Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

[Gatorubet]

Certainly not mocking anyone's religion, but if we're going for payoff (I recognize you're not) in case one group is right, we should probably all be pulling magic underwear on so we can be gods ourselves.

LDS adherents can become Gods on other planets.

You could be the God on some future Buckeye planet.

Oh. Wait. You've been there; done that. :tongue2:

 

[Bleed S & G]

Which is why I have believed for many years now that organized religion has been the ruination of true spirituality.

Agree 100%

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Back to the tablet for a moment:

The article points out, smartly IMO, that this 'discovery' (in quotes because it was really discovered years ago) will be a challenge to some Christians but will actually serve to solidify others' faith.

My view is more toward the latter. Sure, the tablet actually points out a different messiah - Simon - but that is not what's important. I think it is important to show more continuity from the first century BCE through the first century CE, with regards to the origins of the Jesus-movement. The Jews of this period were really facing some huge problems religiously and politically. There were several 'messiahs' at the time, but, prior to this tablet, scholars agreed that the Jewish view of messiah would be a conquering hero from the Davidic lineage. There were many flash-in-the-pan messiahs who tried to fulfill this image, too. The notion of a suffering messiah was thought to be a big departure from (historically) contemporary Jewish dogma, but this tablet (may) prove(s) otherwise.

Why is this important? First of all, S/Paul's drastic conversion from Pharisee to Jesus-follower makes more sense if there is a some evidence of dogmatic precedent. Also, it gives more historical context to the discussion of how 'Jewish' new Jesus-followers would have to be (letters of Paul). From a big-picure perspective, it also shows that the Jesus movement does have Jewish roots (as many modern scholars have argued). Some dogmatic continuity and precedent to the 'suffering messiah' image makes historical sense to because of what was happening in and around the Jewish Diaspora at that time. It does not make historical sense for a completely new movement to be born of and based upon the Prophets, but be a complete departure from what was happening in the Jewish community from which it came. Historically, it makes more sense for a radical, but ultimately Jewish movement, to be born of the Jewish community - especially given the extreme turmoil of the time. What eveolved from the first-century CE Jesus-movement - Christianity, that is - is less important with regards to this stone discovery IMO, than the context it provides for the very beginning of the movement and the emergence of the historical Jesus.

 

[muffler dragon]

For whoever's interested, this topic is being discussed by some of my Jewish acquaintances here: Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection - Counter-Missionary Forum - The Messiah Truth Project - Messiah Truth Discussion Forums - Message Board - Yuku

 

[Gatorubet]

[quote='BusNative;120040;3]Back to the tablet for a moment:
[/quote]

Good post 'Bus. I think your observation that a pre-Jesus line of thought approving the suffering Messiah would make the speed at which early Christianity take hold more explainable.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Back to the tablet for a moment:

The article points out, smartly IMO, that this 'discovery' (in quotes because it was really discovered years ago) will be a challenge to some Christians but will actually serve to solidify others' faith.

My view is more toward the latter. Sure, the tablet actually points out a different messiah - Simon - but that is not what's important. I think it is important to show more continuity from the first century BCE through the first century CE, with regards to the origins of the Jesus-movement. The Jews of this period were really facing some huge problems religiously and politically. There were several 'messiahs' at the time, but, prior to this tablet, scholars agreed that the Jewish view of messiah would be a conquering hero from the Davidic lineage. There were many flash-in-the-pan messiahs who tried to fulfill this image, too. The notion of a suffering messiah was thought to be a big departure from (historically) contemporary Jewish dogma, but this tablet (may) prove(s) otherwise.

Why is this important? First of all, S/Paul's drastic conversion from Pharisee to Jesus-follower makes more sense if there is a some evidence of dogmatic precedent. Also, it gives more historical context to the discussion of how 'Jewish' new Jesus-followers would have to be (letters of Paul). From a big-picure perspective, it also shows that the Jesus movement does have Jewish roots (as many modern scholars have argued). Some dogmatic continuity and precedent to the 'suffering messiah' image makes historical sense to because of what was happening in and around the Jewish Diaspora at that time. It does not make historical sense for a completely new movement to be born of and based upon the Prophets, but be a complete departure from what was happening in the Jewish community from which it came. Historically, it makes more sense for a radical, but ultimately Jewish movement, to be born of the Jewish community - especially given the extreme turmoil of the time. What eveolved from the first-century CE Jesus-movement - Christianity, that is - is less important with regards to this stone discovery IMO, than the context it provides for the very beginning of the movement and the emergence of the historical Jesus.

