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?
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.