tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post6795173998917845224..comments2009-07-15T12:46:32.032-05:00Todd Bolenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06156730661243501832tbolen91@bibleplaces.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-32694998684936102162009-07-15T12:46:32.032-05:002009-07-15T12:46:32.032-05:00I think it&#39;s referring to Hosea 6:2?<br />Something like:<br />&quot;In two days you will revive us and in three days you will restore us.&quot; The line under the one about being brought back to life has something about the prince of princes. After prince of princes, there are letters enough letters that are unreadable to where we don&#39;t really know if prince of princes is even connected the ressurecting.Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18418348499328458249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-15583220730384531742008-10-29T11:16:00.000-05:002008-10-29T11:16:00.000-05:00appears to be fraud...only the Essenes kept the true scriptures and they made scrolls, not stone carved texts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-63755653299577894642008-09-27T20:58:00.000-05:002008-09-27T20:58:00.000-05:00I'm confused. I've read that it dates to the end of the first century maybe later. How then is the stone prechristian?<BR/><BR/>Was Simon's rebellion written about by Josehus prechristian?<BR/><BR/>If not,it seems plausible to me that those who inscribed the stone were perhaps borrowing from the Christian tradition that had arisen due to the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the spread of Christianity.Rickiewww.rickiewilson.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-18875292370607313362008-07-10T02:34:00.000-05:002008-07-10T02:34:00.000-05:00I am not seeing the same critical analysis of the Mishnah and the Talmud as is being seen of the resurrection story of Christianity. To me this is suspect, because at the time of the stone, the Mishnah was only an apparent oral tradition, written down after the resurrection (AD 70-200). <BR/><BR/>The Jewish scholars of the time were admittedly trying to save their religious tradition, and may I say their reason for being. For if the Messiah is Jesus who clarified and even provided propitiation, then there was no longer a need for propitiation at the temple, nor anything else Jesus achieved. Living by the Law of Moses had ended, and the New Covenant of Grace through faith had begun.<BR/><BR/>So I as a Christian must point to the Mishnah and the Talmud as being suspect of fabrication, as they will most certainly find a way to provide a commentary against Jesus being the Christ. And the Jewish scholars to this time being swayed then by the myths that were necessary to deny Hell, the 3 day resurrection, Christ's fulfilling of God's promises, and anything else which might cause a Jew think that the Christian story was a fabrication.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-15150393617425896702008-07-08T12:28:00.000-05:002008-07-08T12:28:00.000-05:00I find the comments of the report on the discovery typical of much of the published Biblical theology since the 1850s. Only two alternatives are presented in that dominant theology, because the third alternative requires a God who intervenes in history. <BR/><BR/>Much of Liberal "Christian" theology assumes that God does not intervene in history. This belief is an unchallengeable basic tenant of their belief system. Liberal theologians assume their belief God does not intervene in history is a fact, and write theology as if their religious belief was the only possible fact.<BR/><BR/>How this works is only two alternatives are presented and, without saying anything about assumptions and faith, both alternatives are based on the assumption that God does not intervene in history.<BR/><BR/>The problem with that theology is if God does not intervene in history, then Jesus died and stayed dead.<BR/><BR/>The resurrection is the vital heart of Christianity. Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity and Jesus was a deluded madman who died horribly and stayed dead (who nonetheless gave us such wise teachings that the belief system of the Western world is based on these teachings).<BR/><BR/>These liberal scholars lack the courage of their convictions in that they retain their posts as "Christian" theologians. Their theology eliminates the resurrection of Jesus, yet they still call themselves Christians.<BR/><BR/>These scholars are dishonest because they do not say their writings are based on their assumption that God does not intervene in history. Scholarship that eliminates half the possibilities without saying it is eliminating half the possibilities is dishonest, to say the least.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your courage to tell the truth, that there is always (at least) a third alternative. I really appreciated how you saw through the faith assumptions presented as fact, and the courage it took to say it. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps you will become the new little boy who says the emperor has no clothes on. You stand in good company if you do. Bishop N.T. Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God) does a much better job of explaining the problem than I did.<BR/><BR/>David Adams+da-skypilothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17232599937348281996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-71976006275415575612008-07-08T02:30:00.000-05:002008-07-08T02:30:00.000-05:00You know, it never really bothered me that this "resurrection in three days" motif may pre-date Christ. This would only shake the Christianity of Christians who believe Christ's life, death, and resurrection had no predating motifs to begin with. If one recognizes all the ones found in the Old Testament, this is just one more to add to the collection.the postmortemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06374570360503910669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-42919081402116892482008-07-07T23:07:00.000-05:002008-07-07T23:07:00.000-05:00A surprising number of American Democrats voted for the most radical liberal candidate in the recent primaries. I'd like to continue the trend by voting for Todd's "radical" suggestion herein.G.M. Grenahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16715203546886901296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-82697342713409462852008-07-07T18:10:00.000-05:002008-07-07T18:10:00.000-05:00I would submit that this "ancient tablet" is probably another sensationalist scam, as is clearly indicated by the facts<BR/><BR/>(1) that no specific information is available on its provenance and<BR/><BR/>(2) that no details are provided on carbon dating of the ink.<BR/><BR/>As such, this "news" brings to mind the faked Lost-Tomb-of-Jesus "documentary" designed to make a financial profit from people's fascination with the "real" Jesus, as well as the larger scandal of the biased and misleading way the Dead Sea scrolls are being presented in museum exhibits around the world, with an antisemitic nuance emerging on a government-run North Carolina museum's website. See, e.g.,<BR/><BR/>http://spinozaslens.com/libet/articles/dworkin_ethicsofexhibition.htm<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>http://blog.news-record.com/staff/frontpew/archives/2008/06/dead_sea_scroll.shtml.Museum Ethics Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14651630326392275218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-35890244219935415172008-07-07T17:24:00.000-05:002008-07-07T17:24:00.000-05:00Todd,<BR/><BR/>This is the most helpful posts that I have seen on this topic. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>I have linked to it at my blog www.bibleexposition.netCharleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481608525537223764noreply@blogger.com