I've been pondering on this myself ever since BKB posted it. I've come to the conclusion that the tablet has no bearing on my personal faith, mostly because I don't need it to. I don't think it will bear much overall difference for or against either in a grander scheme of things. Some will argue that it gives evidence of a copycat religion. Some like in Muffler's link will argue the tablet doesn't really represent the Jewish mindset of the people because of the small sample size. I tend to agree, actually, with the caveat that while not representing a majority it certainly seems like it's possible scripture could and has been found by sets of Jews that thought the Tanahk actually does predict a suffering servant, but my faith isn't in extra-Biblical Jewish traditions anyway.

[/rambling]

 

[PlanetFrnd]

I've been pondering on this myself ever since BKB posted it. I've come to the conclusion that the tablet has no bearing on my personal faith, mostly because I don't need it to. I don't think it will bear much overall difference for or against either in a grander scheme of things.

I'll bet this will be the prevailing effect of the tablet. This will only really matter to people who are very, very interested in the period of time from 100BCE-100CE... like I briefly mentioned in my own rampling post, this will not change much of what Christianity evolved into.

Some will argue that it gives evidence of a copycat religion.

Yeah, thats a very efficient way of stating what the NYTimes partially argued. I hope this isn't much of a concern considering that there is no religious movement based on some guy named Simon. The Jesus movement and Christianity following can and should be considered unique with or without this tablet.

Some like in Muffler's link will argue the tablet doesn't really represent the Jewish mindset of the people because of the small sample size.

But the sample size of Pharisees of the same time would have been comparably small and we have seen how a Pharisee led a very radical movement based on a suffering messiah (S/Paul). Pharisees - with their superlative zeal and religious rigour - were not representative of the general Jewish population either, yet can firmly say that S/Paul was indeed from Jewish a background.

I tend to agree, actually, with the caveat that while not representing a majority it certainly seems like it's possible scripture could and has been found by sets of Jews that thought the Tanahk actually does predict a suffering servant, but my faith isn't in extra-Biblical Jewish traditions anyway.

[/rambling]

Agree - I guess this is what I was saying above.

 

[muffler dragon]

[quote='BusNative;120076;8]But the sample size of Pharisees of the same time would have been comparably small and we have seen how a Pharisee led a very radical movement based on a suffering messiah (S/Paul). Pharisees - with their superlative zeal and religious rigour - were not representative of the general Jewish population either, yet can firmly say that S/Paul was indeed from Jewish a background.[/quote]

This is a topic that can most certainly be sent to another thread, but I wanted to caution on taking Paul at his word when attempting to extrapolate a meaning out of the tablet, early Christianity, and things of the like. Paul is not representative of a first century Pharisee. Furthermore, the depiction of the Pharisees in the Gospels is rather spurious (with a few exceptions). If you have an interest in discussing this further; then by all means, let me know.

 

[TSKCoug]

.......somewhere on the tablet the Messiah is named............OBAMA... To be announced just in time for the convention in Denver!

 

[CookyPuss]

This is a topic that can most certainly be sent to another thread, but I wanted to caution on taking Paul at his word when attempting to extrapolate a meaning out of the tablet, early Christianity, and things of the like. Paul is not representative of a first century Pharisee. Furthermore, the depiction of the Pharisees in the Gospels is rather spurious (with a few exceptions). If you have an interest in discussing this further; then by all means, let me know.

Great point, Paul was a fringe player in both Judaism and Christianity during his own life. James (Jesus' brother and head of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem) and Peter (the head of the Roman church) carried much greater influence. Paul's writings/influence really didn't take hold until after the fall of Jerusalem and his death. His formulation of Christianity strongly bucked the Jewish roots and was likely a direct result of his spending most of his life outside of Judea.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

This is a topic that can most certainly be sent to another thread, but I wanted to caution on taking Paul at his word when attempting to extrapolate a meaning out of the tablet, early Christianity, and things of the like. Paul is not representative of a first century Pharisee. Furthermore, the depiction of the Pharisees in the Gospels is rather spurious (with a few exceptions). If you have an interest in discussing this further; then by all means, let me know.

Yeah, my point was unclear. First of all, I was not at all talking about the meaning of the tablet, especially with regards to S/Paul. Moreso, I agree that S/Paul was not a typical Pharisee (though there is evidence that he was before he became a Jesus follower when he comments in his letters (sorry, forget which one) that his zeal for the law was particularly strong, etc., etc.). My point was more to the "sample size" issue. Neither the tablet nor the Jesus-followers were "typical" - that much we know. We know that because typical Jews of the time were just, well, typical Jews, and typical Jewish theology of the time only made its way into Judaism - it never became something atypical.

