Posted on 07/05/2008 2:19:29 PM PDT by theoldmarine
Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection By ETHAN BRONNER JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days. If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus...“This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Morons immediately reject any idea of supernatural prophecy. Sorry, guys, you genuises don’t get to define the faith. If there is a pre-Christ mention of his resurrection, then praise God that He was cluing people in as to what would happen! Amazing how none of these followers seemed to realize that motif during his lifetime though.
Haven't they ever read the bible? Every year or so these anti- Christ try come up with something to skew the word of God. And they always fail.
I don’t see anybody grinding any axes. You guys shouldn’t be so kneejerk.
That being said, this seems out of place and completely unexplained.
“This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”
How does eating the bread and the wine bring redemption to Israel?
Even if they read the Bible it would be through their prism. The Holy Spirit doesn't act through them and what they write is meaningless. There will always be nay-sayers. Theirs is the prophesy of doom.
There were a whole lot of traditions that the messiah would suffer and even die. Christianity did not arise out of
a vacuum. It arose out of Jewish tradition. There were even traditions that the messiah should be at least the expression of an attribute of God. (Philo, among others)
So there is nothing new in the idea that a messiah would suffer and die and then return after three days. (Think of the afikoman.) Christianity began as a Jewish sect, and the reason it was not stillborn is because it was in line with Jewish thinking at the time.
They slipped up. They should have held this news until next year’s Holy Week. Isn’t that the usual plan of action?
It wasn’t supposed to be an idea he dreamed up
Matthew 12:40 (King James Version)
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
For an Old Testament description of a suffering Messiah one merely needs to read Isaiah 53.
“Amazing how none of these followers seemed to realize that motif during his lifetime though.”
And the Second Coming?
Will history repeat itself?
I take quite seriously the authenticity of this stone, since Ada Yardeni has weighed in on it, and found it genuine. So let us suppose it is genuine-- let's ask the question, So what?If you read the article you will discover that one eclectic Jewish scholar is now suggesting that the Christians got the idea from this stone or its source, and then predicated the idea of Jesus. It would be just as simple to argue that Jesus knew of this idea, and predicated of himself. What this stone then would show is that there was in early Judaism some concept of a suffering messiah whom God might vindicate by resurrection before the time of Jesus.
This is not entirely surprising in view of Isaiah 53 in any case. But the real implication of this for Jesus' studies should not be missed. Most radical Jesus scholars have argued that the passion and resurrection predictions by Jesus found in the Gospels were not actually made by Jesus-- they reflect the later notions and theologizing of the Evangelists.
But now, if this stone is genuine there is no reason to argue this way. One can show that Jesus, just as well as the author of this stone, could have spoken about a dying and rising messiah. There is in any case a reference to a messiah who dies in the late first century A.D. document called 4 Ezra.
Long story short-- this stone certainly does not demonstrate that the Gospel passion stories are created on the basis of this stone text, which appears to be a Dead Sea text. For one thing the text is hard to read at crucial junctures, and it is not absolutely clear it is talking about a risen messiah. BUT what it does do is make plausible that Jesus could have said some of the things credited to him in Mk. 8.31, 9,31, and 10.33-34. I will have more to say about the relevance of early Jewish material for the study of the historical Jesus shortly, in a lengthy review of David Flusser's final and interesting Jesus book The Sage from Galilee.
“Even if they read the Bible it would be through their prism.”
Everyone does. The eye and the mind are the prism.
That said, the rest of your comments I totally agree with.
For those of us who believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God, we understand that both the Old and New Testament are the history of God’s dealing with his people. Christ is foretold in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New. From Genesis to Revelation this is one, continuous revelation. There is nothing new here.
So here we have a tablet that may say something about the Messiah as a suffering servant who will die and be raised on the third day. Hosea 6:2 and Isaiah 53:11-12 say the same thing. So, this affects the Christian faith how, exactly?...
That said, the rest of your comments I totally agree with
Exactly. It takes the Holy Ghost to move us to understanding. We can't do it on our own. That was my point. So, here we have all these "unbelievers" attempting to rationalize the Bible based on other human writing. The Bible is God's Word; not man's. It can't be rationalized by man. Man's rationalization is meaningless. But yet we sure try...
