The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

More evidence for "Jesus Tomb" Pt. 2

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#1New Post! Mar 16, 2012 @ 13:24:42
I've finished the book, The Jesus Discovery and it has answered my personal questions satisfactorily, particularly concerning the issue of resurrection, where it was apparently perceived by Jesus' early followers as being a spiritual rather than a corporeal event.

But another history vs. theology question arose: was the Sign of Jonah supposed to be a prescient, prophetic, supernatural sign, or something else? According to Matthew, the answer would be in the affirmative, i.e. the 3 days and 3 nights "in the heart of the earth".

But the wording is curious. Why doesn't Jesus just say there would be the Sign of Jonah; why preface it with the statement that there would be no sign, except...? Luke stops there saying nothing about the 3 days and nights--while Mark says there would be no sign, period. I think it was worded that way because, as in Luke, the sign was not the supernatural sign they were looking for, but something else, something generic.

Even though Tabor and Jacobovici don't ask this question directly, they provide the answer. On p.79, there's a quote from the Mishnah (a collection of Jewish writings) explaining the meaning of (the sign of) Jonah is that God answers your prayers in times of trouble. For those seeking a divine sign from God this would be a major let down. It would not be a display of prophetic validation, but, to paraphrase Luke, it was all they were gonna to get.
MadCornishBiker On January 14, 2014

Banned



St Columb Road, United Kingdom
#2New Post! Mar 16, 2012 @ 14:07:03
@ThePainefulTruth Said

I've finished the book, The Jesus Discovery and it has answered my personal questions satisfactorily, particularly concerning the issue of resurrection, where it was apparently perceived by Jesus' early followers as being a spiritual rather than a corporeal event.


In fact, as scripture makes clear, Jesus initial resurrection, back on to the earth was corporeal, it is his ascensions later that is in spirit form.

@ThePainefulTruth Said

But another history vs. theology question arose: was the Sign of Jonah supposed to be a prescient, prophetic, supernatural sign, or something else? According to Matthew, the answer would be in the affirmative, i.e. the 3 days and 3 nights "in the heart of the earth".

But the wording is curious. Why doesn't Jesus just say there would be the Sign of Jonah; why preface it with the statement that there would be no sign, except...? Luke stops there saying nothing about the 3 days and nights--while Mark says there would be no sign, period. I think it was worded that way because, as in Luke, the sign was not the supernatural sign they were looking for, but something else, something generic.


I see no problem with the wording. Jesus said that because he meant that. The scripture at Matthew 12:38,39 "Then as an answer to him some of the scribes and Pharisees said: “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” 39 In reply he said to them: “A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jo?nah the prophet"

They were asking Jesus for a sign to prove who he was. They had already seen and heard of many such signs, so it appears they wanted a "sign on demand" from him. However he said they were not going to get one, then he qualified it by referring to the "sign of Jonah" in the near future.

@ThePainefulTruth Said

Even though Tabor and Jacobovici don't ask this question directly, they provide the answer. On p.79, there's a quote from the Mishnah (a collection of Jewish writings) explaining the meaning of (the sign of) Jonah is that God answers your prayers in times of trouble. For those seeking a divine sign from God this would be a major let down. It would not be a display of prophetic validation, but, to paraphrase Luke, it was all they were gonna to get.


That was one meaning of what happened to Jonah, yes, and the only one the Jews will accept. However that is only one aspect of it. It also happened to prefigure what would happen to Jesus later. In fact it was also to be exactly that, prophetic validation of who and what Jesus was. That was why Jesus referred to it.
Glenn On January 10, 2013
Average Jet Pilot


Deleted
Banned



Meridian, Mississippi
#3New Post! Mar 16, 2012 @ 14:53:26
@ThePainefulTruth Said

I've finished the book, The Jesus Discovery and it has answered my personal questions satisfactorily, particularly concerning the issue of resurrection, where it was apparently perceived by Jesus' early followers as being a spiritual rather than a corporeal event.

But another history vs. theology question arose: was the Sign of Jonah supposed to be a prescient, prophetic, supernatural sign, or something else? According to Matthew, the answer would be in the affirmative, i.e. the 3 days and 3 nights "in the heart of the earth".

But the wording is curious. Why doesn't Jesus just say there would be the Sign of Jonah; why preface it with the statement that there would be no sign, except...? Luke stops there saying nothing about the 3 days and nights--while Mark says there would be no sign, period. I think it was worded that way because, as in Luke, the sign was not the supernatural sign they were looking for, but something else, something generic.

Even though Tabor and Jacobovici don't ask this question directly, they provide the answer. On p.79, there's a quote from the Mishnah (a collection of Jewish writings) explaining the meaning of (the sign of) Jonah is that God answers your prayers in times of trouble. For those seeking a divine sign from God this would be a major let down. It would not be a display of prophetic validation, but, to paraphrase Luke, it was all they were gonna to get.


So you don't think that Thomas inspected a "real" flesh Jesus? Or was he seeing a Ghost?
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#4New Post! Mar 16, 2012 @ 16:58:09
@Glenn Said

So you don't think that Thomas inspected a "real" flesh Jesus? Or was he seeing a Ghost?


I think his body was removed from the temporary tomb at/near Golgotha then was moved to a tomb on Joseph of Arimathea's estate at Talpiot where it stayed, bones in the ossuary, until 1980.
chaski On about 4 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#5New Post! Mar 16, 2012 @ 17:21:30
@ThePainefulTruth Said

I think his body was removed from the temporary tomb at/near Golgotha then was moved to a tomb on Joseph of Arimathea's estate at Talpiot where it stayed, bones in the ossuary, until 1980.



Where did the bones go after 1980?
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   News & Current Events
Thu Jul 02, 2015 @ 12:18
35 8185
New posts   Politics
Tue Feb 07, 2012 @ 19:48
44 4293
New posts   Entertainment
Tue Nov 07, 2006 @ 18:30
36 1485
New posts   Food & Drink
Wed Oct 05, 2005 @ 00:12
15 1457
New posts   Politics
Fri Oct 14, 2005 @ 13:35
73 2820