story of Christ in history?

It doesn't and I don't. No one who understands how mythology works would say that other figures "share the story of Christ in history." I don't accuse the early Christians of making a xerox "copy-cat" of some other particular figure. I don't like the word "copy-cat". Jesus is not merely a "copy-cat". Ok? Is a human being a "copy-cat" monkey?

Some critics call Jesus a myth to debunk Christianity, thinking that makes the whole thing a dirty rotten lie. Those who do, don't understand myth. Calling the Bible myth is not calling it a lie. Anyone who thinks that way, regardless of which side of the issue they are on, is simply ignorant of the nature of myth and the mystical and esoteric insights in myths. Myth is not a lie, nor is it fact. It is, among other things, a road-map to inner truths, inner potentialities, inner realizations.

Having said that, I think it's quite clear that the Christian mythos evolved from earlier mythologies, just as life evolves from earlier life.

Look at it this way. There is a 'Tree of life' which illustrates the diversity of biological organisms on Earth and their common roots, right? Myth is sort of the same way. Mythologies evolve, diversify, adapt, and branch-off. Like branches of a tree which can be traced back to common roots. I don't want to chop that tree down, nor do I want to break off any branches. I want to climb it.

JackC

March 4th 2007, 02:06 PM

It doesn't and I don't. No one who understands how mythology works would say that other figures "share the story of Christ in history." I don't accuse the early Christians of making a xerox "copy-cat" of some other particular figure. I don't like the word "copy-cat". Jesus is not merely a "copy-cat". Ok? Is a human being a "copy-cat" monkey?

Some critics call Jesus a myth to debunk Christianity, thinking that makes the whole thing a dirty rotten lie. Those who do, don't understand myth. Calling the Bible myth is not calling it a lie. Anyone who thinks that way, regardless of which side of the issue they are on, is simply ignorant of the nature of myth and the mystical and esoteric insights in myths. Myth is not a lie, nor is it fact. It is, among other things, a road-map to inner truths, inner potentialities, inner realizations.

Having said that, I think it's quite clear that the Christian mythos evolved from earlier mythologies, just as life evolves from earlier life.

Look at it this way. There is a 'Tree of life' which illustrates the diversity of biological organisms on Earth and their common roots, right? Myth is sort of the same way. Mythologies evolve, diversify, adapt, and branch-off. Like branches of a tree which can be traced back to common roots. I don't want to chop that tree down, nor do I want to break off any branches. I want to climb it.

This same story reoccurs in this world again and again - one who talks experientially of the Father's Kingdom, and another who has had no experience mockingly saying, yeah, right.

What Scruffy has shared is not part of exoteric Christian religion, where people tend to be stuck in mental processes about God, but it is certainly clearly offered in th Bible.

I would suggest to AP and others that they read Psalms - which came from the Tabernacle of David, the place of worship where the children of Israel took their spirituality to another level.

There they climbed to the mountain top, ascended, where Unity, as Scruffy describes it, occurred.

When one gets close his soul begins to cry out - For you alone Lord, my soul waits in silence. Silence referring to the quieting or 'death' of the ego - the crucifixion of the self with all its desires and passions (the ego is only quiet when it no longer desires or fears). In this silence the soul waits for its Redeemer, for its Savior, for God in His Grace to reach down and elevate the soul to Him.

For those who also think that the Bible does not say what Scruffy is claiming, read John 17 as well as the rest of the New Testatement. God is not looking for separate individuals to pretend or act like God, but for temples of His Spirit. For individuals to be manifestations of Truth, as Jesus was, to be One with the Father, as Jesus was.

To see these truths in scripture, one cannot read the Bible with the mindset that my religion is right, but with the mindset of seeking right understanding at all costs (Proverbs), even if that means that what one's beliefs have been erroneous.

As far as myths, if I can add all of creation is God's stories, myths, as Scruffy said, pointing to higher spiritual truths, and if one allows themselves to see God's higher truths reflected through out this world (even the rocks sing out), they will begin to touch the immenseness of His Grace and Love, and how He has revealed all things, even Christ, through any and all means possible.

And so while the story of Jesus is unique to Jesus, because He has specific purposes in His incarnation, the higher spiritual truths that He revealed are not unique and have been revealed again and again throughout time, through many angels and Messengers of God.

One problem in understanding is when we do not separate the flesh and blood that Christ clothed Himself in - Jesus - and Christ Himself.

Jack

Shadow Phoenix

March 4th 2007, 09:56 PM

Scruffy

March 4th 2007, 10:28 PM

Strawman.