That was my point.
This ‘discovery’.
If true, it would mean the Israelites were given word that the messiah would appear.
They rejected the prophecy, and the actual event, even though it occurred in front of their very eyes. (and if he comes ‘again’, WE may end up doing much the same.)
But, the Jewish faith continued on with a tradition that the First Messiah was still to come, and it would be ‘one’ of their sons.
This ancient script, if true, would prove the Jewish Faith wrong, and have no effect on Christianity, IMHO.
Them being ‘wrong’ doesn’t prove their religion, or faith, is wrong. They just have a different ‘lesson’ to learn.
It may be that each ‘faith’ has a different lesson.
They all have the same goal.
It doesn't, of course. But it's news to those who either haven't read the Bible or don't have the Holy Spirit's understanding working through them. Such tripe will always be around. Nothing new here.
And this is unlike the arm of God described in Isaiah 53, who suffered and was killed to atone for the sins of many? I'm pretty sure just about all Christian scholars must see the suffering servant described in Isaiah as being Jesus.
So if a suffering Messiah is described in the 7th century B.C., why is supposed to be shocking to Christians that a suffering Messiah would be described in first century B.C?
Am I missing something here?
1) The Angel Gabriel does not go around giving orders to God.
2) Jesus clearly stated that "my kingdom is not of this world": I.e. his mission was not to rule or "redeem" the worldly state of Israel. He also told his disciples "I have other sheep not of this flock." I take that to mean that Jesus was not the politically liberating messiah the Jews expected, but the Savior of the world, although that appears to be what the Jewish scholars are saying based on this stone
3) If the idea that the messiah would arise after three days was a familiar one in Israel in the immediate pre-Christian era, which were Jesus disciples so mystified when he told them "the Son of Man must die, but in 3 days he will rise again?" Why in particular did Peter resist the idea that the messiah must die?
Basically, this is just another attempt to undermine the divinity and mission of Jesus Christ, by people who never accepted it anyway.
True enough.
“Jewish scholar is now suggesting that the Christians got the idea from this stone or its source, and then predicated the idea of Jesus.”
Like we couldn’t see that coming!
So, what they are saying is somebody wrote down a prophecy of the Messiah. Somebody read it, and ‘predicated’ the idea of Jesus, and then the real Jesus appeared, and did exactly what prophecy said he would do, and....
It’s all a coincidence?
What I want to know is, who wrote it?
True - and the leader that took the reigns after the Crucification was also from the lineal House of David, James the Just - blood brother of Jesus. He was also a High Priest - and killed by the priesthood in 62 AD.
It was Paul, who never met Jesus nor was taught by Him, that anointed himself an apostle and preached for many years before ever deigning to go the Jerusalem to meet with James the Just and Peter and John.
It was Paul that, basically, preached to the non-Jews - and changed many things that the early Christians held to.
Jesus didn't come to start a new religion, but the set aright the things that had been corrupted...
Matthew 5:17
"17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Wow, important discovery. As a Christian, I am so overwhelmed how the Lord proves Himself to us. Are we listening?
Exactly = AFter all, we know the Jews were expecting a Messiah = it's just that when He came, they didn't recognize Him as such = anymore that many of us would have then, and probably not now.
It's the nature of man...
They knew Jesus as Mary's son, from Galilee - how could HE be the Messiah?
Christianity is built on the template of the Judaism which was practiced during Christ’s time. It covers precisely mainsteam Judaism of the time and fullfills and completes promise and prophecy of OT scripture.
Nope
Ever read the book of Acts? Paul received his instruction directly from Jesus himself. None of the apostles contradicted this belief and none of them challenged Paul as an apostle. Paul was completely in line with the Jewish church centered around James and Peter in Jerusalem, and vice-versa. They were preaching the same gospel.
“””””””””””””
Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion, but the set aright the things that had been corrupted...
Matthew 5:17
“17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
“””””””””””””
I trust paul more than you, especially if your trying to use that verse to justify following the jewish law. Jesus fulfills the law and Jesus fulfills a prophets. Jesus fulfillment of the law brings in a new order.
