06 Jul 08
1 edit
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Apparently a three foot tall tablet found in the Holy Land appears to pre-date Christ by a few decades. However, it talks about a messiah who will rise from the dead just after 3 days and then to bring redemption to Israel. As the article states,
"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 ressurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time."
06 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodeyDo you believe that whatever written on this stone is the word of GOD? Will you include it to your Bible?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Apparently a three foot tall tablet found in the Holy Land appears to pre-date Christ by a few decades. However, it talks about a messiah who will rise from the dead just after 3 days and then to bring redemption to Israel. As the article states,
"If such a me ...[text shortened]... death and ressurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time."
06 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodeyI didn't see anything about bringing redemption to Israel in the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Apparently a three foot tall tablet found in the Holy Land appears to pre-date Christ by a few decades. However, it talks about a messiah who will rise from the dead just after 3 days and then to bring redemption to Israel. As the article states,
"If such a me ...[text shortened]... death and ressurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time."
06 Jul 08
4 edits
Originally posted by ahosyneyI only present it as a historical fact. There now appears to have been the teaching of a Messiah rising from the dead and then bringing with him redemption, dispearsed within Judism. Of course, I would argue that other sources would be Old Testament figures such as Isaiah who described "a servant" of God who was slain for our sins, however, this tablet spells out "Messiah" and is more specific.
Do you believe that whatever written on this stone is the word of GOD? Will you include it to your Bible?
Ironically, many are using the tablet to challenge traditional Christianity. This is, in part, because the news source is secular, not Christian in origin. One example is the following,
"Christ's mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come", Mr. Knohl said. "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."
Another challenge is that the "messiah" might have been a man named Simon who was a slain commander in the Herodian army. Mr. Knohl said that his interpretation was that it was Simon who was to be slain and then see evil defeated within three days. He goes on to say that one of the primary sources for the Gabriel text is the book of Daniel and it speaks of "a prince of princes". Mr Knohl contends that the stone's writings are about the death of a leader of the Jews who will be resurrected in three days. He simply thinks that Simon was that prince being talked about and not my Jesus. :'(
07 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe stone has astonishing historical value, no matter what your theological stance is. It provides
I only present it as a historical fact. There now appears to have been the teaching of a Messiah rising from the dead and then bringing with him redemption, dispearsed within Judism. Of course, I would argue that other sources would be Old Testament figures such as Isaiah who described "a servant" of God who was slain for our sins, however, this tablet spel imply thinks that Simon was that prince being talked about and not my Jesus. :'(
an insight into at least one pre-Jesus perspective about how certain Jews viewed themselves,
their place in history, what they predicted would happen in the future, and so forth.
Unlike many discoveries of this nature, there is no debate as to the dating of the tablet nor to
the general content (there are a few squabbles about the rendering of this or that word here and
there because it was written on the tablet, not inscribed).
This tablet does two things to/for Christianity. First, it erases the 'uniqueness' of the Christological
story, that before Jesus, there there existed no notion that a resurrected Messiah before the
Gospels. At the same time, it puts Jesus' followers (those who penned His story) into a
very different relief. Rather than 'inventing' a story to explain their fallen leader, they are
explaining their story in the context of contemporarily accepted interpretation of 'Messiah;'
that is, it gives a redactive background against which one might view the Gospels.
Very interesting stuff.
Nemesio
07 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioIndeed!! Glad to have sparked your interest, however, I would argue that other scriptures such as Isaiah 53 is further evidence that the Messianic story of Christ was alive and well the "pre-Christ" Jewish world. At least we have evidence that the Messianic story of someone dying and then rising in 3 days and then brining redemption with him existed before Christ even walked the earth. To what degree this is reflected in the Old Testament I am sure will continue to be disputed, however, it gives greater credence to those who sight such comparisons.
The stone has astonishing historical value, no matter what your theological stance is. It provides
an insight into at least one pre-Jesus perspective about how certain Jews viewed themselves,
their place in history, what they predicted would happen in the future, and so forth.