Shadow Phoenix

March 4th 2007, 10:31 PM

Strawman.

Nice assertion. Show it.

Scruffy

March 4th 2007, 11:32 PM

Nice assertion. Show it.

Well I think you misrepresent my position twice. I didn't say that the Jesus history as being "taken" from other myths of the time. I said that the Christian mythos evolved from earlier mythologies.

Christianity and the other myths of the time probably shared some common sources. I don't think Jesus was a fictional composite character that was "taken"...I think there was a historical Jesus. This separates me from "copy-cat Jesus Mythers" and I don't like having my position misrepresented as such.

Now about labels, since I deny that I am a "Jesus Myther" I don't like being labeled as such. Which is something that Christians tend to do whenever they see the words "myth" and "Christianity" in the same post. It's a knee-jerk reaction, and I've been trying to get you to think about what I'm saying rather than label it as another "Jesus Myth" theory and hand-waving it away. Do you understand?

Now about my use of the label "exoteric". Do you deny that this label applies to you? I think it does, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Shadow Phoenix

March 4th 2007, 11:38 PM

Well I think you misrepresent my position twice. I didn't say that the Jesus history as being "taken" from other myths of the time. I said that the Christian mythos evolved from earlier mythologies.

Christianity and the other myths of the time probably shared some common sources. I don't think Jesus was a fictional composite character that was "taken"...I think there was a historical Jesus. This separates me from "copy-cat Jesus Mythers" and I don't like having my position misrepresented as such.

Now about labels, since I deny that I am a "Jesus Myther" I don't like being labeled as such. Which is something that Christians tend to do whenever they see the words "myth" and "Christianity" in the same post. It's a knee-jerk reaction, and I've been trying to get you to think about what I'm saying rather than label it as another "Jesus Myth" theory and hand-waving it away. Do you understand?

Now about my use of the label "exoteric". Do you deny that this label applies to you? I think it does, but feel free to prove me wrong.

I don't mind being labeled. If you think I believe that the gospels teach truth about external reality by esoteric, then you are correct.

I didn't say you were a Christ-myther either. I don't believe though that the Christians borrowed ANY ideas in writing the gospels. What happened is what they wrote, including the miracles and the resurrection.

I still see you as an exclusivist.

Scruffy

March 4th 2007, 11:49 PM

I still see you as an exclusivist.

Ok, fine. Let's agree to see each other as exclusivist. The difference is, you seem to claim the truth as exclusively belonging to the Christian religion. Correct? I make no such claim on behalf of any particular faith.

So you exclude yourself from all those who aren't Christians. The way I see it, I merely acknowledge your own self-exclusion from ME. I embrace all those who don't exclude me. Give up your intolerance, in other words your claim that your Jesus is the only way, and I will embrace you.

Now, can we move on? I made a thread about those two videos you promised to watch in Apologetics forum. It's titled The Power of Myth. Would you like to take our discussion there?

Shadow Phoenix

March 4th 2007, 11:56 PM

Ok, fine. Let's agree to see each other as exclusivist. The difference is, you seem to claim the truth as exclusively belonging to the Christian religion. Correct? I make no such claim on behalf of any particular faith.

So you exclude yourself from all those who aren't Christians. The way I see it, I merely acknowledge your own self-exclusion from ME. I embrace all those who don't exclude me. Give up your intolerance, in other words your claim that your Jesus is the only way, and I will embrace you.

Scruffy. I could care less if you embrace me or not. Why should I exchange the embrace of Christ for the embrace of you? I also don't exclude myself from you. I exclude myself from your view.

Also, could you please define intolerance?

However, the main reason I wouldn't do so is if your view is true, then I see that it diminishes the cross of Christ. If the Christian claim is true and Christ is God over all, then I had best listen to all that he said and trust that he is the one who provided salvation.

Now, can we move on? I made a thread about those two videos you promised to watch in Apologetics forum. It's titled The Power of Myth. Would you like to take our discussion there?

Haven't seen them yet. I probably will Thursday.

Scruffy

March 5th 2007, 12:04 AM

I also don't exclude myself from you. I exclude myself from your view.

Ok, fine. I don't exclude myself from you, either. I exclude myself from your religion.

Haven't seen them yet. I probably will Thursday.

OK, I think we should wait until after you have had time to see them, and then resume this conversation in that thread. After you see them I think our conversation will be more productive.

Rayado

March 5th 2007, 01:01 AM

no, Jesus didn't say that, but:
He also said to them, "Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power."

it is a big difference.From your misuse of the verse and what Jesus meant, yes.