It takes the Holy Ghost to move us to understanding. We can’t do it on our own. That was my point. So, here we have all these “unbelievers” attempting to rationalize the Bible based on other human writing. The Bible is God’s Word; not man’s. It can’t be rationalized by man. Man’s rationalization is meaningless. But yet we sure try...
(alternative version)
The Holy Ghost is the vehicle we ride to get to understanding. We can only ride that vehicle, alone. I have no point. So, many believers attempt to understand the Bible by using other human writing. The Bible is God’s Inspiration, written in man’s words. So it could be understood by man. Man’s understanding of God is very beneficial. You can’t understand God,if you don’t try....
The article supports the idea that resurrection and redemption was an established piece of semetic tradition before the birth of the historical Jesus. That's been around for a long time, this only supports the concept.
What individuals do with the following two thousand years is their business, not part of the historical record until and unless other bits of the record turn up. When that happens I'm sure the same crew will find a way to interpret it precisely as they wish to interpet it.
How very objective and scholarly of you. Your reprimand is dryly noted.
“To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”
Well, what I said still fits. If this is their ‘view’ of the situation, then it means Jesus was their Messiah, and they blew it.
The New York Times. Aren’t they the ones who received the Pulitzer prize for holocaust denial?
http://www.nationalreview.com/stuttaford/stuttaford050703.asp
Maybe I should trust them on Christianity. (Sarcasm)
You are right. Many people today seem to think that Christianity (or Jesus himself) came from heaven in the middle of Rome (that is now known as the Vatican) bringing a set of tablet. People with such view usually are ‘surprised’ when there’s a discovery about ‘ancient documents’ about Jesus or his disciples that a bit different from the canonical Bible, not knowing (or ignoring) the fact that during Jesus time or shortly after that there were zillion competing documents that the Church Fathers —with the guidance of the Holy Spirit— had to sort out.
1) There was a legend about a Jewish leader that was raised from the dead after three days.
2) The followers of a Jewish revolutionary named Simon were responsible for the legend, and wrote it on the tablet in order to convince their fellow revolutionists that Simon was the Messiah.
3) The legend of a Jewish leader rising after three days became prominent around the time of Jesus.
4) The fact that the legend was really supposed to be about Simon became lost around the time of Jesus.
5) Somehow, by piecing together a faded script of an incomplete document that may refer to someone rising from the dead in three days, or may not, the fact that this was about Simon rising from the dead et al become apparent to this particular scholar--apparently being infinitely smarter then those who were alive around the time who were oblivious to this fact!
6) The fact that ten people who spent three years with Jesus testified that they were eye witnesses miracles he performed and his resurrection, and the fact they were willing to be persecuted and suffer death rather then deny what they claimed to have witnessed, is not very good evidence.
7) The supposition of 1-5 is good evidence that will shake the testimony of 6.
Nice try guy...not really...actually pretty pathetic.
Do you know what its like to be filled with the Holy Spirit? Can you really be sure it is "crap"?
So does the bible. The entire Bible, from the earliest days of Moses, is based on the appearance of the one who would do this.
What the article does, is try cheapen it to a mere bit of folklore carved on a rock that changes the meaning of Jesus being the bread of life and the salvation and everlasting life given to us with his blood.
Gen. 49: 10 sceptre . . . until Shiloh come.
Gen. 49: 24 from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel.
Num. 24: 17 there shall come a Star out of Jacob.
Deut. 18: 15 raise up unto thee a Prophet.
Ps. 2: 7 (Ps. 2: 12) Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee.
Ps. 22: 1 my God, why hast thou forsaken me.
Ps. 22: 16 they pierced my hands and my feet.
Ps. 24: 10 Who is this King of glory.
Ps. 34: 20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.
Ps. 68: 18 thou hast led captivity captive.
Ps. 69: 9 zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
Ps. 69: 21 in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Ps. 110: 4 priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Ps. 118: 22 stone which the builders refused is become the head.
Ps. 132: 17 make the horn of David to bud.
Isa. 7: 14 a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son . . . Immanuel.
Isa. 9: 6 unto us a child is born.
Isa. 11: 1 there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse.
Isa. 25: 9 this is our God: we have waited for him.
Isa. 28: 16 I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone.
