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.”

[neverdem]

bump & a ping

[SuziQ]

“This should shake our basic view of Christianity,” he said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University. “Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.”

I don't understand why this should shake any view of Christianity. The Old Testament prophesied a Messiah, but never said anything about a 'warrior' who would help the Jewish people throw off their yoke of Earthly oppression. Those passages were interpreted that way, by some, particularly the Zealots, who were anxious to foment rebellion against the Romans.

I'd say this stone tablet is a more accurate prophecy about Jesus, not a less accurate one, and one that DOES track with what Christians believe about Jesus, as the 'suffering servant' of Old Testament prophecy. Jesus, himself, in the Gospels said that the temple, meaning his body, would be destroyed, but that he would rebuild it in three days. Of course, many scoffed, assuming he meant the Temple building.

[Blogger]

While great on many things, Jefferson was a egotistical nitwhit when it came to Religion. He was a product of the so-called enlightenment and his mere opinion guts salvation from Christianity. No thank you. Works don’t cut it and many a relatively moral man will end up in Hell.

[SuziQ]

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.

I've never read anything about Jesus appointing anyone named James as the leader of the Church after His death. Jesus clearly names Simon, Peter, "The Rock" on which His Church would be built, and "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it". Since those words came from Jesus's mouth, as written in the Scriptures, I assume it to be what He clearly intended.

[Nevadan]

maine-iac7 writes:

“WE have only Paul’s word for it regarding his conversion - (Didn’t Jesus establish the rule of “Two witnesses” to establish veracity?)”

nevadan writes:

This is not the case. Paul’s conversion experience is recorded in Acts, which was written by Luke, one of the Gospel writers (as I’m sure you are aware). In Acts 9 we see that while on the road to Damascus, Saul (whose name was changed to Paul) had his dramatic confrontation with Jesus. Now you could say that this was just Paul’s word, but there were others with him when this happened (Acts 9:7):

“The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless;
they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.”

While its true that these traveling companions could not verify that Saul was talking with Jesus, they absolutely saw that something dramatic happened and they can attest that they did hear something. They also can verify that Saul was blinded.

A collaborating witness to Saul/Paul’s conversion experience is the Christian disciple named Ananias, who lived in Damascus. Ananias testifys that Jesus spoke to him and told him about Saul/Paul’s experience and that he was to go where Saul was staying and restore Saul’s sight. Ananias questions the Lord’s instruction because he knew perfectly well who and what Saul was. Ananias was scared of Saul (and rightly so). Interestingly enough, Ananias says to Saul/Paul in Acts 9:17,

“Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

So, we do have Saul/Paul’s traveling companions who can verify that a dramatic event occured on their way to Damascus. They can verify that Saul lost his sight at that point. We also have Ananias’s testimony that what Saul/Paul experienced was true. These accounts were undoubtably verifiable by the writer, Luke, who, as previously mentioned before, was the author of the Gospel of Luke. Are you saying that Ananias lied about his story too? You trusted Luke to write down the Lord’s words, but you don’t trust his recording of the events in Acts? That’s inconsistent.

We also have the evidence of Paul’s conversion by his 180 degree turn-around in behavior. He, Paul/Saul, who formerly ravaged the church whenever he could, was now preaching the very faith he once tried to destroy.

You mistake Paul’s words of “asserting his calling” as an Apostle with “disdain” and “anger” toward the other Apostles. This doesn’t add up because, obviously Paul respected the other Apostles in that he did go to them and met with them, with Barnabas’s introduction, in Jerusalem. They apparantly concured on doctrine and theology. I do not see anywhere in Acts or in any of the other Apostles writings (Peter, James, John, etc.) that they questioned his teachings or his authority. The questions about his apostleship came not from the other Apostles, but from people in the areas he went to on his missionary journys. It’s true that Paul had to defend his authority, but not to the Apostles, but to “false teachers” who were trying to spread heresy in the early church. It was these religious frauds that accused Paul of not having Apostolic authority - not the other Apostles.

The Apostle Peter himself refers to Paul in one of his own letters, in 2 Peter 3:15 -

“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

This doesn’t sound like Peter is at odds with Paul at all. Notice that he even compares Paul’s writings with other scripture (vs. 16). You must be very careful in handling the scripture.

I agree with you that the words of Jesus are beautiful. They tell us who He is. The writings of the Apostles are scripture too. It is they who put together the four Gospels. Their is no contradiction between their writings and the words of Jesus.

[Nevadan]

Boagenes writes:

“They always find another angle.”

nevadan writes:

You’re definitely right about that.

[dangerdoc]

bump

[AndyTheBear]

...It is the recording of the Presence Union that can break you out of that static recording...

I really did try to follow what you were saying, but I'm having a little difficulty understanding your terminology. I have several guesses as to what you might mean, including that your just being silly, but none of them are making much sense to me.

Could you favor me with a bit of clarification?

[AndyTheBear]

...but it does punch a hole in liberal Biblical scholars’ (such as the “Jesus Seminar”) thesis...

That's like punching a hole is swiss cheese. Doesn't make much difference.

[PghBaldy]

I think many will miss the point. The point to me is about secular study of a religion, not religious belief. There is nothing inherently damaging about this to Christianity. The issue from the article was that until now, scholars basically said the “proof” that Jesus was the Messiah was arrived at after the fact. Now, scholars will have to toss that out. There is nothing in this that threatens Christianity. IMO, it is affirming, and I am not a scholar nor even a proper Christian. Most of the remarks in the article were unnecessarily inflammatory.

[airedale]

This is a typical MSM Christmas or Easter story. Why are they publishing it at this time of year?

Right now the stories should be and mostly about how bad we are as a country and why we shouldn’t or don’t deserve to celebrate the 4th either for historical reasons or because of George Bush. What got the MSM to do this story now when it’s not Christmas or Easter or some other major Christian holy season?

[BlackVeil]

Thanks for an informative post, B. Tainan, see that post 12, it gives an interesting view of the real issues.

[Tainan]

Black Veil thank you for your signal. This thread is a bot better. I will sift through it and see what I can find. I appreciate the referral.

[safisoft]

Uh...no it’s not.

The depth of your position is truly remarkable. The clarity with which you state your position makes all who disagree reconsider their position. Truly, you are a rhetorical genius.

[Boagenes]

I am truly humbled.

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks neverdem. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[SunkenCiv]

Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection
International Herald Tribune | 7/5/2008 | By Ethan Bronner
Posted on 07/05/2008 5:46:11 PM PDT by P8riot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2041281/posts

Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
New York Times | July 6, 2008 | ETHAN BRONNER
Posted on 07/05/2008 6:47:10 PM PDT by Salvavida
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2041297/posts

[Jessarah]

Thanks for the link. Fascinating stuff! Wish they could do that to old faded photographs too.

[cerberus]

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?

I'm with you.......seems to be a lot of "tunnel vision" on this thread.

[Old Student]

“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?...”

NO! NO! NO! You don't understand! We're all supposed to believe Michael Moorcock’s “Behold the Man” and say, as our last dying breath — “It's a lie, it's a lie!”

Counsel of despair, that's what they want us to see. I know most Christians of whatever stripe think of Mormons as not really Christian, but we've been saying for quite a while that there are plenty of scriptures that talk of his suffering, death, and resurrection, and not just in the Bible. This may be another one, but it's not a surprise to us if it is, and it is no reason to give up on Christianity. (Even if you don't practice it as we do.)