Jesus was addressing those living, in the present, when he said that. He clearly made time a key element in his promise.

So I will ask it again: Who is still living who heard Jesus give this promise?

It is precisely what Jesus said, no matter how you try to twist the verse.

most people are blind against God's Kingdom.As you have aptly demonstrated, I see.

right after this verse comes the story about the transfiguration of Jesus.

and note what the Gospel is about:

"The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God has drawn near" (Mark 1:15), i.e., right in this moment. Okay.

When Jesus uses words like "fulfilled," that means he's talking about an event in the present and not two thousand years later, which you stated when you said "right now" was the time of the kingdom.

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."(Mathew 18:20)What does this verse have to do with 1) the topic of the thread, or 2) our discussion of the Biblical texts themselves? You can't just throw verses together and see if stuff sticks. You have to treat the verses according to context.

note that "in the midst" is Hebrew "b'kerev" -- from root ""karav' = to approach, draw near.
"karov" = near, "b'karov'"= soon.And why on God's green earth should I care about the Hebrew phrase for a Greek text?

sylvius

March 5th 2007, 02:50 AM

Jesus was addressing those living, in the present, when he said that. He clearly made time a key element in his promise. So I will ask it again: Who is still living who heard Jesus give this promise?

it comes right after Peter's testimony and Jesus' foretelling of his death and resurrection.

He was calling the crowd to it:
He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.

it is not just the bystanders there and then that were adressed.

like if it shouldn't call for you.

"take up your cross' -- not meant literal, for sure.

He doesn't ask from you to schlepp around a wooden cross.

what then is meant with cross?

I tell you it is about last letter of Hebrew alphabet, "tav", of which the numerical value is 400.
"tav" is sign of the cross.

wood, Hebrew "ets" = tree.

Jesus was nailed on the tree of time -- i.e., tree of knowledge of good and evil. (remember gematria of tree of knowledge is exactly four times the gematria of tree of life),
Making it a timely affair.
(like the second category of hearers of the word in the parable of the sower).

When Jesus uses words like "fulfilled," that means he's talking about an event in the present and not two thousand years later, which you stated when you said "right now" was the time of the kingdom.
Jesus was preaching the Gospel of God.

What does this verse have to do with 1) the topic of the thread, or 2) our discussion of the Biblical texts themselves? You can't just throw verses together and see if stuff sticks. You have to treat the verses according to context.

And why on God's green earth should I care about the Hebrew phrase for a Greek text
i was trying to illustrate what "the Kingdom of God has drawn near" means;

it is right now
; knocking at your door; for you to open.

same you have in Revelation
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show his servants what must happen soon.
soon =Greek "en tachei" = Hebrew "b'karov"

Blessed is the one who reads aloud and blessed are those who listen to this prophetic message and heed what is written in it, for the time is near.
near= Greek "engus" = Hebrew "karov".

cf. Exodus17

And the name of the place was called Massah, and Meribah, because of the striving of the children of Israel, and because they tried the LORD, saying: 'Is the LORD among us, or not?' Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.

'Is the LORD among us, or not ", "hayesh Hashem b'kirbeinu im ein"

it is the same --

immediately the arch-enemy is there. .. the denier.

Shadow Phoenix

March 5th 2007, 01:54 PM

Ok, fine. I don't exclude myself from you, either. I exclude myself from your religion.

What? My religion isn't true? I'm believing something WRONG?!

OK, I think we should wait until after you have had time to see them, and then resume this conversation in that thread. After you see them I think our conversation will be more productive.

Translation: Don't press me on my being exclusivistic and once you see these videos, you'll see that you were obviously clueless all along.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Rayado

March 5th 2007, 02:44 PM

it comes right after Peter's testimony and Jesus' foretelling of his death and resurrection.

He was calling the crowd to it:
He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.Nice try, but your interpretation doesn't hold water.

The verse is part of the pericope also found in Matthew 24. Look specifically at Matthew 24:34:

34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Look at the context of ch. 24--Jesus was asked when the kingdom of God would arrive, and he directly linked the events he foretold with the generation, living then, who heard him.

it is not just the bystanders there and then that were adressed.

like if it shouldn't call for you.And as Matthew 24 shows, it was his disciples who were addressed.

"take up your cross' -- not meant literal, for sure. Nice try, but no orthdox Christian said it was a literal cross--although sometimes it turned out to be one. The expression is a figure of speech, which is quite plain to see.

