The Meaning of Body Resurrection

[Ben Masada]

I thought Jesus was Jewish, not Greek...

Yours, you have just made him a Greek. Mine remains Jewish.

 

[sojourner]

Yours, you have just made him a Greek. Mine remains Jewish.

I didn't "make" Jesus anything. God didn't even make Jesus. God begat Jesus. I acknowledge that Jesus was Jewish by heritage and Jewish by religion. I also acknowledge that the religious authorities of the time didn't think he was so righteous.

 

[herushura]

I didn't "make" Jesus anything. God didn't even make Jesus. God begat Jesus. I acknowledge that Jesus was Jewish by heritage and Jewish by religion. I also acknowledge that the religious authorities of the time didn't think he was so righteous.

should find interesting is that the Greek term for Son of God is Dion-Ysus or Dionysus. The Word Ysus means Zeus, in fact if you would of said jesus in greece before 1AD people would of think you are acknowledging Zeus.
compare ysus and jesus ?

I guess that coming up with a word that closely matched that with Zeus, would of be adoptable in greece.



from research i have done on dionysus, i have found that the story of dionysus was
inspired by the Torah account of moses.

In an early account of dionysus, Dionysus was put in the river in a chest(Ark), and was reared by an thebes Princess called Ino, dionysus also formed an army to defeat the titans a battle that took place in egypt.

 

[sojourner]

should find interesting is that the Greek term for Son of God is Dion-Ysus or Dionysus. The Word Ysus means Zeus, in fact if you would of said jesus in greece before 1AD people would of think you are acknowledging Zeus.
compare ysus and jesus ?

I guess that coming up with a word that closely matched that with Zeus, would of be adoptable in greece.



from research i have done on dionysus, i have found that the story of dionysus was
inspired by the Torah account of moses.

In an early account of dionysus, Dionysus was put in the river in a chest(Ark), and was reared by an thebes Princess called Ino, dionysus also formed an army to defeat the titans a battle that took place in egypt.

So? Doesn't prove that Xy is a fake. Doesn't even prove that Jesus is not Son of God. it's interesting, but only mildly so in an historic context, and completely useless in this thread.

 

[drivingbackwards]

Jesus was resurrected into his spiritual body. His spiritual body was made seen to this dimension so that people would see that He had conquered the angel of death (Satan), thus proving that belief in him would bring eternal life after death (Passover). Its called Transfiguration when God "atomizes" your physical body to release your true "spiritual body". God does this several times to various people throughout the Bible. This is why there was no body of Jesus inside his tomb, and why no body was ever found at all after that point.

I have read this part and the same Jesus explains it clearly when he warned his disciples not to tell others about "that vision". (Matthew 17:9)

I guess that reading the entire context we can notice that such transfiguration was not a physical event as to have in advance a reward not earned yet, and that the images of Moses and Eliyahu were the representation of the Law and the Prophets. This is to say, that the vision was a presentation of the Messiah backed up by the Law and the Prophets, and that the Law and the Prophets are not absent but on the contrary, are part essential in the ruling of the Messiah.

As we already have read this passage of the resurrection of Jesus many times, he didn't resurrect by his own will but that "he was resurrected"...by the power of God.

The resurrection implies a different "physical body", and the difference between the corruptible body that we have "flesh and blood", is that the new body is made of "flesh and bones", a Hebrew expression that simply means: incorruptible.

Did you notice it?

 

[sojourner]

I have read this part and the same Jesus explains it clearly when he warned his disciples not to tell others about "that vision". (Matthew 17:9)

I guess that reading the entire context we can notice that such transfiguration was not a physical event as to have in advance a reward not earned yet, and that the images of Moses and Eliyahu were the representation of the Law and the Prophets. This is to say, that the vision was a presentation of the Messiah backed up by the Law and the Prophets, and that the Law and the Prophets are not absent but on the contrary, are part essential in the ruling of the Messiah.

As we already have read this passage of the resurrection of Jesus many times, he didn't resurrect by his own will but that "he was resurrected"...by the power of God.

The resurrection implies a different "physical body", and the difference between the corruptible body that we have "flesh and blood", is that the new body is made of "flesh and bones", a Hebrew expression that simply means: incorruptible.

Did you notice it?