Unlike many discoveries of this nature, [i]there is no debate as to the dati ackground against which one might view the Gospels.
Very interesting stuff.
Nemesio
08 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio[/i]I only want to add to this a minor footnote—
The stone has astonishing historical value, no matter what your theological stance is. It provides
an insight into at least one pre-Jesus perspective about how certain Jews viewed themselves,
their place in history, what they predicted would happen in the future, and so forth.
Unlike many discoveries of this nature, [i]there is no debate as to the dati ackground against which one might view the Gospels.
Very interesting stuff.
Nemesio
Scholar and Rabbi Jacob Neusner has argued for some time that (at least) the inter-testamental “Judaism” and the “Judaism” of the NT period, should be reconsidered as—pluri-form Judaisms. I have argued that the particular “apocalyptic” Judaism seemingly favored by NT scholars who emphasize the Judaic (over the Hellenistic) stream of early Christianity is not in any way the “majority” Judaism of the time (and neither is it’s particular reading of Jewish texts, “prophecies”, etc.).
As you note, the discovery here may re-contextualize everything.
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodey
I would argue that other scriptures such as Isaiah 53 is further evidence that the Messianic story of Christ was alive and well the "pre-Christ" Jewish world.
Of course the Messianic story was alive. However, the opinions about the form that the Messiah
would take -- as a spiritual leader, the leader of a military movement, someone who would unify
Judaism, &c -- was about as varied as it can get. It is intrinsic to Jewish tradition to use the
Scriptures to interpret day-to-day events. That someone would look at Jesus' story and then
redact it through those Scriptures that the particular author found appealing or relevant (St
Matthew uses Isaiah as his lens, St Luke uses Elijah) is part of the Jewish literary style.
At least we have evidence that the Messianic story of someone dying and then rising in 3 days and then brining redemption with him existed before Christ even walked the earth.
Right. Someone before Jesus said this. As I said, this eradicates the idea that Jesus'
claim was unique/the first of its kind (but I never found this a compelling or interesting notion
to begin with, but some who want Christianity to be ultra-special do). It provides a historical
context (as the Hebrew Scriptures do, and to a larger degree) to understand Jesus' message,
and how the authors who chronicled His activities viewed Him.
To what degree this is reflected in the Old Testament I am sure will continue to be disputed, however, it gives greater credence to those who sight such comparisons.
Er. It doesn't say anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures that the Messiah will die and rise from
the dead in three days, at least as far as I know.
Nemesio
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by vistesdAs always, you amend an important detail that I failed to articulate.
[/i]I only want to add to this a minor footnote—
Scholar and Rabbi Jacob Neusner has argued for some time that (at least) the inter-testamental “Judaism” and the “Judaism” of the NT period, should be reconsidered as—pluri-form Judaisms. I have argued that the particular “apocalyptic” Judaism seemingly favored by NT scholars who emphasize th ...[text shortened]... texts, “prophecies”, etc.).
As you note, the discovery here may re-contextualize everything.
And, indeed, there will be a shifting of 'contextualization' (if that's a word). The pendulum will
swing hard in one direction until the next discovery corrects it.
That's the problem with these discoveries; they are unica. We have no idea how prolific such
opinions were; only the people whose theology 'won' didn't get their books destroyed. Just look
at the apocryphal Gospels -- if it weren't for two or three major discoveries, all we would have
of these texts would be references by 2nd and 3rd century Fathers of the Church who sought to
defame them.
I am made to understand that, in Jerusalem, there is a Jewish Library from the first century
underneath the Mosque. Consequently, though they know it is there, archeologists are not
allowed to dig and retrieve anything because it's 'Holy Ground.' I'm not positive about this
(I might be conflating stories here).
Either way. It's an interesting find, even if it represents a minority report.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioHosea 6 does talk of a raising up on the third day. Perhaps Jews discerned Messianic connotations in this.