What's important is that the depiction of a suffering messiah was part of a Jewish movement and borne of the Jewish community - that it was not a complete departure from Judaism. My point about S/Paul, though clumsily put, was that sample size is not relevant to the notion of the tablet or Jesus-followers being based in Judaism. S/Paul was just one guy whose only theological training came from his work as a Pharisee - indeed, his only point of reference for thinking of the new Jesus-movement was relative to his Jewish roots.

Great point, Paul was a fringe player in both Judaism and Christianity during his own life. James (Jesus' brother and head of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem) and Peter (the head of the Roman church) carried much greater influence. Paul's writings/influence really didn't take hold until after the fall of Jerusalem and his death. His formulation of Christianity strongly bucked the Jewish roots and was likely a direct result of his spending most of his life outside of Judea.

And to your point on James - in his point of view, the Jesus-movement was something that was completely within Judaism (for example, his calling for circumcision as a requirement for newly converted Gentiles), which further leads me to believe that there is a strong argument for the Jesus-movement to be viewed with a Jewish context.

 

[muffler dragon]

[quote='BusNative;120090;1]Yeah, my point was unclear. First of all, I was not at all talking about the meaning of the tablet, especially with regards to S/Paul. Moreso, I agree that S/Paul was not a typical Pharisee (though there is evidence that he was before he became a Jesus follower when he comments in his letters (sorry, forget which one) that his zeal for the law was particularly strong, etc., etc.). My point was more to the "sample size" issue. Neither the tablet nor the Jesus-followers were "typical" - that much we know. We know that because typical Jews of the time were just, well, typical Jews, and typical Jewish theology of the time only made its way into Judaism - it never became something atypical. [/quote]

I completely agree with what you wrote about "sample size". 'Tis true that there were many fringe movements going about in the time frame you spoke of.

However, regarding Paul, I will have to state that I disagree once again. I find that his conduct before the Damascus Road experience does not a Pharisee make. This is just from the scant little that we have; however, to me, it's sufficient to doubt that he actually was a Pharisee (if ever). I happen to find the Ebionite tradition of Paul rather interesting and plausible.

[quote='Bus]What's important is that the depiction of a suffering messiah was part of a Jewish movement and borne of the Jewish community - that it was not a complete departure from Judaism. My point about S/Paul, though clumsily put, was that sample size is not relevant to the notion of the tablet or Jesus-followers being based in Judaism. S/Paul was just one guy whose only theological training came from his work as a Pharisee - indeed, his only point of reference for thinking of the new Jesus-movement was relative to his Jewish roots.[/quote]

Whereas, I feel that Paul's theology is also based on his upbringing in Tarsus. But that's for another thread.

The Suffering Servant/Messiah consideration is interesting. Just to ask: have you spent much time investigating the Messiah ben Joseph (Yosef) portion of the Dual Messiah Theory?

[quote='Bus]And to your point on James - in his point of view, the Jesus-movement was something that was completely within Judaism (for example, his calling for circumcision as a requirement for newly converted Gentiles), which further leads me to believe that there is a strong argument for the Jesus-movement to be viewed with a Jewish context.[/quote]

Indeed, Acts 15 is quite the tale when attempting to deem things compatible and incompatible with Pauline theology.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

However, regarding Paul, I will have to state that I disagree once again. I find that his conduct before the Damascus Road experience does not a Pharisee make. This is just from the scant little that we have; however, to me, it's sufficient to doubt that he actually was a Pharisee (if ever). I happen to find the Ebionite tradition of Paul rather interesting and plausible.

Well, for the sake of this thread, we can agree to disagree until there's a Paul thread - but I'll leave you with Romans 11:1

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

 

[muffler dragon]

[quote='BusNative;120096;7]Well, for the sake of this thread, we can agree to disagree until there's a Paul thread - but I'll leave you with Romans 11:1

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.[/quote]

Well, that's not very fair Mr. Last Word Man. :tongue2:

 

[spurrier]

this whole thing is rediculous. just because they found something written in stone doesnt make it remotely true, i mean if the nyt was around then they would have also used stone. Orthodox Jews dont even believe Jesus was anything more than a heretic anyway.

Jesus said that "in the time of the end what is wrong shall be right and what right shall be wrong"...We have Mormons who follow Joseph Smith, a guy who didnt come around until the 1800s, and to get around the question of "so, what about the billions of people that have been here before us", he says to pray for the dead souls. You have Islam wich teaches that someone needs to die physically in order to attain paradise and virgins..what? The bottom line is that the Bible is the Word of God on paper for us to use as a guide. God never intended this to happen. You have rampant homosexuality when the Bible state MANY times that that lifestyle is an atrocity. But people are going to do what they want and will allow many more immoral things just as long as they can be left to do what they want.

Someone above said that organized religion has ruined spirituality. That is nonsense. That is one thing that should be organized. We just get jaded over time and our "free thinking" is what gets us in trouble.