He doesn't ask from you to schlepp around a wooden cross.

what then is meant with cross? A struggle--not an unfamiliar idea in an agonistic society.

I tell you it is about last letter of Hebrew alphabet, "tav", of which the numerical value is 400.
"tav" is sign of the cross.

wood, Hebrew "ets" = tree.Totally clueless, I see. Hebrew has nothing to do with a Greek text. No logical correlation.

Jesus was preaching the Gospel of God.

i was trying to illustrate what "the Kingdom of God has drawn near" means; And failing miserably by misinterpreting the text.

it is right now
; knocking at your door; for you to open.I don't see why you trust that part of the Gospels since you don't believe the resurrection accounts in them. You'll believe the nice moral teachings and the stuff like the transfiguration, but why not the resurrection?

same you have in Revelation
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show his servants what must happen soon.And soon, for John, was the impending destruction of Jerusalem, same as Matthew 24.

soon =Greek "en tachei" = Hebrew "b'karov"

Blessed is the one who reads aloud and blessed are those who listen to this prophetic message and heed what is written in it, for the time is near.
near= Greek "engus" = Hebrew "karov".

cf. Exodus17

And the name of the place was called Massah, and Meribah, because of the striving of the children of Israel, and because they tried the LORD, saying: 'Is the LORD among us, or not?' Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.

'Is the LORD among us, or not ", "hayesh Hashem b'kirbeinu im ein"

it is the same --

immediately the arch-enemy is there. .. the denier.Obfuscation makes for a terrible tactic, you know?

Since you refuse to explain why the Hebrew language has any effect at all on a Greek New Testament, when the authors of the New Testament didn't use the interpretation and intention you do, I will have to conclude that you cannot or will not exlain why you use the text like you do.

Welcome to Ignorigan's. Population: you.

sylvius

March 5th 2007, 04:16 PM

The verse is part of the pericope also found in Matthew 24. Look specifically at Matthew 24:34:

I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
what about
And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

did that also happen or has it still to happen?

and what then about "this generation"? Was Jesus (Matthew) wrong ?

no orthdox Christian said it was a literal cross--although sometimes it turned out to be one. The expression is a figure of speech, which is quite plain to see.

A struggle--not an unfamiliar idea in an agonistic society.

a struggle? That's new.

.

I don't see why you trust that part of the Gospels since you don't believe the resurrection
I do believe in the resurrection; in the resurrected reality beyond our every day reality.

And soon, for John, was the impending destruction of Jerusalem, same as Matthew 24.
they were written after that.

Since you refuse to explain why the Hebrew language has any effect at all on a Greek New Testament, when the authors of the New Testament didn't use the interpretation and intention you do, I will have to conclude that you cannot or will not exlain why you use the text like you do.
alone the term "New Terstament" makes only sense agaisnt the background ogf Hebrew Torah.
New Testament : "berit hachadashah" --

what is new ?

after you (Christians) New Testament is already almost 2000 years old.

Rayado

March 5th 2007, 06:02 PM

Yeah, I said I woulnd't respond, but abject ignorance is too much fun to pass up.

what about
And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

did that also happen or has it still to happen?

and what then about "this generation"? Was Jesus (Matthew) wrong ? :hehe: Sorry, but the burden of proof is still on you to explain when the Kingdom of God came in power described thusly in the verses you just quoted.

So let's have a little fun with this. Are those verses literal or not? And what did Jesus mean when he said this?

a struggle? That's new. It wasn't for those living under Rome in that time period.

And it goes to show that you haven't paid much attention to the rest of the New Testament. Ever read Ephesians 6? The majority of the Pastoral Epistles? You can't read those books without tripping over the "struggle" langauge that Paul used. Does the phrase "run the race" not ring any bells?

I do believe in the resurrection; in the resurrected reality beyond our every day reality. And that is not what the NT authors meant when they used the word. They meant a literal, physical resurrection.

they were written after that.Unfounded assertion. What's your proof? And how can you tell what was written when?

alone the term "New Terstament" makes only sense agaisnt the background ogf Hebrew Torah.
New Testament : "berit hachadashah" -- Which makes not a lick of difference since 1) the NT was written in Greek, and 2)Aramaic was the language that Jesus and the disciples spoke. Your completely decontextualized misinterpretation of the term "New Testament" further proves your unfamiliarity with how it's actually approached.

what is new ?

after you (Christians) New Testament is already almost 2000 years old.So? The interpretation of the eschatological text in the NT takes the whole thing into account. Time is not a problem to it. But right now it's not the focus of this thread or this discussion.

sylvius

March 6th 2007, 03:26 AM

. Are those verses literal or not? And what did Jesus mean when he said this?

he was, via Daniel, alluding to the mist of Genesis 2:6.

