digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at dailygalaxy.com —

Ancient 'Dead Sea' Stone Tablet Might Rewrite the Bible

dailygalaxy.com — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew found near the Dead Sea in Jordan that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is raising eyebrows in biblical and archaeological circles.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Konstantino, on 07/08/2008, -22/+35I'm missing something here. If this is talking about a messiah who was raised from the dead after 3 days and is written just like the other Dead Sea Scrolls, how is there anything that can rewrite the Bible in it?
    • ArtfulDaughter, on 07/08/2008, -8/+131The scroll isn't referencing Jesus. That's the unusual part. The article is talking about Midrash, which is a Jewish form of storytelling that is used to orally pass down stories. Instead of the Jesus resurrection story being unique, it's almost like a form letter, where heroes of the day are plugged into an already existing legend. These tablets allegedly pre-exist the Christ story, and in this case, a hero named Simon is featured in a very similar 'rise in 3 days' situation.

      It makes sense if you've studied Jewish history and legend, but the Christians will most likely be very unhappy if this turns out to be legitimate.
      • matt510, on 07/09/2008, -15/+31"but the Christians will most likely be very unhappy if this turns out to be legitimate."

        How do you figure that? Much of the OT and other Jewish writings pointed and looked forward to a messiah that would redeem them.
      • brstilson, on 07/10/2008, -10/+100The elements of the Jesus story aren't found just in Jewish circles. The legend of Horus is almost identical to that of Jesus, as well as Mithra and many other "heroes" in many other cultures around the world. It's a universal story, an ancient "meme" with the same basic elements just with a fill-in-the-blank hero. Isn't it weird to think that the major religions of the world are all the result of an ancient RPG?
      • DarknessGP, on 07/10/2008, -20/+9Did you read the article ArtfulDaughter? It says that a "leading scholar" suggests it is refering to Simon, a Jewish prince. It says absolutely nothing about the tablet naming someone.
      • thebaron2, on 07/10/2008, -2/+35@Darkness

        It doesn't matter if his name was Simon, Rick, or Steve.

        What matters is that it supposedly pre-dates Christ but tells the same elements of the story. "There was a guy. He was a messiah. The government killed him. He rose from the dead three days later."

        I'll be interested when the dating results and methodology are released. Religion relics are prime territory for forgery.
      • cocoame, on 07/10/2008, -21/+13No, I'm sorry, so much of what you hear about Mithra and others is simply false. Acharya S pretty much made all the Mithra similarities up, for instance:
        http://othello.alma.edu/~07tmhopk/mithra.html
        The whole Mithra thing is just internet legend.
      • monroylobo, on 07/10/2008, -2/+15@brstilson

        yeah, the similarity is uncanny

        According to Papyrus Chester-Beatty I, Set is depicted as trying to prove his dominance by seducing Horus and then having intercourse with him. However, Horus places his hand between his thighs and catches Set's semen, then subsequently throws it in the river, so that he may not be said to have been inseminated by Set. Horus then deliberately spreads his own semen on some lettuce, which was Set's favorite food (the Egyptians thought that lettuce was phallic). After Set has eaten the lettuce, they go to the gods to try to settle the argument over the rule of Egypt. The gods first listen to Set's claim of dominance over Horus, and call his semen forth, but it answers from the river, invalidating his claim. Then, the gods listen to Horus' claim of having dominated Set, and call his semen forth, and it answers from inside Set.
      • empraptor, on 07/10/2008, -2/+6If cocoame would link to a strictly academic page about Mithra, that would have been useful. Third sentence of page he linked - "Please point ignorant internet trolls here for a quick reality check when they mention Mithra." I should have stopped there.

        But didn't get too far beyond. The first section is "Mithra was born on December 25th". I gathered from the title that they would argue that Mithra's birth was not celebrated on 12/25. They didn't even try. Something about Christian scriptures never mentioning 12/25. Well, Christians celebrate 12/25 as date of birth of Christ, don't they?

        Saying that no one knows the real birthdate of Jesus doesn't change the fact that Christianity celebrates his birth on the same day as Mithras' birth. Certainly doesn't change anything for those of us who think there isn't a "real" birthdate to look for.

        I have a feeling the rest of the page is same sort of garbage.
      • starmanjones, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1>I'm missing something here. If this is
        >talking about a messiah who was raised
        >from the dead after 3 days and is
        >written just like the other Dead Sea
        >Scrolls, how is there anything that can
        >rewrite the Bible in it?

        this is actually old news. this same story has been recited over and over just as ALL christian folk lore. the only thing new is that this is just another to add to the pile.
    • WriterSD, on 07/09/2008, -21/+36From what I read in the article, there isn't anything. Anyone who has studied the Bible knows the Messiah was foretold thousands of years before, specifically to the Jews. So of course it would be passed down. This really isn't a surprise at all.
      • opiniastrous, on 07/10/2008, -5/+14So from what I understand, you are saying that this tablet's revelation of story similar to Jesus's does little to discredit the actual story of Jesus, because the Jews would have known the story as told to them thousands of years ago?

        I'm not sure that's correct.

        Looking into it a bit further, was the 'exact' story of the Messiah foretold? I mean, as I understand it the Messiah was originally meant to be a King of Israel, descended from David. Obviously, this is a nationalist, rather than a spiritual, concept of the Messiah. I doubt that the Messiah was predicted to be overthrown or rise from the dead under this concept, meaning that the story of persecution by the government and the rise from the dead could not have been told to the Jews thousands of years before Jesus's supposed coming.

        Over time the concept of the Messiah became spiritual as Jews became established as displaced people - the kingdom was unlikely to be rebuilt, so why would there be a king? Now, even if the story of the spiritual Messiah (rather than a nationalist one) had been foretold from the beginning, were all of the elements of Jesus's story foretold? I think the biblical story of the Messiah is basically that he would come, destroy evil and eventually judge the world, not that he would come, build a devoted but small following, be persecuted and killed by the government before rising in three days. That is supposedly meant to be unique to Jesus, and the earlier versions of the story have been worked into it (e.g. Being the 'King of the Jews', even though he wasn't an actual King). However, if this tablet shows that the story was already being told, then it basically indicates that the story of Jesus could easily just be part of a longer tradition of story-telling.
      • drgruney, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Seems to me this one talks about it as if it just happened... like later Old Testament books talking about Jesus' resurrection... meaning it's not the foretelling being passed on.
      • bixel, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3I concur with opiniastrous, if you read the 1st testament the Jewish people are constantly trying to recreate the supposed golden years of David, and even now archeologists are discovering how just not 'golden' those years were. They are actually finding out that Omri was the greater king, but while being Jewish, he had a slightly more open minded view of religious tolerance and even married a non-jewish woman (gasp) which pissed off the conservatives.
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1That's right, it doesn't agree so close your mind to it now, before you have to think about it.

        C'mon, really?
        The fact that the Jesus story isn't unique and may in fact be just another in a long line of similar stories changes NOTHING with you?

        This is what we'll see. They made up their minds, and reality won't affect it.
      • starmanjones, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1>anything. Anyone who has studied the
        >Bible knows the Messiah was foretold
        >thousands of years before, specifically
        >to the Jews. So of course it would be

        thats comfortable spin but its a case of swiping the story from many many non christian religions... just pre christian lore. christians picked it up and made it theirs like others before them.

        i'd be interested in this really goofy claim that bible studiers can know squat about history. are ya sure there was actually a jesus? a blond european jesus? these pieces of rare ancient writing are not thousands of years older than the bible... which of course was written variously during several hundred years after the main characters were dead and gone. thousands of years?

        this is a case of believing your own ***** and a good example of the completely distorted reasoning it takes to believe your own *****.
    • paradexes, on 07/10/2008, -8/+16I guess it's time to change things to WWSD? Or better yet WWSS? What Would Simon Say?
    • gonzoblair, on 07/10/2008, -11/+90Err no you guys are missing it. The story wasn't a "foretelling of Jesus." It demonstrates that the Jesus story was a standard fable at the time and didn't even originally feature Jesus in the main role.