Which version of the transfiguration are we discussing?

 

[Ben Masada]

I didn't "make" Jesus anything. God didn't even make Jesus. God begat Jesus. I acknowledge that Jesus was Jewish by heritage and Jewish by religion. I also acknowledge that the religious authorities of the time didn't think he was so righteous.

If you do acknowledge that Jesus was Jewish by heritage and religion, I should expect that you acknowledged that according to his Faith there is no such a thing as Greek Mythology. Therefore, Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary just like any other Jew is born of two earthly parents.

 

[sojourner]

If you do acknowledge that Jesus was Jewish by heritage and religion, I should expect that you acknowledged that according to his Faith there is no such a thing as Greek Mythology. Therefore, Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary just like any other Jew is born of two earthly parents.

Perhaps. But that really isn't germane to our topic, now is it?
BTW, when you can do as much scholarship with regard to the historical Jesus as the Jesus Seminar (and I doubt you have), then come talk to me about the historical Jesus.

 

[Ben Masada]

Perhaps. But that really isn't germane to our topic, now is it?
BTW, when you can do as much scholarship with regard to the historical Jesus as the Jesus Seminar (and I doubt you have), then come talk to me about the historical Jesus.

Jesus was a religious Jew, and I am a member of his Faith. What is it that you know about him and I don't? The opposite is true. You ought to study about him before discussing him with me.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus was a religious Jew, and I am a member of his Faith. What is it that you know about him and I don't? The opposite is true. You ought to study about him before discussing him with me.

:ignore:
I doubt that the Jewish faith spends very much time or energy concerning itself with the historical Jesus. You are not a member of his faith. Judaism is completely different now than it was in Jesus' time. Primarily due to the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e. Judaism almost died out after that. What we were left with was a version of Pharisaical Judaism, not Temple Judaism. I'm not knocking it -- it's a wonderful faith with wonderful Tradition. But to say that Jesus' religion and yours are the same is not accurate.

 

[smitten508]

Resurrection is taught in the OT tradition, the 2 main parties of Jewish thought however made such belief false over time. These 2 parties also happen to be who Jesus often talking against. Woe to you scribes etc... The idea of no resurrection is the same idea that nothing supernatural can exist. Hebrew ancients looked forward to the Christ. Many still do. For those that do not, Judaism is dead. Only in awaiting a Christ does 1 remain Jewish in religion. Anything else is farse and mockery to the True Living God of Israel.

 

[S-word]

If you do acknowledge that Jesus was Jewish by heritage and religion, I should expect that you acknowledged that according to his Faith there is no such a thing as Greek Mythology. Therefore, Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary just like any other Jew is born of two earthly parents.

Jesus was born of Mary and Joseph, but not Joseph from the tribe of Judah, who was the son of Jacob who is descended through the genetic line of Solomon, the youngest son of Bathsheba, and her only surviving son that was sired by King David.


That Joseph, whose genealogy which is recorded in the gospel of Matthew, did not consummate his union with Mary until she had birth her first born son Jesus, who was the biological son of Joseph the Levite from Cyprus who was sired by Heli, who had also sired Mary, and Heli is a descendant of Nathan the step son and son-in-law of David and a half brother to Solomon. It is through the genetic line of the daughter of David, that Jesus claims his descendency from David. See Luke 3: 23, for the genealogy of Jesus the son of Joseph the son of Heli etc, etc, etc.


But Nathan is a Levite and the biological son of Uriah who had married into the tribe of Levi by his union with Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel the son of Obed-Edom a descendant of Moses the Levite through his second wife who was the mother of the 40 year old Caleb when she married the 80 year old Moses, and she was the daughter of Hobab the Kenite the second father-in-law of Moses, and not to be confused with Jethro, the father of the first wife of Moses.

 

[Ben Masada]

:ignore:
I doubt that the Jewish faith spends very much time or energy concerning itself with the historical Jesus. You are not a member of his faith. Judaism is completely different now than it was in Jesus' time. Primarily due to the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e. Judaism almost died out after that. What we were left with was a version of Pharisaical Judaism, not Temple Judaism. I'm not knocking it -- it's a wonderful faith with wonderful Tradition. But to say that Jesus' religion and yours are the same is not accurate.