Er. It doesn't say anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures that the Messiah will die and rise from
the dead in three days, at least as far as I know.
"After two days he will revive us;on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him."Hosea 6:2
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by NemesioWhat I mean to say is that now we have evidence within Judism that implies that we have many OT prophesies that Christ seemed to have fulfilled. However, the term "Messiah" is not specifically used within most of these prophesies. For example, in Isaiah 53 we see a figure smitten of God for our transgressions who did not open his mouth for his defense just as we see in the gospels. In fact, reading Isaiah 53 is like reading a chapter out of the 4 gospels even though the term Messiah is never used. At least for me, it gives greater credence to those who claim that such prophesies were geared to prophesy about the Messiah. This is because Judism has now been shown to have had prior knowledge of a scenerio in which a dying Messiah was to bring redemption for all of Israel. Scripturally, it is a far cry from the traditional Judaic Messiah we are often fed in which the Messiah marches in triumphantly and sets up shop.
Er. It doesn't say anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures that the Messiah will die and rise from
the dead in three days, at least as far as I know.
Nemesio[/b]
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau KThat is just it!! Those within Judism would say that this is not about the Messiah. Specifically, they would simply say you have no proof because the term Messiah is not mentioned. They would then continue by saying that Jesus could not be the Messiah because he did not fulfill ALL the Messianic prophesies such as setting up a wordly kingdom etc. After all, how could someone die on a cross and disappear from the earth and be the Messiah without this prophesy coming to fruition? For those within Judism, the whole dying on a cross and being raised on the third day has no place in the prophetic word of the OT regarding the Messiah, but now we are shown otherwise.
Hosea 6 does talk of a raising up on the third day. Perhaps Jews discerned Messianic connotations in this.
"After two days he will revive us;on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him."Hosea 6:2.
However, as Visted points out, perhaps what we are seeing prophesied within Judism was not mainstream? Perhaps mainstream Judism had no incling of a dying Messiah being raised up in 3 days and bringing redemption to Israel. I suppose it is the only defense to continue to claim a dying Messiah has no place in the OT prophetic word.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodeyThe gospel writers did know about Hosea. For example, in the book of Hosea it is written "They shall say to the mountains, Cover us, and to the hills, Fall on us" (Hosea 10:8). These words reappear in Luke, "Then they will begin to say to the mountains 'Fall on us'; and to the hills, Cover us'. For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?" (23:30). I think it is acceptable to assume that Luke includes it to show Jesus as foreshadowed in the scriptures. Perhaps they similarly interpreted Hosea 6:2 as a disguised Messianic prophesy.
That is just it!! Those within Judism would say that this is not about the Messiah. Specifically, they would simply say you have no proof because the term Messiah is not mentioned. They would then continue by saying that Jesus could not be the Messiah because he did not fulfill ALL the Messianic prophesies such as setting up a wordly kingdom etc. After al ...[text shortened]... is the only defense to continue to claim a dying Messiah has no place in the OT prophetic word.
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodeyI am sure you know this: some would argue that the writers of the gospels were fully aware of the OT passages and wrote their gospels accordingly. In fact I have heard it argued that they even managed to incorporate mistakes in translation / understanding.
What I mean to say is that now we have evidence within Judism that implies that we have many OT prophesies that Christ seemed to have fulfilled. However, the term "Messiah" is not specifically used within most of these prophesies. For example, in Isaiah 53 we see a figure smitten of God for our transgressions who did not open his mouth for his defense just ...[text shortened]... Judaic Messiah we are often fed in which the Messiah marches in triumphantly and sets up shop.
The real question is: if the tell-tale signs that the gospel writers made up parts to fit prophesy are so obvious, yet they did not infact make it up, then why would God have put in the tell-tale signs?
My question is along the same lines as what I often ask YE creationists: if God made the world as stated in the OT, then why did he plant so much false evidence to fool us that the earth is much older?