      Imagine if 3,000 years from now a bunch of people believe that Battlestar Galactica was a true story because they watch the DVDs of the ancience show. Then one day somebody digs up a copy of BSG 1978 and they're like "hey wait a minute... they are calling some other dude Starbuck what the *****." Yeah that's right.
      • Nysul, on 07/10/2008, -1/+55That's what we should put in the time capsules that we blast into space, Battlestar Galactica DVDs. That way when a superior alien race comes along to wipe us out they'll be all "they have cylons, ***** that *****" and just leave us alone.
      • ortucis, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1"they have cylons, ***** that *****"


        I think they'd be laughing their alien asses off with someone pointing at the tin boxes called Cylons and then their toaster on the site with red LED.
      • mojotooth, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2DVDs of the show? You mean the "Historical Documents?"
      • Exbzurq, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Wait... BSG isn't true? You've just shattered what little bits of reality I still clung to...
    • biogears, on 07/10/2008, -14/+7Looks like a prophecy of a suffering Messiah....hmmm.

      I guess some people are hoping it will somehow harm faith in Jesus - the suffering Messiah.


    • rusty0101, on 07/10/2008, -5/+1Some will think it's a re-write, others will note that it is not all that different from what was foretold elsewhere.
      One observation is that the story is little different from the apparently commonly held belief at the time that the Messiah was going to initiate a military uprising against the Romans and Herod. In Christianity Jesus came to show us the way to salvation of our soul, not the ground we walk on.

      Which doesn't suggest that people calling themselves Christians won't take a military tactic to get their desires fulfilled.
    • crc77, on 07/10/2008, -2/+14I think the point of this article is that if there were existing stories that described the events that form the basis of Christianity, then people could argue about the factual accuracy of those events. If you look at it from a political, rather than religious, perspective, it's very easy to imagine people borrowing the "miraculous" stuff from existing myths, legends, prophecies etc and applying it to a particular individual in order to improve their standing in society.

      There have been countless examples throughout history of people claiming to be such-and-such reborn, or the fulfilment of some prophecy or other. The fact is, they do it because associating themselves with the existing legend gives them a short cut to the credibility, reputation, power and influence of the original.

      Hey, does anybody remember Christmas? Did you realise that the date of Christmas was actually set to coincide with existing pagan festivals (Yule - as in Yuletide, celebrating the god Thor) as well as the Roman festival of the sun, corresponding to the winter solstice)? Another case of the truth (the date of Jesus' birth) becoming merged with existing religious tradition because it was politically and socially expedient...
      • Dauntless1, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0Nuh uh! Jesus was born TWICE! Ha! Thought you could shake my farce! I mean faith! FAITH!
    • donelson, on 07/10/2008, -6/+12
      • annenk38, on 07/10/2008, -0/+8Actually, almost all of the mythologies you've mentioned, specifically Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian have been incorporated into, and largely form the bulk of Hebrew mythology, and therefore by extension, Christian mythology. Check out Mill Moyers' interview with Joseph Campbell "The Power of Myth" on PBS.
      • mojotooth, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1If God told that hot chick to make sweet love to me, should I still run? Maybe I could just delay the running for a while...
      • Fordi, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2No, you must go now! There is much Peril!
      • feignNU, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0I bet you're gay.
    • im3ngs, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1There's alot missing in the article.
      1. What evidence is there to suggest that it can be dated prior to the birth of Jesus?
      2. What evidence in the written text of that tablet would suggest it is this particular Simon who led the revolt?

      All the pertinent information is sidetracked so they can get to the sensational: "Christianity is in danger" (though I'm not quite sure how it is). Let's see how effective it is in getting people to miss the important facts completely in the rest of the comments.
    • Psamtik, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Simon. Not Jesus.
    • et1hugo, on 07/11/2008, -1/+0Well, think about it this way, if these stories were told before Jesus, what credibility would it have given Him with his disciples anyway, by simply telling the same old story? Lets remember that of the remaining 11 disciples after the crucifixion 10 of them died horrible deaths because of their belief in Christ as the Messiah AND His resurrection, only the Apostle John died on the island of Patmos where he was in exile for this belief. Surely nobody would be willing to die or suffer for a fairytale or some legend, especially if it is not even an original one , so in my view I think that instead this article can only strengthen Christianities credibility.

      As a matter of fact if the author of the article really reckons that this discovery would put Christianity into some kind of crisis it just proofs how uninformed he/she is and how little he/she knows about the Bible in general, in which case it barely puts the author in the position to judge the authenticity of the Bible. Frankly the death and resurrection after 3 days or whatever time period was nothing new in Jesus' time, there are remnants of such stories in a lot of religions/mythologies predating Christ AS WELL AS the virgin birth. So come on guys your can really do better than this...my money is still on Jesus ;).
    • bookitybook, on 08/26/2008, -0/+0To read more about this discovery, http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA ...

      Or, better yet, subscribe to Biblical Archaeology Review
  • GlitchEnzo, on 07/08/2008, -27/+18While this is very interesting, I also don't see how this would rewrite the Bible. I know a Messiah was predicted back in the book of Isaiah, but I'm not sure if the death and resurrection was a part of it.
    • MillionsLivio, on 07/09/2008, -8/+17*Whoosh*
    • David513, on 07/10/2008, -6/+10Maybe GlitchEnzo's answer will get some sane people digging it up later, but it's appalling to find it with a minus 7. Even if you're an atheist or agnostic or devotee of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, GlitchEnzo has pointed out the obvious. The spin on this story is that it disproves the biblical account of the Resurrection because the story already existed before Jesus, but the whole point of the biblical account (from a Christian point of view) was that Jesus was fulfilling Jewish prophecy as the Messiah. The fact that people a few years beforehand KNEW of the prophecy doesn't mean it didn't happen. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. It just means that some people were writing down a well-known prophecy from old Jewish scripture.

      It says a lot about the intellectual dishonesty of a lot of people on here that they'd digg down perfectly rational comments just because they don't come from their own point of view. Unfortunately, it also says a lot about how far Digg has fallen.
      • TheKillDoctor, on 07/10/2008, -5/+3Rational? Which is the true prophesied messiah Jesus or this Simon guy? If there are multiple stories then are there multiple messiahs? Or did modern day christians just happen to pick the right one? Your intellectual dishonesty is caused by your belief in that you picked the right one.
      • David513, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3KillDoctor, maybe you're unclear about the point in contention here. The disagreement here has to do with the SINGLE POINT of whether the existence of this story in Jewish culture before Jesus proves that early Christians were just copying that story. Whether Jesus is the Messiah isn't the issue. It's not even relevant here. As I said, this new discovery (of the possible existence of a resurrection story) doesn't prove anything ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. Please learn to read what a poster is actually saying instead of making up what you assume he might be saying.
      • itzac, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Which is more likely? That someone actually lived out the supernatural events of a story that had been told for 1000 years? Or that someone adopted a 1000-year legend to start a religion with?

        This artifact provides a still stronger basis for the second possibility over the first. You're right that it doesn't prove it, but at this point I think the reasonable thing to do is to put onus on christians to prove, not the other way around.

        "It's only a little air-born. It's still good!"
        - Homer (Simpson)
      • TheKillDoctor, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1David, sorry I see what you mean but it's still a little muddy. It's my understanding that these stories have been copied for a very long time and are a common theme found in many various cultures. I really don't see why it is up for discussion. Also please learn to not to make global judgments on why people digg things up or down only to use that opinion as a basis for a persons rationality. It's my primary reason for not knowing what the hell you were talking about in the first place.
  • Orion1004, on 07/08/2008, -11/+65The scroll is about Midrash, which is a Jewish form of storytelling that is used to orally pass down stories. Instead of the Jesus resurrection story being unique, it's almost like an preceding myth, where heroes of the day are plugged into an already existing legend. These tablets appear to pre-date the Christ resurrection narrative, and in this case, a hero named Simon anticipates Christ a very similar 'rise in 3 days' event.
    • mulge, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7You over simplify midrash. It isn't a form of storytelling, but rather a form of intertextual interpretation of Hebrew Bible sources. Rather, this seems to represent a topos found in the days of the 2nd Temple when Judea was under Roman domination. Perhaps the term "messiah" needs more interpretation here - that it is more than a religious figure offering salvation but rather a political figure returning the Davidic Dynasty to Judaea, one that can resist the torments of the mighty Roman Empire...
    • foofightrs777, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3So, you mean like the rest of the Bible....from the cult of Dionysus to Mithras to Osiris to Zoroastrianism to celebrating a holiday in the end of December. It's pretty much the Borg of religions as it assimilated many then contemporary religious ideas into its cannon
      • Waterrat, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1 Yes,the Borg of religions...very well put..
    • slazer, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1haha, orally.
  • beingdevious, on 07/08/2008, -56/+188further proof that jesus was just a man, and the bible is just a bunch of stories and moral guidelines. not fact.
    • matt510, on 07/09/2008, -28/+11Eh? That is quite a non sequitur.
      • nycmac247, on 07/10/2008, -4/+3ORLY?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ-kvw1fYXs
      • quez, on 07/10/2008, -5/+4I have no idea why you're being buried (actually, I do, I just think that it's a stupid reason for you to be buried). It is a non sequitur. It does not follow that the Jesus story is false because it happens to be similar to stories told previously.
    • fajitamelt, on 07/10/2008, -23/+10How do you figure that? Just because it was part of Jewish "myth" doesn't mean it couldn't have happened to Jesus. That's like saying "On the Origin of Species" is fiction because stories about something that happens to be very similar to the theory of evolution was written decades before it.
      • Shirleycakes, on 07/10/2008, -0/+10I see your point, but your example is pretty weak. The theory of Evolution is happening around us all of the time in the form of adaptation and survival of the fittest.

