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.


Stone Tablet found says Messiah's Resurrection

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:05 PM

Scriptural scholars are abuzz over a stone tablet that is said to bear previously unknown prophecies about a Jewish messiah who would rise from the dead in three days. But there are far more questions than answers about the tablet, which some have suggested could represent "a new Dead Sea Scroll in stone."

Do the tablet and the inked text really date back to the first century B.C., as claimed? Where did the artifact come from? Can the gaps in the text be filled in to make sense? Is the seeming reference to a coming resurrection correct, and to whom does that passage refer? Finally, what impact would a pre-Christian reference to suffering, death and resurrection have on Christian scholarship?

Hmm, i just find it interesting considering it is the 60th anniversary of the dead sea scrolls. the hybrid of religion and science i think will start to come together.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by UnitedSatesofFreemasons]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:35 PM
Hiyah United,

I think you forgot to put a link to the actual article that you quoted the text from in your OP. I wanted to read the whole article, could you please post the link? Thanks

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:38 PM
The quote is from CosmicLog:

Stone Tablet ...

How the tablet came to light
The 1-foot-wide, 3-foot-tall (30-by-90-centimeter) tablet has a checkered past: According to the tale that has been woven around the stone, it was found near Jordan's Dead Sea shore and sold by a Jordanian dealer to Israeli-Swiss collector David Jeselsohn a decade ago. A few years ago, Jeselsohn showed the stone to Ada Yardeni, an expert on ancient Semitic scripts, who consulted with another expert, Binyamin Elitzur.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:45 PM

But Herschel Shanks, founder of the Biblical Archaeology Society and editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review, said that such a linkage really isn't surprising, let alone shocking.

"The really unique thing about Christian theology is in the life of Jesus - but in the doctrines, when I was a kid, you had little stories about the Sermon on the Mount and the people listening to this saying, 'What is this man saying? I never heard anything like this! This is different,'" Shanks told me. "Today, this view is out. There are Jewish roots to almost everything in Christian experience."

I confess that I enjoy butting heads with Herschel. There is no generalised Jewish root to Christianity. In fact, there is no such thing as "a generalised Judaism in the time of Jesus". There is a direct connexion to Christianity from three roots within Hebrew tradition: (1) the First Temple's theology and practice, (2) the Enochian literature, and (3) the Essenes/Qumran community's teachings.

Important is that christianity does not arise directly from (1) the theology and practises of the Second Temple, (2) the Pharisees rabbinical reinterpretations, (3) the synthesis of Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple.

What is held in common between early christianity and the Second Temple goes back to the First Temple.

The important thing about this stone is to see in what way it can be linked to the first three I outlined above (First Temple et al.) It will be interesting to see how this one plays out and how it gets spun by the usual culprits.

[edit on 7/7/08 by Pellevoisin]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:46 PM
I thought the discovery was pretty interesting, I started a news thread based on the time magazine article on this subject.

Though the thread went down the familiar path of belief/non-belief, that is each person's right but I hope that most purely discount the find itself which is pretty remarkable.

I think TIME's article title could have been much better.

If interested you can find the TIME mag piece link in this thread:

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:46 PM
reply to post by Pellevoisin

Thank you kindly Pellevoisin

An interesting read. I was hoping they had more scientific evidence such as carbon dating but, a good read just the same.

Thanks for posting the thread United and thanks again for the link Pellevoisin.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by JacKatMtn

Thanks JacK,

Yes I will check out the TIME article. I am more interested in the science behind it and less "spiritual speculation" so perhaps I will find the TIME article more informative from an archeologic standpoint

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by LateApexer313

That's what has me intrigued in this discovery, it is amazing how many dots can be connected from each discovery made.

Each one can only bring a clarity or focus on what we should all be interested in, the truth.

The truth may shock some, anger others, or it may back someone's theory.

I am all for the truth.

It really is a shame that Israel/Palestine have this hatred for one another, I wonder how much could be learned from archaeological finds from that region.

I believe alot of it has been destroyed, especially if it doesn't fit into the competing religious disputes, and alot of the one's promoted have a definite slant to them.

Just my 2 cents, I am not of advanced studies in this area, matter of fact I am a jack of all trades and master of none.

Archaeology is just one of those areas that I find fascinating.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:07 PM
reply to post by JacKatMtn

Have you seen Zeitgeist?
This clip ( about minute 2:54 focuses in the fact that three days raising from death is a common story through the ages...

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 01:05 PM
I talked to a friend in Syria and a friend in Jerusalem who are expert in identifying the real over the fake. They both said the same thing -- which was a very great surprise since I never knew them to agree -- what they offered was that if it is fake it is a very cunning fake that fifty years ago would have fooled most people.

I think that is very interesting information. They both allowed how they believe the Hazon Gavriel is genuine, but each disagrees with the "official" Hebrew text and English translation. They expressed also similar opinions that dating needs to be done by three separate bodies without ties to each other.

(It was nice to touch base with old friends, so if nothing else this find has had a salutary effect for me.)

My ethnographic interest is in how communities tell the narrative by which they live in common assent. These sorts of finds tend to be rejuvenating for communities that are related and can spawn remarkable retellings of the narrative both within the communities and among scholars. (I usually insert my plug for Margaret Barker's work on Hebrew henotheism and other matters.)

new topics

top topics


log in