Isa. 40: 3 Prepare ye the way of the Lord.
Isa. 42: 7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners.
Isa. 50: 6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks.
Isa. 53: 5 he was wounded for our transgressions.
Isa. 59: 20 Redeemer shall come to Zion.
Isa. 61: 1 anointed me to preach good tidings.
Jer. 23: 5 raise unto David a righteous Branch.
Ezek. 37: 12 I will open your graves.
Dan. 9: 24 to make reconciliation for iniquity.
Dan. 9: 26 shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.
Hosea 11: 1 I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
Hosea 13: 14 I will redeem them from death.
Jonah 2: 6 Thou brought up my life from corruption.
Micah 5: 2 Bethlehem . . . out of thee shall he come forth unto me.
Hab. 3: 13 thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people.
Zech. 3: 8 (Zech. 6: 12) I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
Zech. 9: 9 thy King cometh unto thee . . . riding upon an ass.
Zech. 11: 13 I was prised at . . . thirty pieces of silver.
Zech. 13: 6 I was wounded in the house of my friends.
Mal. 3: 1 Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple.
I wonder if the Israel Antiquities Authority will be as diligent in proving this is a fraud as they were proving the James ossuary a fraud. It seems that the ossuary was a relic that would have proved Jesus’ historic presence and needed to be disproved by them. This “discovery”, however, seems like something they can use to disprove Christ as the Messiah.
“Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to read through a simple discussion of a rock with writing on it without all the ‘Jesus working through you” and “I’m right and you’re damned” crap that surrounds these threads?”
Maybe you should avoid this kind of thread.
Really? Who are those “many people?”
And many "Christians" too.
I believe that Christ was referring specifically to the yet to come latter day counterfeit of Christ, commonly referred to as the Antichrist, aka 'The Beast' of Revelation 13.
Absolutely he was.
"I believe that many of us will live long enough to see the literal Second Coming of Christ, and I am expecting to see it myself."
I don't think so, because so much has yet to happen. I believe we are well into the "great revolt" part of Prophecy however. (But then again things are happening fast) A brand new (and final) Persian empire has yet to rise,and a rebel which deceives so many comes from that. Europe has to fall, the Church becomes the rebels throne, etc. etc. Then horrible suffering from famine, persecution.
I don't think I would want to be in this earthly body during those end times anyways. I'll watch from the new world in the new heaven.
(Not often this ole granny gets called 'Dude')
WE have only Paul's word for it regarding his conversion - (Didn't Jesus establish the rule of "Two witnesses" to establish veracity?)
Paul is a self-appointed Apostle - after the Crucifiction, the manner of choosing Apostles was by choosing and annointing by the Twelve.
But Paul appoints himself on the road to Damascus and brushes off, with disdain, the need to confer with the leadership in Jerusalem.
He looked down on them - evident in his writings - and after suddenly turning from the murderer of any and all Christians he could find to an "Apostle" = he takes off, not for Jerusalem, but to Arabia and Damascus.
:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,
1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: [The Apostles, the leaders appointed by Jesus]
1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
He was condescending to the leaders of the Church and there was a mutual dislike = "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles..." 2 Corinthians 12:11
and in 2 Cor. 11:5-6
11:5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
11:6 But though [I be] rude in speech, yet not in knowledge;
Paul was an arrogant, angry little man...and we have only his word for what Jesus supposedly taught him in visions - totally at valiance with the way Jesus conducted His 'business'...
Paul saw no need to 'confer' with the very people that Jesus hand picked and taught, the people that lived, ate, slept and took instruction from Him for 3 years.
There are books and books about the subject of Paul - and "Paulinism" -
I notice you rely on the words of Paul - Myself, I rely on the 'red letters' - even have a book that has ONLY the words of Jesus from the Bible.
I believe Jesus was capable of explaining His Gospel - and that He did it very well.
I agree with Thomas Jefferson - have his 'Bible' where he took out only the words of Jesus to print by themselves.
I don't think Jesus and His words need reams and reams of others interpretations of what he said.
What He said, he said. Simply. Beautifully.
Most likely inscribe by an ancient relative of Dan Brown.
I totally agree with you and I’m a Christian.
BINGO
:o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.