What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
331 Comments
- 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.
- 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. - 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?
- 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. - inactive, 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.
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - axiomflash, on 07/10/2008, -11/+44moral guidelines my ass.
- 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. - 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. - 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 - inactive, 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.
- 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. - MacBigot, on 07/10/2008, -5/+22Buried for shamelessly sensational and inaccurate title.
- 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. - 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.
- 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. - 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. - 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.
- s0urce, on 07/10/2008, -7/+21Simon says put down the bible.
- inactive, on 07/10/2008, -3/+16Osiris.
- 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?
- 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 - paulie, on 07/10/2008, -2/+15And which color is he?
- hilandhall, on 07/10/2008, -3/+16been reading this story all week, and still have yet to see a picture of this *****' tablet.
- 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. - 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... - 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.
- inactive, 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. - inactive, 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. - TheBigBentley, on 07/10/2008, -2/+13Unfortunatly there is more dumb people here.
- inactive, 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. - 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!
- 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. - 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". - MillionsLivio, on 07/09/2008, -8/+17*Whoosh*
- 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. - 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.
- cgruber, on 07/10/2008, -3/+11BOOO they actually cite Daily Mail as a freaking article source.
- paradexes, on 07/10/2008, -8/+16I guess it's time to change things to WWSD? Or better yet WWSS? What Would Simon Say?
- ashfish, on 07/10/2008, -1/+9Um, you do know that Jews don't consider Jesus their Messiah right?
- 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.
- 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.
- inactive, on 07/10/2008, -8/+15As opposed to English being a FIGMENT of your imagination, huh?
- 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.
- 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
- ivan423, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7This is very fascinating. Can you recommend a good book about Constantine and his involvement with Christianity?
- sysop073, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6You should learn to read faster
-
Show 51 - 100 of 339 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is