        There (due to the now called gnostic gospels) is growing debate as to the validity of the savior argument for Christ. There is plenty of evidence that a prophet of sorts named (or translated as) Jesus lived at that time and was crucified, but if the resurrection part was pre-written it would be easy to attribute to the Jesus story to make his claim more valid; I.E. Followers (the Disciples) saving face. Keep in mind that only his supporters saw him after his "resurrection".
      • fajitamelt, on 07/10/2008, -7/+3@shirlycakes,

        lol, the example is pretty weak. I just needed something to piss all these insanely atheists off
      • Greedfeed, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2@fajitamelt
        Can you find something to piss all these insanely Christians off too?
      • fajitamelt, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1Well, I would, but I'm Christian myself.
    • axiomflash, on 07/10/2008, -11/+44moral guidelines my ass.
      • MasterGrief, on 07/10/2008, -5/+2Well, not all of the bible is bad. At any rate, it helped the stupid masses survive civilization's early days.
      • castrup, on 07/10/2008, -2/+14Actually, civilization did quite fine before christianity popped in. It has since proved an awesome mechanism for helping the privileged few survive and eat cake, by making the stupid masses till the earth etc. for them, though.
      • MooNinja, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6Yeah the Assyrian's, and Babylonians were great philanthropists. The wall of skinned enemies on the way to the throne room screamed of class.
      • anaesthetica, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1@castrup

        Actually, the privileged few did quite fine surviving and eating cake and making sure the stupid masses tilled the earth for them before christianity popped up.
      • castrup, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Civilization is defined by the division of labour and complex social hierachies, not by noble sentiments and philanthropy :)
        That the guys at the top of any societal structure are having a lot of cake is definitely not contingent on religion - religion is just a very good tool for it is all..
    • Jaiotu, on 07/10/2008, -9/+2Actually, it proves nothing at all... at least not yet. With so much of the actual text either missing or faded, the interpretation of the text is nothing more then conjecture. It's going to take YEARS of real scholarship and study to come to any real conclusion as to what the original text actually said (if that is even possible) and even longer for the debate regarding how, or if, it affects Christianity at all.
      What is hitting the press right now is nothing short of tabloid archeology. The success of Dan Brown's Davinci Code has everyone scrambling to find the next nail to try and shut back the stone of Jesus' tomb.
    • publiclurker, on 07/10/2008, -6/+22Actually there is no evidence that Jesus actually existed as a real human being. He may very well have been the one retelling of this old story that actually caught on.
      • stacky, on 07/10/2008, -8/+3Not counting those by his followers, there are more written accounts of the existence of Jesus Christ than there are of Julius Caesar.
      • foofightrs777, on 07/10/2008, -2/+8And honesty if he did, then he was a great man. If he didn't, then he is a great role model and moral example. Please keep in mind I am only talking about the actions and words of Jesus and nothing else in the Bible.
      • MooNinja, on 07/10/2008, -4/+2There is just as much written proof as there is for just about any historic figure from that time. Cleopatra ? She didn't exist, 'cuse I said so!
      • RyGuyX, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Where is there written proof other than the bible?
      • pcshen, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2Apearently, you haven't done your research. Jesus existance has been well documented by multiple scholars, ancient writings and archiologial evidence. The fact that you deny his existance(not even his divinity) means that you haven't done any research. I guarentee you that most people who believe in God have considered the possiblity that he doen't exist, while many atheist never consider or research the possibilty that he does (this doesn't include sunday school as a child). Fact of the matter is many people don't want to believe in God because of the implications it might have in the long term.
    • dabura, on 07/10/2008, -12/+1i guess you're feeling more comfortable with Muslim
      • beingdevious, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1what? no. i dont believe in any diety. i can walk on my own two legs.. no need for a crutch.
    • Pusod, on 07/10/2008, -14/+3We have another atheist looking to impose his beliefs (dis-beliefs) on others. God! I swear you guys are worse than the Jehova's Witnesses (no offense to the JDub's)!
      • beingdevious, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1no, just stating the obvious. but, im not gonna argue on this forum. bring it to my website, then ill have a discussion about atheists and God.
    • petaganayr, on 07/10/2008, -4/+8I agree. I grew up in strict Catholic Family. I have always wondered why the Noah's Ark never had dinosaurs in it. Seriously, I ignored this fact when I was growing up, because in our family, it made me feel guilty to ask questions against the bible. The bible is just a collection of teachings, and should never be taken literally. But, faith will always be...well, faith. People just needs something to be believe in...kinda like that song...ahhh give me something to believe in....(sorry that was lame). Again, just my opinion. The poorer the country is, the more they believe in God or Allah. Back in the days...the Spaniards used Christian ism to instill fear among the countries that they were trying to conquer.
      • SharkyTech, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2Ever think that maybe the country is poor because they spend all their time praying rather than doing something about it.
      • arjie, on 07/10/2008, -2/+5SharkyTech:

        "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions." - Marx.

        While an excessive adherence to religion can be bad for your wallet - for example, in India, many farmers went bankrupt making sacrifices to gods for rain, often on borrowed money - it is mostly the other way: Poor people seem to want to look for some other sort of meaning because success at a job or in maintaining a family isn't possible for them.
      • MooNinja, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2How would that apply to most of the world ? Considering the vast vast majority of the planet is religious. America with the greatest economy, and not by a small margin, is still very religious. Also, religious teaching tend to teach people to shy away from greed, and hording worldy goods. Religion puts and emphasis on community, and family, rather than computers, and industry.

        Information > Wild Speculation
      • arjie, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6MooNinja, it is not wild speculation that religiosity is correlated with poor economic conditions. Since you are in favour of information over wild speculation, I will point you to the Pew Global Attitudes Project:
        http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID= ...
      • ashfish, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2If you think America has the greatest economy right now you need to take a look at the value of the dollar.
    • dstz, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4Who needed further proof? the "gnostic Jesus" was probably the closer to what he could have been if he ever existed, and the Gnostic believers were declared heretics and killed by so called "orthodox" (in the first meaning of the term, as the Chrisitans that proclaimed to have the one and only truth, the Catholics) Christians because... well the Gnostic Jesus wasn't as good a businessman as what was needed to help Christianity become the unified religion of Rome. And orthodox Christians (again, no direct relation with Russian Orthodox Christianity) very much liked to become executioners as soon as they got the help of Rome.
    • Waterrat, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Agreed...it's just a passle or stoeies...And not very good ones at that.
      Plus many of the so called moral guidelines are often immoral when you look at them closely.
      • beingdevious, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1haha, yeah! have you seen cracked.com's top 6 most disturbing sex acts.. from the bible?
        strait up incest!
  • rearlgrant, on 07/08/2008, -5/+36Biblical authors were writing down stories from oral tradition using "formulas" (as we'd call them today). So in reality this is nothing new.

    In terms of Archeology, context is everything. Without knowing the site where it was found, this may as well be me writing the same thing on a piece of paper -- it's worthless.

    The interesting thing about this story is how the artifact is being presented as an argument against traditional Biblical Archeology, which starts with the premise "the bible is true so let's go prove that." My guess is these people are doing the same thing, and not very well either. If the tablet were real, a looter would make more money and receive more notoriety by taking reporters to the site, as there are probably additional artifacts that add to the tablet's story. Stupid.

    Sadly, artifacts like this start out hot:
    Ossuary Tales - On October 21, 2002, the discovery of an inscription on the side of a light brown, chalky limestone box was announced at a Washington press conference. http://www.archaeology.org/0301/newsbriefs/ossuary ...

