Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Christianity (feed your faith not your doubts)

NY Times ^ | 5 July 2008 | Ethan Bronner

[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.”

[gscc]

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.

[gscc]

“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.

[rob777]

"If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus."


I do not see how, given that Christians view the death and resurrection of Jesus to be a fulfillment of Jewish Prophecy.

[mkjessup]

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.

They certainly did. The fatal error of the Jews was refusing to look beyond this life into Eternity, and looking only to their immediate surroundings and circumstances. They wanted a Messiah that would drive out the Romans from their land, restore the Kingdom of David and Solomon and all of Israel's past glory, and everyone would live happily ever after.

Until they died.

Fortunately for all of humanity, the Almighty was not quite so narrow minded. When the Jews rejected the Messiah, it opened the door for Gentiles and every race, creed and color to come to Salvation, so that NObody "should perish, but have everlasting Life".

That original error on the part of Israel is what will cause them to accept an imposter, a fake, a phony claiming to be God Incarnate, and Jesus spoke of this when he said "I come in my Father's Name, and you receiveth Me not, but another shall come in his own name, and him you shall receive."

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.

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.

[YCTHouston]

Really? Who are those “many people?”

[Nathan Zachary]

"That original error on the part of Israel is what will cause them to accept an imposter, a fake, a phony claiming to be God Incarnate, and Jesus spoke of this when he said "I come in my Father's Name, and you receiveth Me not, but another shall come in his own name, and him you shall receive."

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.

[maine-iac7]

Dude...None of the apostles contradicted this belief and none of them challenged Paul as an apostle. [ They certainly did.]

(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.

[tbpiper]

Most likely inscribe by an ancient relative of Dan Brown.

[bahblahbah]

I totally agree with you and I’m a Christian.

[maine-iac7]

Jesus was their Messiah, and they blew it

BINGO

:o)

[paudio]

Unfortunately, some people I know.

[maine-iac7]

I trust paul more than you

I trust Jesus more that Paul - so I guess we're even

[gscc]

"I trust Jesus more that Paul - so I guess we're even"

It seems, however, you do not trust in the Scriptures as the inspired word of God.  What else is there in Scripture that you do not trust in?

 

[TalBlack]

“The fatal error of the Jews was refusing to look beyond this life into Eternity, and looking only to their immediate surroundings ...”

The Jews are charged with keeping the Torah, the very link between God and His earth. If they ever ceased being Jews the Torah itself would die. The Torah is the thing from which Jesus Himself depends. No Torah, no God. Why do you think Evil always wants to destroy the Jews? I believe there must always be Jews or God Himself will destroy the earth as a derelict.

[safisoft]

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?...

The history of Christianity and Judaism is replete with reactions toward each other. The fact is, although your reading of the English of the Hebrew Scriptures says something does not definitively make it so in the eyes of others. Finding extant reference (undoctored by Christian redactors such as the LXX etc.) is important because it takes away the arguments that simply say that the texts were altered by Christians to after-the-fact prove something. Although I do not agree with that premise, there is something to that line of thinking. Both Talmudic and Christians constantly redacted their texts in response to the other. Finding certifiable text that speaks this way is as big a deal as the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls, for the very same reason.

[Blogger]

Scripture does say that they will believe a lie.

[mkjessup]

I agree with you. God made a Covenant with Abraham, and He will honor that Covenant for it is Eternal, and at the risk of stating the obvious, Jesus is a Jew, the Greatest Jew of all Time, over and above any other, and He said in John 8:58 "...before Abraham was, I AM."

[Blogger]

The Talmud and Church Fathers are not considered Scripture. They are commentaries more or less that may or may not be considered authoritative, depending on who you talk to.

As to our reading of the English and Hebrew Scriptures saying something, it isn’t our reading. Jesus Himself pointed to Himself as the fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah. Paul and the other apostles reiterated that fact that He was the suffering servant who will return as triumphant king.

[eclecticEel]

They word “may” puts the actual reading of this tablet under quite a fog.

Nevertheless if this reading is correct, there’s nothing here to alarm any Christian. Christ’s death and resurrection was all foreshadowed in the OT; all it shows is that the tablet’s author was able to read and understand the Scriptures available at that time.

[safisoft]

Didn't Jesus establish the rule of "Two witnesses" to establish veracity

Wrong. He repeated what was revealed in the Torah. Matthew 18:16 is a repeat of Deuteronomy 19:15. Neither "Jesus" nor "Paul" made this stuff up. It is all a repeat of what was already written.

BTW, I would not use Thomas Jefferson as a source for such things. He may have been brilliant, but in the matters of Scripture he was pendantic.