It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pre-'Jesus' tablet describes death and resurrection

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:31 PM

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.

Source (New York Times)

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:33 PM
I'm staying out of religious debate on BTS but I thought many of you would find the above article interesting.

Do you think it strengthens or weakens Christian theology? Why?

I personally don't know enough about either the tablet or Christian beliefs to make a judgment.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:05 AM
Archeology has consistently proven the Bible to be true.


There is never enough proof for a professional skeptic.

Unfortunately, the story does not print all of what the tablet says, so it will just be a theoretical debate

about what it really says.

One can only hope this may get someone to see that there is more to it, [ The Messiah ] ,

than they've been led to believe, and that the real problem lays with certain manipulators, and certain churches

and not the Book, or Whom the Message was from.

in other words, we're divided! us Christians are divided, big time divided,

and the non believers lump us all together just like the term jew/jewish gets lumped together

by folks who truly believe they know precisely whom they are speaking about, but they do not.

My only concern with this story, and related stories, remains with lumping everyone together under the jew label.

as they were referred to in the story

I don't like it, because there is more to the story, more to the name/group being referred to as jewish.

I wonder what the original Israelites referred to themselves as? I don't think it was jews.

I'd love to hear [ a u2u would be in order] from my learned brothers on this most sensitive issue....if the thread lasts.

anyways, thanks to fooffstarr for posting this...

[edit on 6-7-2008 by toasted]

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:11 AM
To me it's just more proof of Jesus being here and resurrecting for me. More proof of Angels and Heaven and hell. All Christians should be saying this is more proof.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:14 AM
It's definitely a fascinating find, that's for sure. It's hard to say whether this supports or detracts from Christian theology. On the one side, we have what appears to be evidence of a Jewish prophecy of a messiah's death and resurrection. On the other side, you could say that this stone is source material for the Biblical stories of Jesus. I don't think it's going to settle anything one way or the other, but will only reaffirm the beliefs that the reader already has on the subject, since it can be taken to support either side, depending on point of view.

The age of this item is crucial. For instance, there would be a massive difference if this dated to 50 B.C, as opposed to 50 A.D, given the intervening events. It's been dated to 'the decades before Christ', but even a small error in that dating could completely change the context of this find. If it was written later than they think, it could have been written by someone with an agenda just under 2000 years ago. I'd like to think that this stone supports Christian theology, and it does so in my mind, but that won't be a universal conclusion.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:35 AM
reply to post by fooffstarr

there was knowledge of the resurrection as the OT promises this?

cant see what the fuss is about


posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:35 AM
Interesting points so far, and thanks for posting.

I spotted a topic about this over on ATS Conspiracy in Religion as well. If the mods read this, the CiR topic was first so feel free to lock this one if you so choose.

I find it all fascinating though. I've always been interested in archeology. Imagine being the person to discover such a relic, regardless of it's content.

I read a novel not long ago called The Judas Testament that was about the battle over a scroll discovered that was written by Jesus himself (yes, it is fiction). Was a great read.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:26 PM
"Archeology has consistently proven the Bible to be true.


There is never enough proof for a professional skeptic."

LOL I'd like to see this evidence please? There is no evidence of a flood, man eating fish/whale, eternal burning bush, plagues, no mass exdous, no mass census, Bethlehem, no pillar of salt, no tower of Babel, no garden of eden, no fire from the sky, no 2 by 2 animals, no Joseph, no Mary, no flood, no boat, no mention of Moses nowhere ever, no demons to make people sick. No evidence for a
Archeology has consistently proven the Bible to be true. There is not a shred of contemporary evidence which suggests Christ was a historical man outside the bible. The bible has 2 creation stories. 2 unique 10 commandment listings. 4 gospel books written by anonymous authors 60 - 70 years after Christ was said to have died. The bible says the earth was flat, rested on pillars, not mobile.

Much of the bible was borrowed from earlier mythology. The flood story is a carbon copy of many aspects of the Epics Of Gilgamesh which predated it by quite a bit.

Consider 300, Beowulf or Dracula. All these stories(myths) have some tie to reality but we know they are false. All these myths were once fully believed by possibly millions for hundreds of years to be unmistakably true. Today we know they were stories. Today they make great movies. Modern scholarship accepts religion works by adopting earlier mythology which was accepted than adapting it to fit the current culture. Compare the book of the dead to much of the OT. This process is "adoption" & "adaptation".

This tablet proves without question the myth of Christ existed before he was created as a historical person. Like movie 300 we watched a year or so back the myth of this story existed before we could see the movie. If we are not blinded by religion it is fairly easy to see it is crap.

(I will not have time to reply)........

Tony S
Brownsburg, Indiana

By the way a full translation of the tablet is available. Journal article(papers) have already been published.....

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:14 AM
Well, if anything, it strengthens Christianity.

Now, with that being said, this is not as much of a major find as everyone thinks. The coming Messiah was mentioned in the OT, so it was already a part of the Jewish doctrine.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:15 AM

Professor, author and researcher Dr. Ken Hanson returned to discuss the new stone tablet unearthed near the Dead Sea, which contains prophecies about the Messiah as well as revelations from the Angel Gabriel. He's been studying the 3-ft. tablet, known as the 'Gabriel Revelation,' for the last year. Containing 87 lines of Hebrew, the ink is inscribed directly into the stone, which prevents it from being carbon dated, he explained, noting that it's possible the artifact is a forgery.

But Hanson said he's come to believe the tablet is genuine. Thought to be made in the decade before Jesus' birth, it speaks of a messianic figure who will rise from the dead after three days. "The implications are overwhelming," he said, in that the resurrection of a messiah could be part of Jewish tradition. The ancient Judeans known as the Essenes believed in the coming of two messiahs-- one from the priestly branch, the other from the lineage of King David, Hanson pointed out.
There is evidence in the gospels that there were things that Jesus did to fulfill prophesies that are not found in the Old Testament.
Apparently, there are traditions that existed in the time of Jesus that people gave much credence to, obligating the Gospel writers to include them.
That being said, that does not mean that this stone is authentic.
Even if it was, I do not think it should make any difference to Christian believers.
It would have been most likely, if it is real, to have been written by Essenes, who I do not think were very influential to Jesus.
The Essene teaching may have had an effect on followers of John the Baptist.
There could have been a couple of bones thrown to the John followers, in the Gospel.
I think Jesus' thinking is pretty much in line with the rabbinic scholarship of the day, which is well documented.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:42 PM

Originally posted by fooffstarr
Do you think it strengthens or weakens Christian theology? Why?

I don't know much about this find but I see it working both ways:

Believers will possibly consider this on par with the Messianic prophecies- the same as the approximate 300 Messianic prophecies found in the Old Testament which foretold the Messiah.

Skeptics will possibly say the fictional Jesus character was molded after the prophecy.

top topics


log in