    But end in flames:
    The James Ossuary - Five individuals have been indicted in Israel for forging biblical artifacts including the James Ossuary. Follow our coverage of the unraveling of this alleged forgery ring. http://www.archaeology.org/ossuary/index.html
  • ivan423, on 07/08/2008, -28/+17All major religions are forgeries taken from the Ancient Egyptians.
    • JimmySpaza, on 07/10/2008, -20/+6Baloney! While some religions were, Hinduism certainly wasn't. Even Judaism (same Middle East region) can be shown to have beliefs and bases that have nothing to do with any Egyptian religion.

      Someone fed you a line of bullcrap.
    • KaiSe7eN, on 07/10/2008, -6/+3Keep watching Zeitgeist you fruit, because it's soOoOoo true.

      /s
      • ivan423, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1Go ***** yourself, you double digit IQ douchebag.
      • Squidwalk, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1What he said was not true, but no need to bring Zeitgeist into this. That movie is a strawman used by people who don't study comparative religion. It's like saying "The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift" is a proper representation of street racing to a street racer. Joseph Campbell was talking about this stuff 65 years ago.

        You can come up with reasons to reject ivan's assertions yourself, like JimmySpaza did. For example, I doubt Quetzalcoatl is Horus-inspired despite both of them being a resurrecting bird-sky gods. I mean, there wasn't a good way to cross the Atlantic back then.
  • ivan423, on 07/08/2008, -22/+23Quotes from The Forged Origins of The New Testament:

    "It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorised the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament."

    "Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity."

    "Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god."

    "That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter 'J' in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into 'Jesus Christ'."

    "it was 'self-interest' that led him to create Christianity"

    http://www.nexusmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_ ...
    • rearlgrant, on 07/09/2008, -0/+35Thanks for the citation of the quotes. I appreciate that.

      I can agree with much of the article (I'd say he's a bit hard on the Catholics... The Orthodox and Catholic scholars I've worked who help document and preserve these "documents" are much more knowledgeable or open about the creation of the Bible than most Protestants I know.) Though most of it is nothing new.

      What got me reading it though were the quotes are ahistorical.

      Quote 1: Constantine wasn't British... He was born in Niz (there's an accent on the z, or s in some spellings...), in current day Serbia. His father was a Gaul, but he commanded a legion in (present day) France. I worked on an archaeological team that did a dig at a Roman palace in Niz that may have been his family's home. So this quote got my attention.

      Quote 2: Constantine's intention for calling the Council of Nicea was to get the (to oversimplify) Eastern and Western sects of Christianity to stop fighting over the nature of Jesus' existence (the Arian controversy). The council failed in that regard, but did create an accepted cannon of Old and New Testament books (save for the Apocrypha). While that worked out for the church, Constantine was more interested in stopping the bickering between his Eastern and Western administrators. The councils notes(and those of its participants, as well as contemporary commentaries) are a facinating read and available.

      Quote 3: Helena (Constantine's mother) was a Christian. Britain at the time was a difficult to rule Roman outpost. If he needed factional support, it would have been the Francs and the Gauls that Constantine would have needed. The author, while arguing against Western tradition, shows that he sees the world from English eyes and just needs to put Brittan in there somewhere.

      Quote 4: The bit about Hesus Krishna is more a coincidence of common language origins, and there is no evidence that Constantine picked the name. The first historical document we still have that mentions Jesus Christ was written almost 250 years before Constantine was born. The author is reaching across cultures and attributing knowledge on them that we have only figured out in the past 200 years. It's like the words "ice" and "water" in ancient Frisian, the precursor of English that came into Brittan with the Angles and the Saxons. Our words for ice and water do come from Frisian, and they can still be heard today in Frisia. The two sound the same due to language origin, not choice.

      No letter "j" in alphabets -- not quite true, but I get the author's point. (In popular culture, this is the explanation for why Indiana Jones steps on the wrong stone on his path to the Holy Grail.) The Germanic languages had a letter for the /j/ sound (again, an i with an accent over it).

      Quote 5: Constantine didn't really create Christianity, although the real story, I think, is far more interesting. His mother was Christian, and Constantine's writings (those of his secretary, actually) suggest he was versed in the vocabulary and traditions of Christianity. He was, like his father, a pagan (he was a Roman General), but he had to defeat the larger army of General Maxentius to gain control of the Western Empire. To do so he began to give amnesty and protection to those Christians that would serve in his army. By the time he got to the Milvian Bridge, he had a zealous army of persecuted peoples that were ready to gain their revenge by eliminating Maxentius and take control in Rome.

      The way I see it, The Battle of the Milvian Bridge is where and when Christianity was born. Almost no Christian knows about it. One third of the bridge from the time of the battle is still in existence. Only two signs mark what happened there.
      • ivan423, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7This is very fascinating. Can you recommend a good book about Constantine and his involvement with Christianity?
      • rearlgrant, on 07/10/2008, -0/+13My recommendations would be to start with http://www.anders.com/lectures/lars_brownworth/12_ ...
        He's great, and he has a few sources listed on the page, all of which I learned about from him. The lectures about Constantine are #s 3 & 4. Though I'd listen to 1 and 2 for context.

        The source list on Wikipedia is good:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I#Seconda ...
        I like the Ramsay books myself.

        - Take care
      • yosserhughes, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Excellent, thanks for the links; great site.
      • brstilson, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2"The first historical document we still have that mentions Jesus Christ"
        Actually, there are no historical documents that mention Jesus Christ, only Biblical records, which are spotty and often contradictory (Matthew's geneology is completely different from Luke's, for example, and does not even contain the same amount of people). That said, these documents do pre-date Constantine, so the Jesus story at least predates him. There are also records of Popes going almost all the way back to Peter as well.
      • rearlgrant, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Not quite the case.

        The perspective of the following site is not-scientific, but the references to extant documents is good.
        http://www.inplainsite.org/html/historicity_of_jes ...

        There are a number of 2nd century references to Jesus Christ in Roman and non-christian documents. At this point, most are copies of originals. As well as Roman documents about Paul, his imprisonment, etc...

        If I've got it right, the oldest existing copy of the gospels dates from the 3rd century. http://www.lib.umich.edu/pap/exhibits/reading/Paul ...

        Outside of documents, there are the tombs underneath Rome, which first began to be constructed in the second century. The earliest have Christian symbols. I'd suspect there are some in Syria and Egypt, but I've never researched it.
    • EarlOfLade, on 07/10/2008, -3/+6You need to take a look at a very interesting and well documented thesis: http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/
      THESIS: Constantine Invented Christianity
    • empiric, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Only problem with this notion is the way that time works--that is, it goes forward. The structure of Christianity in its orthodox and heterodox forms (e.g. gnosticism) demonstrably predates the Council of Nicaea. While the imposition of orthodoxy may well have been to Constantine's political benefit, he could not retroactively "invent Christianity" in this way.
    • offcenter, on 07/10/2008, -4/+5Constantine wouldn't have had anywhere near the schooling or time to concoct Christianity. The NT references back to the OT alone would have taken several lifetimes -- getting the narrative (OT to NT) tight enough to withstand 1700 years of textual criticism would have taken something approaching clairvoyance.

      There are papyri, statuary, traditional texts, etc. (look at Pliny's letter to Trajan c. 113 BCE) that go back to the first and second century.

      Short of a conspiracy of time travelers -- it's too much to ask.
    • DrJG, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Sanskrit is far older than the word Christ, it is the original word, the name Krishna, that becomes or is adapted in another place to Christ; just as the name Jesus is actually pronounced Yesu in the region he was from, and it is from Ieshas or Ishus (since roman script is not phonetic you have to take in half a dozen spellings before you can get the right pronounciation for an original word from India, where exact pronouniciation matters, especially so in Sanskrit - Sunskrt - words) which means God or Lord in Sanskrit. Perhaps he was neamed Yeshu, which is the name that survives in many parts around where he was from; or perhaps Iesaa or Eesaa, which is what he is called in Arabic, a neighbouring culture since his time.



      As for the ancient legends expected before his life, that is an old tradition and he was a learned man, a rabbi, consequently must have been aware of them, and in any case if (or since) he was divine, then he must have had some control over what happened until the crucifixion. That the Roman empire was occupying the region is not in doubt; nor is that they - the colonisers - were unwanted and occupying by force, and that crucifixions were happening every day, and for little reason too.



      Divinity of a - any - Divine being is not proved by smaller incidents or powers like changing water into wine or resurrection, or even by the number of his or her followers, or money and power of the followers or that of the church (or whatever the name of the authoritative institution in the name of that Divine Being) - any more than a flower is not proved by a particular size or colour, yet a flower is flower, a picture of a flower is a picture of a flower, and a stone is a stone.