Sorry Sojourner, but you are exhibiting a very poor knowledge of what being Jewish is. Between Jesus and us today there are only 2,000 years. Our Biblical Judaism reports to more than 4,000 years. There is something else you do not understand: Evolution in religion is usually from more conservative to more liberal. If a religious Jew today would never let a woman who is not his wife anoint him and kiss him, and above all, in public, you can't imagine how it was in the First Century. But I can understand why you can't imagine. You are not Jewish.

 

[Ben Masada]

Resurrection is taught in the OT tradition, the 2 main parties of Jewish thought however made such belief false over time. These 2 parties also happen to be who Jesus often talking against. Woe to you scribes etc... The idea of no resurrection is the same idea that nothing supernatural can exist. Hebrew ancients looked forward to the Christ. Many still do. For those that do not, Judaism is dead. Only in awaiting a Christ does 1 remain Jewish in religion. Anything else is farse and mockery to the True Living God of Israel.

First of all, there was never any contension between Jesus and the Pharisees. All the problems with the Pharisees were derived from Paul, who was the one with a grudge against the Pharisees, because they never allowed him to build a church in Israeli soil. And this contension started when Paul appeared in Jerusalem preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected.

No ancient Hebrew ever looked forward to "Christ". You are trying to rewrite the Bible based on your romantic preconceived notions.

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus was born of Mary and Joseph, but not Joseph from the tribe of Judah, who was the son of Jacob who is descended through the genetic line of Solomon, the youngest son of Bathsheba, and her only surviving son that was sired by King David.


That Joseph, whose genealogy which is recorded in the gospel of Matthew, did not consummate his union with Mary until she had birth her first born son Jesus, who was the biological son of Joseph the Levite from Cyprus who was sired by Heli, who had also sired Mary, and Heli is a descendant of Nathan the step son and son-in-law of David and a half brother to Solomon. It is through the genetic line of the daughter of David, that Jesus claims his descendency from David. See Luke 3: 23, for the genealogy of Jesus the son of Joseph the son of Heli etc, etc, etc.


But Nathan is a Levite and the biological son of Uriah who had married into the tribe of Levi by his union with Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel the son of Obed-Edom a descendant of Moses the Levite through his second wife who was the mother of the 40 year old Caleb when she married the 80 year old Moses, and she was the daughter of Hobab the Kenite the second father-in-law of Moses, and not to be confused with Jethro, the father of the first wife of Moses.

I am sorry that you had to waste your time to go through this fantastic report. Either way Jesus was Jewish and he has to go according to Judaism.

According to Judaism, Tribal genealogy could not and still cannot be transmitted through the mother or adoption. But only and exclusively through a biological father.

The genealogies presented by Matthew and Luke trace Joseph to the Tribe of Judah. Therefore, for Jesus to be of the Tribe of Judah or line of David, he had to be a biological son of Joseph. Otherwise, I am sorry, because even a miracle here cannot fix this Christian dilemma.

 

[sojourner]

First of all, there was never any contension between Jesus and the Pharisees. All the problems with the Pharisees were derived from Paul, who was the one with a grudge against the Pharisees, because they never allowed him to build a church in Israeli soil. And this contension started when Paul appeared in Jerusalem preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected.

No ancient Hebrew ever looked forward to "Christ". You are trying to rewrite the Bible based on your romantic preconceived notions.

However, some Pharisees did look for the resurrection, no?

 

[sojourner]

Sorry Sojourner, but you are exhibiting a very poor knowledge of what being Jewish is. Between Jesus and us today there are only 2,000 years. Our Biblical Judaism reports to more than 4,000 years. There is something else you do not understand: Evolution in religion is usually from more conservative to more liberal. If a religious Jew today would never let a woman who is not his wife anoint him and kiss him, and above all, in public, you can't imagine how it was in the First Century. But I can understand why you can't imagine. You are not Jewish.

The point still stands: I doubt that modern Judaism spends very much energy concerning itself with the historical Jesus. I know more than several, and none -- repeat -- none of them care at all about Jesus.