It wasn't for those living under Rome in that time period.
take up the cross is something else than wrestling or being persecuted.

Ever read Ephesians 6?
it is not about the cross.

And that is not what the NT authors meant when they used the word. They meant a literal, physical resurrection.
they meant resurrection of the body -- not of the corpse.

Unfounded assertion. What's your proof? And how can you tell what was written when?
John 2:22

Which makes not a lick of difference since 1) the NT was written in Greek, and 2)Aramaic was the language that Jesus and the disciples spoke. Your completely decontextualized misinterpretation of the term "New Testament" further proves your unfamiliarity with how it's actually approached.Torah isn't written in Greek, nor in Aramaic, but in Hebrew.

So? The interpretation of the eschatological text in the NT takes the whole thing into account. Time is not a problem to it. But right now it's not the focus of this thread or this discussion.
but according to you "this generation" of Matthew 24; and the "some of the bystanders" in Mark9:1 already did pass away long time ago...

Rayado

March 7th 2007, 11:28 AM

he was, via Daniel, alluding to the mist of Genesis 2:6.Uh, no. It was alluding to the cosmic symbols which stood for the end of earthly powers in the Old Testament.

take up the cross is something else than wrestling or being persecuted. :lol: Are you joking? That's exactly what it means. It's the basis for the "slave of Christ" language that Paul used.

it is not about the cross.Irrelevant answer. Ephesians 6 uses some very strong language to describe the struggle facing every Christian.

they meant resurrection of the body -- not of the corpse. Irrelevant distinction. The NT writers made absolutely no distinction between the body and the corpse--it meant the same thing to them. Otherwise they would have used a word like "soul" for "body." Instead, they used the word for the physical body.

John 2:22Your point being...? It doesn't refute the physical resurrection. The Gospels were written first to those who already believed, not to unbelievers. I'll ask it again: When did they invent the story? And how can you determine what is genuine and what isn't?

Torah isn't written in Greek, nor in Aramaic, but in Hebrew.Completely irrelevant, since it's the New Testament that's being discussed.

but according to you "this generation" of Matthew 24; and the "some of the bystanders" in Mark9:1 already did pass away long time ago...Yes, it did, and yes, they passed away some time ago. It all hinges on what Jesus meant with what he said. But you haven't yet said how those people could still be alive.

Unless you'd like to abandon your interpretation and listen to one that is coherent?

sylvius

March 7th 2007, 12:52 PM

Uh, no. It was alluding to the cosmic symbols which stood for the end of earthly powers in the Old Testament.
cosmic symbols?
end of earthly powers?
Old Testament?

:lol: Are you joking? That's exactly what it means. It's the basis for the "slave of Christ" language that Paul used.

so by taking up your cross you become a slave of Christ?
where does Pauls say such?

Irrelevant answer. Ephesians 6 uses some very strong language to describe the struggle facing every Christian.
My point was that taking up your cross is something else than struggling.

Irrelevant distinction. The NT writers made absolutely no distinction between the body and the corpse--it meant the same thing to them. Otherwise they would have used a word like "soul" for "body." Instead, they used the word for the physical body.

Mark did:
When it was already evening, since it was the day of preparation, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a distinguished member of the council, who was himself awaiting the kingdom of God, came and courageously went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was amazed that he was already dead. He summoned the centurion and asked him if Jesus had already died. And when he learned of it from the centurion, he gave the corpse to Joseph.

body = Greek "swma'; corpse = Greek "ptwma".

Your point being...? It doesn't refute the physical resurrection. The Gospels were written first to those who already believed, not to unbelievers. I'll ask it again: When did they invent the story? And how can you determine what is genuine and what isn't?
Paul never compared the destruction of the Temple to death and resurrection of Jesus; or mentioned Jesus' prophesying the destruction.
Only after that the disciples remembered Jesus making the comparison.
so the Gospels must have been written, or at least completed, after the year 70.
But I think Jesus, if he did, did talk about the destruction of the first Temple.

Completely irrelevant, since it's the New Testament that's being discussed.
which is rooted in Hebrew Tanach.

. But you haven't yet said how those people could still be alive.
I didn't say that those peopel were still alive;
but that the Kingdom of Heaven comes for those who SEE it, then, and now, and forever.

Unless you'd like to abandon your interpretation and listen to one that is coherent?

ok tell