      Divinity of a(ny) Divine Being can be perceived by those who are fortunate enough - and forcing it on others is silly, just as exclusivity postulations are. Divine may appear as and when Divine pleases, whereever necessary in whatever form, and be perceived by whosoever is so blessed.



      As for the three religions - Jewish, Christians, and Islam, they came one after another from the same tradition and that people of the same tradition are now divided into three branches does not amount to domination of Christianity by Jews - the latter had the oldest of the same tradition and Yeshu or Jesus was one of them as were his disciples and followers until crucifixion, and for a long time later too; he had no intention of starting a new religion for that matter, any more than Luther did, they were both reformers of the tradition they followed.

    • DrJG, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1rearlgrant :



      "Quote 4: The bit about Hesus Krishna is more a coincidence of common language origins, and there is no evidence that Constantine picked the name. The first historical document we still have that mentions Jesus Christ was written almost 250 years before Constantine was born."



      Any reference to a non-European root of European culture and it has to be a coincidence? Sanskrit is the root of your ancient languages, like it or not. It is no coincidence that your god is called Jesus, which is pronounced Eeshus, which is a word of Sanskrit that means God.



      That might have been the nomenclature chosen by Rome when they established themselves as authority over the new religion - or it might have been the title chosen by Jesus and it is possible his name was Simon - but does any of this disprove his divinity for you? Why should it?

      • rearlgrant, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1B/c if there were a divine Christ, we'd have far more contemporary documentary evidence for his miracles. People weren't stupid -- and if they saw miracles, they'd be behaving like they would today, converting en mass. Roman documents would say the equivalent of "Holly S*#&"

        The Gospels are probably Peter and Paul's attempt to use past historical traditions and mythologies to foment an uprising against Rome using religion.

        Jesus is a human creation.

        BTW - I see your point about Sandskrit, however it is a member of the Indo-European language set. To say that Sandskrit is the root of all of our language is like saying English is the language of modern earth. Celtic may be older, and we have no clue about what the words for a diety sounded like in that language. We can guess by listening to Celts today, but we can't know. My bet is that in ancient Celtic it sounds a lot like Eeshus. More... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jones_%28phil ...
    • xixer, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2i think the influence of Hinduism on Christianity holds weight:

      http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

      Hinduism predates Christianity, and at least some influence cannot be denied.
      • rearlgrant, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Ok, I'd agree... It's been years since I researched it, but when I did, I was fairly convinced that Christianity was influenced by the culture of South Asia. So I can concede the point.

        The larger point I was hoping to make is this: I have acquaintances, family, etc... that argue the Bible is the literal voice of God, scribed by humans who were inspired to hear him, and to be interpreted literally.

        Some of these people believe that the Bible has always been in English. Some of these people believe that Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc... (people who helped bring the Bible into existence) aren't Christians. They can't understand why anyone would consider that the 10 Commandments say anything other than what it says in their printing of the Bible -- "Thou shall not murder." Therefore, it's ok to kill non Christians, b/c killing non Christians isn't murder.

        There is no thought that the original word was in Hebrew and that the meaning of the word, even in 1200BC, changed according to the needs of Isralite kings -- not unlike the position of the Eagle on the Presidential Seal before Truman (yeah yeah, it's not done by choice -- please lecture me, but undeniably, it happened -- by coincidence I guess...)

        That's the end of my point.

        As an aside...

        I can't read Hindu texts in Sanskrit, though I wish I could. I can read Ancient Greek and some Aramaic and Coptic. I love being able to see how the texts and even the stories written in the first few millenia are different depending on culture on culture and language.

        And what I really find odd is this -- the story of how the Bible came into existence, the politicization of Christianity as a force against the Roman empire, and then how it went on to become a driving cultural force in the West (for good and bad) for two millenia is such an amazing story and (arguably) worthy of a belief system. Divinity isn't necessary to make it any better, and in my mind makes it illegitimate. Yet Christianity wants to define itself based on mythology rather than the behavior of some very extraordinary real human beings who's beliefs and behaviors are almost unknown.
  • ButterBuddha, on 07/09/2008, -26/+9"might rewrite the Bible" *****. The Bible has been written, it's just up to us how to interpret it correctly....
    • JigoroKano, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4You think the modern bible was the first? The Marcionites have you beat by quite a bit.
    • JimmySpaza, on 07/10/2008, -9/+4To ensure accuracy as much as possible, sometimes it's necessary to redo the translation from the oldest Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew manuscripts...if you want to be sure.

      If you don't want to learn those languages or don't have the time, then you'll have to trust the modern translations some of which actually do an excellent job.
      • erictheturtle, on 07/10/2008, -5/+5I've often wondered about those who lived before our modern translations were available. All those people who only had the KJV of the Bible never got to know that they were missing all our modern accuracy. Although I'm sure if you had tried to tell them this, many would get pissy and insist that their Bible was infallible.
  • MillionsLivio, on 07/09/2008, -7/+94"suggesting that the story of Christ's death and resurrection was not unique"
    Anybody that has done their research already knew this.
    • JimmySpaza, on 07/10/2008, -35/+15Actually, anybody doing research would know that resurrection accounts are highly unique to the Bible.

      I'm not talking about some phoenix rising from the ashes. And I'm not talking about the rebirth of some fake god in mythological lore. I'm talking about actual physical bodily reconstitution of dead flesh where the soul has left the body and now returns.

      There is NO other religion that has a Messiah rising from the grave fully alive and better than He was.
      • nycmac247, on 07/10/2008, -7/+3LOL

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ-kvw1fYXs

        http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_ ...
      • Zarokima, on 07/10/2008, -10/+25"And I'm not talking about the rebirth of some fake god in mythological lore."
        The subject of your comment is Jesus, so that's exactly what you're talking about.
      • yellowcakewalk, on 07/10/2008, -3/+16Osiris.
      • monroylobo, on 07/10/2008, -13/+7I think the point he is making is that whereas even if the story of Jesus contains similarities to mythology, to Christians, it is something that we believe occurred. You guys might think it is delusional or unrealistic, but believing without seeing is the nature of faith which we believe is necessary for salvation.
      • Zarokima, on 07/10/2008, -5/+15Forenote: I'm not trying to be condescending with this.

        Monroy: we know that you (you Christians, not you personally) truly believe in this stuff with no evidence. The problem with this is pretty obvious: there's no evidence. It's quite literally just as if I were to scribble on a napkin "In order to achieve salvation, one must build a 54 story house of cards using $2 bills as a testament of your faith in the Magical Polka-Dot Whales" and called it a sacred writing. You can believe that with all your heart, but there's still nothing whatsoever to back up the claim, other than perhaps a "No really, I mean it" on the other side of the napkin, which really doesn't count. In short: there is no more evidence for any god than there is for unicorns, fairies, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it's incredibly ignorant to believe in something without some kind of evidence backing it up.
      • urbandistrict, on 07/10/2008, -2/+5Dracula did it better....
      • MooNinja, on 07/10/2008, -4/+2I'm not being condescending with this .... then you proceed to follow up a comment of pure hate, and ignorance. Thinking that you must have evidence to back everything up, is ludicrous. Not only would it be impossible to properly research everything you've been told, it's not feasible.

        Most scientific theories are based on pure math, math that's only evidence are in the minds that can decipher it. Science proves through math that up to 7 planes are in existence, which we cannot perceive except through math. Yet, it's impossible for something to be on a plane, or some altered reality, and us not able to perceive it (God).

        Your rhetoric, and the rhetoric of many that post in these sort of threads, is nothing shy of hate mongering. It shows how little we as a community have progressed when those with different beliefs are attacked merely for having differing beliefs.
      • korvan504521, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Nah, Osiris doesn't count. He didn't actually come back to life, he was merely reassembled and sent to rule the afterlife. I think its a different situation.
      • Squidwalk, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_de ... ?
      • urbandistrict, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3As it was written, brother Zarokima...

        But where will I find 52 $2 bills?

        Oh Great Magic Dotted Whale why do you test your humble servants so!
    • fajitamelt, on 07/10/2008, -14/+8Why the hell are people digging JimmySpaza down? If you know of another religion that does have stuff about ressurection, mention it. Don't ***** digg him down, because I'm pretty sure what he just said is all truth.
      • itzac, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4He's being dugg down because he's missing the point. That one instance of a common legend was made into a religion while the others weren't is precisely what brings into question the validity of christian belief.
      • urbandistrict, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3@fajitamelt

        Superman wears a red cape and Batman wears a black one.

