Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Ok, here's the gist of the article I just found. Apparently the tablet is one of the few discovered which is not engraved, but written with ink.

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, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.

It is written, not engraved, across two neat columns, similar to columns in a Torah. But the stone is broken, and some of the text is faded, meaning that much of what it says is open to debate.

Article Link

Interesting stuff, has anyone heard of this before?

“Some Christians will find it shocking — a challenge to the uniqueness of their theology — while others will be comforted by the idea of it being a traditional part of Judaism,” Mr. Boyarin said.

I'm not sure why it would be that shocking, seems like it would be a confirmation of belief. What do you think?

[edit on 5-7-2008 by Parabol]

Everything understood is part of the story. Did you ever think that Jesus rose after 3 days, and Jesus said he'd rise after 3 days because that was a common mythological idology of the time? How would that make it any less impressive?

There's 16 crucified messiahs of ancient history Jesus is just an SSR-(same stuff recycled) myth compiled from about all of these.

Of course the Gospel writers spun in pre-existing messiah prophecies for their one god suits all sungod.

Sorry but there where about 40 official Roman historians of the time and whilst they mention lesser religious figures such as Apollonius of Alexandria theres not dickybird of this mythical man Jesus who turned the world on its head.

In fact the more one looks the worse it gets, archeologists now confirm Nazareth did not even exist in the first century....im sorry Jesus is a myth with no basis in historical or archeological fact or basis-he is an invention.

Originally posted by anglodemonicmatrix
There's 16 crucified messiahs of ancient history Jesus is just an SSR-(same stuff recycled) myth compiled from about all of these.

Of course the Gospel writers spun in pre-existing messiah prophecies for their one god suits all sungod.

Sorry but there where about 40 official Roman historians of the time and whilst they mention lesser religious figures such as Apollonius of Alexandria theres not dickybird of this mythical man Jesus who turned the world on its head.

In fact the more one looks the worse it gets, archeologists now confirm Nazareth did not even exist in the first century....im sorry Jesus is a myth with no basis in historical or archeological fact or basis-he is an invention.

Whoah, that's very interesting. Where did you learn this information? I would be very interested in reading up on that

Originally posted by anglodemonicmatrix
I'm sorry Jesus is a myth with no basis in historical or archeological fact or basis-he is an invention.

And your credentials are....?

That's what I thought. Most historians and theologians agree that Jesus did exist. Try reading up on the subject before offering your atheist BS.

• Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus — Zondervan, 1998. ISBN 0310209307

• Wright, N.T. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is — InterVarsity Press, 1999. ISBN 0830822003

• Dunn, James D.G. The Evidence for Jesus — Westminster John Knox Press, 1985. ISBN 0664246982

Now, this article regarding the stone tablet that contains Gabriel's Revelation is NOT historically nor theologically definitive in any sense of the word. In fact, the significance of this decade-old discovery hinges on a single, illegible word in the text. Some think it's the word "live," which may or may not appear on this tablet.

It's only an important discovery if Gabriel is saying "In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you" — Except that the experts are not sure that it says "live"...

As far as hard scientific evidence goes, the controversial line of text only says "In three days you shall _______, I, Gabriel, command you"

Well, you can insert anything in that blank, eh?

If the word is "live," then it suggests there was a pre-existing Jewish tradition of a messiah sacrificed and resurrected after 3 days, even before the birth of Jesus. Some may see this as weakening the very keystone of Christianity, the Resurrection.

However, even if the word is "live," that doesn't devalue the story of Jesus Christ. There is the question of positively dating the stone and its writing. If you're off by a decade or so in either direction, your argument disintegrates. There is the question of whether or not the tablet is authentic — there have been numerous hoaxes of Judaeo-Christian antiquities in recent years, which is why this one needs more thorough examination.

There are far, far too many variables being tossed around here. I'm reminded of the Tomb of Jesus fiasco from last year, when James Cameron and a bunch of pseudo scientists decided to announce they'd discovered the tomb of Jesus, his wife, his mother, his brother, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Cameron and his buddies came out of that mess with egg all over their faces, because of bad science, plain and simple.