In that 2000 years, I would wager that Judaism has changed a lot more than you give it credit for. It is fundamentally different. Judaism is based upon a covenantal relationship with God which, prior to 70, required sacrifice. Now it does not. That does represent a fundamental shift in the paradigm -- regardless of how many centuries of history are represented by pre-70 Judaism. (BTW, Xy is older than modern Judaism, and Judaism likely bases some of its religious ceremonies on Xian ceremonies.)

Nonetheless, I do understand the dynamics of religious evolution. None of that has any bearing on the story in question. Xy represents a radical departure from Temple Judaism, which was why the synagogues ousted the early Christians from fellowship. Jesus very well could have let a woman touch him. Or the story could be completely made up -- I'd have to exegete the passage in question. In any case, there's no real reason to believe that Jesus was married. Nor is there any real reason to think that, if he were, it would have been to Mary M.

 

[S-word]

I am sorry that you had to waste your time to go through this fantastic report. Either way Jesus was Jewish and he has to go according to Judaism.

According to Judaism, Tribal genealogy could not and still cannot be transmitted through the mother or adoption. But only and exclusively through a biological father.

The genealogies presented by Matthew and Luke trace Joseph to the Tribe of Judah. Therefore, for Jesus to be of the Tribe of Judah or line of David, he had to be a biological son of Joseph. Otherwise, I am sorry, because even a miracle here cannot fix this Christian dilemma.

I never waste my time Ben, although I do use up a fair bit of time checking out the veracity of the comments made by others, before attempting to answer them, something that apparently you don’t do.

Therefore, for Jesus to be of the Tribe of Judah or line of David, he had to be a biological son of Joseph.

Which Joseph are you referring to? Joseph the son of Jacob the son of Matthan, the son of Eleazar, etc, etc; who are the descendants of Solomon from the tribe of Judah, as recorded in the gospel of Matthew; or Joseph the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, etc, etc, who, as recorded in the gospel of Luke, are the descendants of Nathan the Levite who is the son of David, through his adoption and his marriage to David’s daughter.

Zechariah 12: 12; “And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; (This included the family of Solomon, and the families of all the biological sons of David, which does not include the family descended through Nathan as we continue) the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; etc.

And just as a point of interest, David has no full brothers, as his six half brothers that were sired by Jesse were born from a different mother than David. For the mother of David had previously birthed three children to King Nahash, who were Abigail and Zeruiah the older half sisters of David, and Shobi the 8th son of Jesse who is not recorded in his list of descendants.

Apparently you erroneously believe that the genealogy recorded in Matthew is that of the father of Jesus. But that is the genealogy of the Joseph who married Mary, which he did when he consummated that union after she had birthed her first born son Jesus, for Luke reveals that they were not married when this Joseph took the heavily pregnant Mary to Bethlehem where Jesus was born: Luke 2: 5; Mary the espoused wife, his fiancée, his betrothed, depending on which translation that you care to read, but all reveal that the marriage had not been consummated.

Your belief that the Joseph recorded in the genealogy in Matthew is the biological father of Jesus, is but a figment of your own imaginations and you deny the words of the Lord; although that Joseph was the biological father of the second of the three biological sons of Mary, who was his name sake "Joseph", her third son, was James the younger of the three and the first to sit on the Episcopal Throne of the church of the circumcision, and he was sired by Alpheaus who is also called “Cleophas” which is an abbreviation of ‘Cleopatros’ the masculine form of Cleopatra.

“First the Jew then the Greek.” ... “With his own body he tore the curtain between the Jews and the Gentiles.”

"When the required number of Jews and gentiles are gathered at the second more glorious temple of God which is the brilliant light body of Elijah the Jewish saviour who comes to prepare the way and bring into sublection all the nations that are attacking Jerusalem in preparation for the one thousand years of the peaceful rule of the risen body of Christ who will take the thrones that have been prepared for them.

It is then that the spirit of god's only begotten prophet will descend through time and enter the first temple where he shall be treated with outrage and hung upon a tree. And when the veil of that temple is torn, the spirit of the Lord shall be poured forth as fire upon the Gentiles."

 

[sojourner]

Pssst! I'm not with him, BTW.

 

[Ben Masada]

However, some Pharisees did look for the resurrection, no?

Yes, but resurrection in the sense of Ezekiel 37:12. Resurrection from exile. Resurrection from the graves of the nations and back
to the Land of the living, which the Land of Israel. (Isa. 53:8)