        The idea here is that both are costumed crime-fighters who fight for justice. They have very distinct story-archs and origins. But it's pretty obvious they are cut from the same cloth. Art imitates life, but more often it imitates other art.


  • SpaceJew, on 07/09/2008, -19/+22all religions are the copy of someone elses religion which is a copy of a copy of a copy...
    • JimmySpaza, on 07/10/2008, -22/+5If you are serious, then you haven't studied religions at all. This is a false notion that is dispensed with in the first lesson or so of Religions 101.
      • charm803, on 07/10/2008, -3/+10I think SpaceJew meant that one religion evolves from another, as most have similar beginnings and myth, such as Mythras and Horus.
      • Lith25, on 07/10/2008, -3/+5Why would anyone want to study religion...there are so many better fictional stories.
      • itzac, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Lith, I think the fact that BSG borrows so heavily from the book or mormon is part of what makes it such a compelling story.
    • KillsTheWeak, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5Kind of like Microsoft's software :P
    • crc77, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5Just wait till the RIAA (Religious Institutions Association of America) starts cracking down on all these religious pirates, claiming they're missing out on billions of dollars a year in lost souls...
      • MooNinja, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2A copy isn't something that is similar in form. A copy is the exact duplicate. While the miraculous birth wasn't uncommon, the messages aren't dissimilar, the devil is in the details. If you can look at Taoism, along side with Catholicism and see a copy, then you aren't looking properly.
  • wynja, on 07/09/2008, -19/+14Jesus is just a pigment of your imagination much like Shiva.
    • JimmySpaza, on 07/10/2008, -8/+15As opposed to English being a FIGMENT of your imagination, huh?
      • wynja, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Hey *****, it's not a typo and I'm fully versed in the English language. I intentionally misspelled figment as pigment. It's called a ***** play on words.
    • paulie, on 07/10/2008, -2/+15And which color is he?
      • wynja, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1He's cotton candy pink and very yummy with cherry soda.
    • Natnie, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4I like that. Religion is a spectrum of colour pigments, everyone has their own favourite but some just prefer black and some don't know what colour is the best.
      • wynja, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Holy *****, someone who got my play on words. Thank you for you attention.
  • matt510, on 07/09/2008, -25/+74"Some Christians will find it shocking - a challenge to the uniqueness of their theology"

    Eh? Who are these Christians that don't understand that the OT was a precursor to the NT and paved the way for the Messiah, that is, Christ.

    This, if anything, only gives evidence for the fact that Jews have been looking forward to a redeemer that was later fulfilled in Jesus.
    • InsultComedy, on 07/10/2008, -12/+30I totally agree. The OT prophesied the coming of Jesus, including his death and resurrection, even in Genesis. I don't see how this changes anything. The reddit comments to this story is by far more intelligent than here.
      • TheBigBentley, on 07/10/2008, -2/+13Unfortunatly there is more dumb people here.
    • TheBigBentley, on 07/10/2008, -9/+12Finally someone with some intelligence. The OT told stories of a savior who would come and die to be resurrected which still pre-dates this new tablet.
    • WilliamAdama, on 07/10/2008, -6/+23why are you getting dugg up? You guys obviously didn't understand, Jesus wasn't unique and as it was implied by this article, the jews told this story about other people.. like Simon. So if they are saying a savior named Simon came, and then a savior named Jesus, who is next?

      It takes away the originality of the story of Jesus. How can there be one true messiah named Jesus if there were multiple people in history that died and rose again after 3 days? There can't.

      "especially because it is believed to speak of a messiah called Simon who will rise from the dead after three days, suggesting that the story of Christ's death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time."

      So... the father, the two sons, and the holy ghost? trinity + 1?

      Not that any of it's true anyways, no one rose again. Analyzing the bible after Jesus died, we can deduct that it is likely that it really wasn't jesus but someone else because the "new jesus that rose again" hardly spent time around anyone, didn't want anyone to touch him or come close to him, soo what can you say about that? Think there's a reason for that? probably.
      • matt510, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2So, historically speaking, why do you feel that Jesus was the one people actually felt fulfilled the prophesy from the OT?

        I agree that there were others that seemed to fit the pattern, so why was it Jesus that seemed to "stick" with the new Jewis sect?
      • brstilson, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4Simon isn't the only one who fits the Jesus story. See Horus, Mithra, Krishna, etc.
      • WilliamAdama, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Jesus was a better actor and pulled it off the best.
    • WilliamAdama, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2*deduce

      I apologize for my poor writing, I was rushed since I typed all that in an edit so I just wanted to quickly get my point across... bury me down now :(
    • DarkReign16, on 07/10/2008, -3/+8And also fulfilled in Simon, before Jesus, apparently. Did you forget that part?
    • ashfish, on 07/10/2008, -1/+9Um, you do know that Jews don't consider Jesus their Messiah right?
    • necroprancer, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4That's a nice post hoc rationalization. 'The resurrection story actually predates Jesus so it must be prediction.' Of course what this more likely implies is that the story of Jesus is just a reappropriated myth. Which, to get to the point, means it did not happen.
    • say592, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Except, in this set of tablets, he wasnt named Jesus, and it was just a common story that was told BEFORE "Jesus" came to earth.

      If it was just a common tale, then how do we know that the NT wasnt written by a bunch of cooks, much like the crazy comic book nerds who believe Spiderman really does fly around NYC and touched themselves while looking at She-Hulk.

      Of course, no one on Digg would know anything about that kind of radical belief, now would they?
  • JimmySpaza, on 07/10/2008, -25/+35What is the story here?

    The Jewish equivalent of the Bible's Old Testament, the Tanakh, had tons of prophecies dealing with a coming Messiah who would redeem Israel. It had details about his mission, mannerisms, place of birth, death, etc.

    That some people took those prophecies, screwed with them, applied them to some leader figure that they knew, and made a copy in stone is interesting but hardly effectual on Christianity.

    People are always taking parts of the Bible that they like, modifying them as they see fit, and then turning around and proclaiming those new beliefs.

    It's been done for centuries and even today. Look at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses).

    The question is...what do those beliefs have to do with the Bible?

    I find it sad that some people, particularly "scholars", would find an artifact, immediately lend a good amount of credence to it, then use that untested artifact to critique the Bible. It's like they don't trust the Bible or think it's credible, but will trust and lend credence to another historical document from that time period which SEEMS to run counter to parts of the Bible. It's like these critics pick and choose at will.
    • brstilson, on 07/10/2008, -4/+6"It's like they don't trust the Bible or think it's credible"

      Why does the Bible deserve credibility or trust? It's a book of mythology, no different than Homer's Odyssey. While certain elements may be correct, it's just too demonstratably wrong to be considered an accurate historical account. Archaeologists aren't out there to prove the Bible wrong, they're just not afraid to announce when they find something that contradicts it. You just don't like the fact that they do their work objectively and don't put an ancient book of stories written by bronze-age goat herders up on an unassailable pedestal.
    • Squidwalk, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1I agree JimmySaza! People who were Christians before this discover won't be shaken by it. It isn't even established as being genuine. And people who say Christianity had precursor religions have better reasons than this stone, and are better off discussing established topics of comparative religion. All in all, not too exciting for anyone.
  • tufftugg, on 07/10/2008, -4/+15Zechariah ->
    And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
  • F9Phoenix, on 07/10/2008, -26/+18Does it really matter? It's all one big fairy tale anyway.
  • hilandhall, on 07/10/2008, -3/+16been reading this story all week, and still have yet to see a picture of this *****' tablet.
  • zeebo, on 07/10/2008, -16/+14This isn't going to rewrite the bible, Chrisitans will just write this off as proof of a demonic conspiracy just like all the other pre-christian religions that mirror christian beliefs, dinosaur bones, radiometric dating, and all the other christian sects that they themselves don't belong to.
    • GMH24, on 07/10/2008, -6/+6Uh, except for the fact that this article is seemingly ignorant of the entire Old Testament, which very clearly foretells the coming of a messiah. Re-write Christianity? Perhaps the author of this article should have read the Bible before writing.
  • ginestony, on 07/10/2008, -12/+5And where did MrBabyMan find this one now? Delicious? Reddit? Buzz? Tired of his front-page stories.
  • gmuslera, on 07/10/2008, -17/+11All is just old astronomy. The beliefs of a messiah, resurrection after 3 days, 12 disciples, born from a virgin, the 3 kings, etc, is something shared by a lot of religions around that time in that region, and goes around Sirius, the constellations and the sun going around them, and more based in the astronomical and astrological thinking by them.