So, you can believe that if the Gabriel's Revelation stone is of any theological or historical significance, it's going to pass through a gauntlet of intense scrutiny for the next 20 years or so before it receives a final stamp of acceptance.




[edit on 7/6/2008 by Doc Velocity]

This is no secret if you read the bible lol.
Its all in there,moses talked about jesus coming,Abraham talked about jesus comeing,John the baptist talked baout jesus coming,even noah was told by god jesus was coming....
in the newtestement jesus tells the rich rabi that if they knew there own prophacy and listen to abraham,and moses then they should know who he is and his comming was fortold,They didnt like that much
anyway this isnt new news..

Oh and all u talking about wither there is or is not a jesus thats not even what the post is about,so i dont think this is the place to promote atheist beliefs,cuse i dont think the OP said is hesus real or not, u need a new thread for that.

yes i belive in jesus,and he is my savoir,and u are entitled to belive what u want,ur just posting it in wrong place lol

Originally posted by devareous
Its all in there,moses talked about jesus coming,Abraham talked about jesus comeing,John the baptist talked baout jesus coming,even noah was told by god jesus was coming....

Well, the Gabriel's Revelation stone tablet may suggest that there was another messiah before Jesus. According to expert guesswork so far, Gabriel may be addressing a messiah named Simon, but none of this is written in stone (pun intended).

We know that there was certainly a lot of prophecy about a messiah all throughout the Old Testament. The controversy (if there is any) is that the story of Jesus Christ may be based on a tradition of Jewish martyrs who were sacrificed and "resurrected" even before Jesus was born, if I read it correctly.




[edit on 7/6/2008 by Doc Velocity]

I think that would be an extremely interesting bit of information! My next question would be, "When did this tradition begin, and why?"

I think there is a mass amount of confusion regarding the Abrahamic faiths anyway, they're always fighting over something.


Does anyone know when this tablet was discovered?

reply to post by anglodemonicmatrix


There was a program on PBS on the Sepulcher in Jerusalem. An archeologist found the birth place of Jesus. It is not in Nazareth, but some 40? miles away. The house where he was born was found, but much of it was under a paved road. Jesus actually did exist, was the son of Joseph (a direct descendant of David) and Mary. His birth was recorded by the Romans.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity


Well, the Gabriel's Revelation stone tablet may suggest that there was another messiah before Jesus. According to expert guesswork so far, Gabriel may be addressing a messiah named Simon, but none of this is written in stone (pun intended).

We know that there was certainly a lot of prophecy about a messiah all throughout the Old Testament. The controversy (if there is any) is that the story of Jesus Christ may be based on a tradition of Jewish martyrs who were sacrificed and "resurrected" even before Jesus was born, if I read it correctly.

[edit on 7/6/2008 by Doc Velocity]

Interesting.

A while back discovery did a special on a "rival messiah" whom lived at the same time as jesus. I beleive his name was Simon Magus?

I'm not sure why this is causing such a controversy. It seems to me that this tablet, like many other writings from the Old Testament period, was a messianic prophecy. In other words, it was a prophecy fortelling of Jesus.

Read the article again and you will see what I mean.

I think Simon Magus was a Gnostic priest of some kind, not sure if he was necessarily a rival messiah though.

There's a Wikipedia article on him if you want to get a general idea of the accpeted account of Simon.

I'm not sure how to post really cool links in here, but I can give you the URL for the page

en.wikipedia.org... will get ya there.

I do remember reading somewhere though that he ended up taking on the persona of an Apostle and eventually took over the fledgling Church after Christ's death, not sure of the validity though.

Originally posted by Lightmare
I'm not sure why this is causing such a controversy. It seems to me that this tablet, like many other writings from the Old Testament period, was a messianic prophecy. In other words, it was a prophecy fortelling of Jesus.

Read the article again and you will see what I mean.

I don't think anyone is debating this, yo. I think the question is whether or not it indicates that there was a tradition of messianic behavior prior to the birth of Jesus. If it does indicate a tradition of individuals taking on the role of "messiah" that could spell unrest for a number of Christian faith adhering people.

Would be interesting if there were multiple messiah characters, no?