    You can find a nice brief on that in the 1st part of movie Zeitgeist (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/)
    • jaymzdean, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7AstroLOGY
    • emad95, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2pretty sure he means astronomy and NOT astrology
      • SpinningHead, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1No, he means astrology....as in the three wise men (astrologers from the east) story. There was no astronomy at the time.
    • empiric, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0I'll await your primary-source citations. Claiming that, say, Thor was "just like Jesus" is ludicrous, even if somebody finally took this very old silly internet meme and put some video to it.
  • hgielrehtaeh, on 07/10/2008, -4/+6There were also traveling miracle workers during Jesus' time. No big surprise, really.
    • drjones78, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3We still have them today, and endless lines of suckers ready to jump up on stage, get slapped in the forehead and squiggle around on the ground in a pretend seizure.

      Stupidity just won't go away.
      • Waterrat, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1.And in reality Jesus had no time cause he was a myth,just like Simon.

        Yup,stupidity and taking advantage of the stupid will never go away.
        Abe put it nicely i think:
        "The only person who is a worse liar than a faith healer is his patient." Abe Lincoln
  • DaviDTC, on 07/10/2008, -7/+5I thought it was science that was supposed to be made from theories and rewritten when new evidence is found.
    • aptanalogy, on 07/10/2008, -4/+4Correct; archaeology IS a science, and now theories about Jesus must be rewritten. Religion, on the other hand, is something else altogether, and many will experience cognitive dissonance.
  • leif777, on 07/10/2008, -7/+12source: Daily Mail.

    I'll take this "news" with a grain of salt. Perferably taken from Lots wife.
    • Hetman, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4I saw it on CNN. The experts that examined do believe it is authentic. But all of it is not translated yet. And it really does not matter because it really does not effect the idea of Jesus, and people could just see it as a prophecy .
  • ChuyMX, on 07/10/2008, -20/+23The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only deity in this world
    • RedHerringHack, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3I am aware of all internet traditions. Ceiling cat ownz FSM.
    • schroeder, on 07/10/2008, -2/+5This tablet is merely a holy document upon which the terms of losing a bet in heaven were written. The bet was between Jesus and FSM. Jesus lost.

      And so it was written, rAmen.
  • sixsixsixtimer, on 07/10/2008, -10/+3Of course one has to go back to the ancient Hebrew text to understand the Old Testament. :) Christians, your faith sprung off from ours and got bastardized over the years.
    • JimmySpaza, on 07/10/2008, -11/+10Nah! You just rejected God's ultimate revelation because He didn't jive with your personal beliefs. Jesus is God, dude. The Messiah prophesied in your Tanakh is Jesus. All those prophecies point to Him. Don't just listen to what some rabbi or priest teaches. Read the Tanakh for yourself.
    • MacBigot, on 07/10/2008, -2/+5The Talmud insightfully states:

      “Rebi Alexandri said: Rebi Yehoshua ben Levi raised the following contradiction: It says, ‘Behold like the clouds of Heaven came one like the son of man’ (Daniel 7:13). It is also written, ‘Lowly and riding upon a donkey’ (Zechariah 9:9). If they merit it, he will come with the clouds of Heaven, but if they do not merit it, he will come upon a donkey.” — Sanhedrin 98a

      That's just what happened!

      Mt. 21:6 The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them, 7 and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats. 8 Most of the crowd spread their coats in the road, and others were cutting branches from the trees and spreading them in the road. 9 The crowds going ahead of Him, and those who followed, were shouting,
      “Hosanna to the Son of David;
      BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD;
      Hosanna in the highest!”

      And it's exactly what's going to happen!

      Mt. 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”
  • Mononuclear, on 07/10/2008, -6/+38I am going to laugh when archeologists thousands of years from now find Harry Potter books and determine that a race of wizards once existed but then must have died off..

    Well I won't be laughing because I will be dead, but it would be funny.
    • egg321, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Classic
    • masterm1nd, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Yeah, we'll see if it has enough credence to conjure billions of believers.
    • zeebo, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5Rather thousands of years from now people the world over will believe in the existence of Harry, and the discovery of an ancient copy with the disclaimer page in tact and cause a similar controversy.

      You might laugh, but it wouldn't be the first or the last time that fictional characters have had enough people believe them to be real that the only thing keeping them firmly in the fictional category is that we know who created them and when. Sherlock Holmes for instance.
      • masterm1nd, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2First of all, how many believers? Secondly, do they actually feel they communicate with those characters on a daily basis and are an integral part of their lives?
      • TheCatsPants, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Yes, they'll think they communicate with Harry and Hermione. In reality they'll just be talking to themselves.
  • jaymzdean, on 07/10/2008, -13/+10Zeitgeist, The Movie, explains this phenomenon rather well.
    • imightbewrong, on 07/10/2008, -5/+4Zeitgeist is literally the polar opposite of scholarly research and theory
      • RedHerringHack, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3The only real scholarly research and theory is physics. Religion is a ghost story told to children to keep them out of trouble.
    • empiric, on 07/10/2008, -3/+0imightbewrong... isn't.
  • cgruber, on 07/10/2008, -3/+11BOOO they actually cite Daily Mail as a freaking article source.
  • nycmac247, on 07/10/2008, -10/+2Sun of God

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ-kvw1fYXs


    The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors
    or Christianity Before Christ

    http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_ ...
    • DrJG, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Interesting.
    • DrJG, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0I looked at your quoted text, and it is full of mistakes of more than one sort.

      For one thing it is a colonial mindset that keeps insisting on your own gods or god and text and values as the superior or the only ones - denying even your own history (of Europe and west Asia), while showing not only low regard but even flagrant ignorance of others.

      Calling every deity a Christ and every religious book a bible is of that nature. Adonis belongs to Greek theology, which is older. When teh writer of that book says chinese bible it is correct only if you take the word bible literally, which just means book. Well, India had more than one "book", and so did Greeks, and I imagine Chinese did too.

      For another twenty fifth December is obviously about Sun returning, and it was chosen by church because Europe would not stop celebrating that - no wonder in the cold dark nordic winter. Rome had tried to unify all gods that existed under Constantine but the one they were united to was Sun by any name - Sol or Mitra or whatever - and obviously the twenty-fifth of December is quite suitable for the birth of that one, while chinese historical records indicate the birth of actual Jesus (since they have astronomical records, that of the supernova or the bright star) at completely another time; his early sign was fish, not cross, so possibly it was March.

      One of the most stupid mistakes is about birth of Krishna (don't quibble about spelling, it is your deficient script that is not phonetic and so the name can be spelled a few other ways - it is the exact pronounciation that we count and our scripts are far more phonetic, most of them) - his birth is celebrated in Shraawana, but that is not anywhere near December so the writer you quoted was either lazy or stupid or plain fraudulent. Shraawana is usually around July - August, (our months go by the star of the full moon while years get adjusted to stay solar so the months of Indian calendars do not exactly correspond with roman - after all month is a concept that belongs to lunar revolution -) and never after August or before July. And the date has nothing to do with the twenty fifth either - we count dates of months by angles of the three - Sun, Moon and Earth - or by the growth of the visual moon in the sky, and the days of our calendar are solar but dates are of this angle.

      In short, anyone trying to fit the whole world as copies of your authoritatively approved version of your bible as the writer you quoted does, is way beneath mention when things of scholarly or truthful nature are concerned.
    • DrJG, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0P.S.: to nycmac247:

      Another really silly mistake about Krshna by your writer, is about his claim that Devakie, mother of Krshna, was a virgin.

      This mistake again originates in imposing your attitudes on other cultures thoughtlessly - we do not have a reverence for ascetic tradition to the extent of exclusion of all other possibilities as you do. We respect those who choose a spiritual path but such a path is not one and only any more than a route to south pole from north pole is one and only. There are many paths and asceticism is necessary for some, but others go along the harder path of spiritual attainment and enlightenment while carrying out their worldly responsibilities.

      In short, we do not need our priests or gods to be born of virgins any more than we need them to be celebate or unmarried - and Devakie was most certainly NOT virgin, she had had seven other sons that were murdered at birth while the last one was saved by miracles and heroic efforts and noble spirits.
  • welliwonder, on 07/10/2008, -14/+5it's all *****
  • BossKey, on 07/10/2008, -7/+12So in this version, Jesus shoots first?
  • lostray423, on 07/10/2008, -5/+6so what if it causes people to question things? it's a lot more logical to study and research things on your own instead of believing some priest or pastor who gets paid to force their beliefs on you. sad sad sheeple.
    • DarknessGP, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6Can't the same thing be said about a scientist or scholar? Can you not learn Hebrew and research this yourself?
    • lostray423, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5that's what i was saying. don't take anyone's word for things. research it yourself.
      • kelly, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2But you're calling Christians sheeple as if they haven't done research
      • saketome, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0Faith itself is the belief in an idea that is not proven. It's like me saying, "I have faith that the sun will rise and then set".. now that's by no means a 100% certainty, nor is it a factual statement, but we all know it's extremely likely to occur since it happens everyday for us to behold with our very eyes. I could also say to you, "I believe in a great fire dragon who feeds off the flames of the sun, and I pray to him".. That sounds silly, you know it's probably a load of BS but you can't be completely sure, and neither can I even though it's pure fantasy. If you cannot disprove something, people will always have faith in it's existence, especially if there is a long held belief of that thing among many people.

        God is just an idea, a very appealing one I might add, but nothing more. And all the religions of the world have different incarnations of God, and their own views as to how he/she came to being and made the world around us. And like any great story of it's kind, certain elements are bound to change or be modified slightly to suit the teller of the story as it's being passed down.The Bible was comprised of many stories of which were hand picked by men and altered to make things a little more interesting (water into wine, walking on water anyone??). Not all the writings even made it into the Bible, you did know that, right? How can the very word of God be deemed unimportant enough to get left out altogether?

        Anyway, you all know the score. By the way I'm not an Atheist, I even like the stories in the Bible.. they're interesting, but not to be taken literally when you apply simple logic.
  • vroom101, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5More details...

    "Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection" by Ethan Bronner, July 6, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast ... (www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)
  • wampastompa, on 07/10/2008, -6/+3How can it rewrite the bible without hands?
  • s0urce, on 07/10/2008, -7/+21Simon says put down the bible.
    • j3ff86, on 07/10/2008, -3/+4Non compliance will result in a penalty.
  • datagod, on 07/10/2008, -5/+12For those who may not know...Jesus was a Jew. The old testament is full of prophecy, including those foretelling of Jesus life and death. He is the Hebrew Messiah, most of them rejected him however. Those that did not converted to "Christ"ianity.
    • Waterrat, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2 But Jesus never existed,it's just a make believe story, like the ark story and the dude swallowed by a whale which has an esophagus only large enough to swallow a soccer ball.
      • datagod, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Also, like the make believe stories about Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, King Solomon, Genghis Khan, Socrates, etc. etc. etc. because the only place you have heard about them is in some history book that some guy wrote....

        And as for the story of a whale swallowing a man...what whale are you talking about? And who said it was a whale?
  • nycthbris, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4The first paragraph is one big run on sentence. Did that bug anybody else?
  • l800LEMMINGS, on 07/10/2008, -6/+5they wouldn't rewrite the bible if god and jesus told the vatican to. The Catholic faith is too powerful and they have to much control to even consider doing anything like this
  • willskillz, on 07/10/2008, -7/+10Pretty interesting stuff, but I still wanna have sex with the bustedtees girl.
    • RedHerringHack, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3Who doesn't?
    • itzac, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2I was gonna ask which one, but then I realized that all of them at once would be even better.
  • pnunn, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3Pics or it didn't happen!

    (I never thought I'd ever say it but for the first time it just feels right...)
  • baldgye, on 07/10/2008, -3/+5yeah, it will make about as much difference as the Dead Sea Scroll's did to the bible...
    • mlvassallo, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2You obviously don't know what the Dead Sea Scrolls did to the Bible, do you?
  • SIRBERUS, on 07/10/2008, -8/+3How's it going to rewrite the bible? It has no hands.
  • imightbewrong, on 07/10/2008, -2/+8many secular new testament scholars believe that the gospel accounts are as accurate as anything else from that period of time, so i think it will take a lot of evidence for serious scholars to buy into the idea of a 3 day resurrection as popular Jewish myth
    • rakaz, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0Wrong. Many secular new testament scholars believe the textual integrity of the gospel accounts are as accurate as anything else from that period of time. That means that we can be pretty sure that our source material does not differ much from the originals that were written almost 20 centuries ago. That doesn't preclude them from thinking that most of the contents of those accounts are largely fictitious, myth and religious spin.
  • MacBigot, on 07/10/2008, -5/+22Buried for shamelessly sensational and inaccurate title.
  • Hetman, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast ...

    Better article by ny times and it has a pic.
    • OyVay, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Yeah, but the tablet's writing is deliberately blurred out so it's just the guy lookin' snappy in his suit holding up a big rock on his armchair with nothing visible written on it...

      Figures...
  • Professr, on 07/10/2008, -4/+14Yay, this sounds like the perfect story to use as an excuse to HATE CHRISTIANS! WOOHOO! I'd say let's get started, but it looks like you already have! Amazing!
    • Waterrat, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3 Why not? They sure hate us...Watch Jesus camp...Scary stuff.
    • itzac, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3I don't hate the christian. I hate the christ.
    • olie_baba, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3its another excuse to make fun of their silly religion. One of many excuses may i add.
  • SetarconeX, on 07/10/2008, -2/+17Pretty much a non-news story, apparently written for people who have never read the Old Testament. I think we've managed to prove the authors of the bible were in fact....Jewish. Shocking.

    I know people's eyes usually glaze over when people quote scripture at them, but I'm amazed nobody's pointed out that the whole '3 days' thing actually pops up a few times in the Old Testament.

    A quick reference check pulls up Hosea 6:2 that reads: " After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence."

    Bible study 101 would point out a parallel to Jonah's 3 days in a whale...

    It's pretty easy to rewrite the bible for people who never bothered to read the thing in the first place.
  • applemachome, on 07/10/2008, -2/+14http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3682

    "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."

    Um, newsflash to the New York Times. Christians pretty much think the entire story of Jesus life, death and resurrection is part of a “recognized Jewish tradition” at the time. In other words, Christians read much of the Old Testament as prophesying about Jesus. They see Jesus as the fulfillment of those prophecies.
    • Thyris, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Ditto. Christianity was considered a Jewish splinter sect in ancient Rome, well before it became popular. This was before the council of Nicea when the canon was politically created by men, after emperor Constantine beheld a vision of christ on the battlefield, at which point he was 'divinely' converted.

      Sources:
      Religion in the Roman Empire, James Rives, 2007
      Handbook to life in ancient Rome, Adkins & Adkins, 1994
      Also found in wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nica ...
    • DrJG, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0That would be true of those that are not discouraged from reading it - as many are, since many do take OT as the book of the tradition they are taught to "not like" - to put it very mildly.

      Such teachings through history were responsible for much of the wrongs in Europe through history until last century.

      If you have not come across that, good for you and for all that you were brought up by and with - and good for those of your society that were similarly brought up. Seriously.
    • drjones78, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1So did Christians just screw up the name? Cuz the tablet says "Simon".
      • korvan504521, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1The tablet apparently *predicts" someone named simon. It doesn't say Simon has already showed up and risen. Mary apparently didn't get the name memo.
  • betacmag4u, on 07/10/2008, -16/+9 Religion = psychiatric illness ............. all these stories are fairy tales ....GROW UP!!!
    • Natnie, on 07/10/2008, -5/+4While I almost agree, that's just plain disrespectful.
      • ShokDoktor, on 07/10/2008, -3/+4Why does religion get a free pass when it comes to respect? If they don;t want to be ridiculed they should stop believing in ridiculous things.
      • sysop073, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@ShokDoktor: Richard Dawkins might agree with you, but stuff like this always gets dugg down on Digg, Digg readers are oddly sensitive about religion
    • HookemUT25, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1real original. I suppose this is where you provide some stat showing how much more "proven" your beliefs are.... and yes, your comment is disrespectful and uncalled for.
    • empiric, on 07/10/2008, -4/+0Sure, Stalin.

      If you want a hard-core atheist philosopher to also point out the nonproductive irrationality of your "psychologizing" your opponent's views, and thus trying to fake-address them by ad-hominem rather than argument, try Ayn Rand.
  • Mpwns, on 07/10/2008, -6/+1so the Jews are the chosen ones? if this turns out to be real i can see why they blew off Jesus was nothing new to them. but why did it stop? it would seem it happened often if this one was only a few decades before Jesus. maybe god gave up on us....would explain TONS.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.