Gabriel's Revelation: The latest controversy about the Christ myth

Tiassa

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...
Valued Senior Member
Source: Time
Link: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1820685,00.html
Title: "Was Jesus' Resurrection a Sequel?", by David van Biema and Tim McGirk
Date: July 7, 2008

It is the latest controversy focused on Christian belief. But anyone who remembers the bone box (not the brother of Jesus), or even the controversy about the Gospel of Judas (it doesn't read what Christians would want, therefore it must be translated wrong!) need only glance at the story to know that absolutely nothing is settled, while also chuckling at how adaptable Christian faith really is:

A 3-ft.-high tablet romantically dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation" could challenge the uniqueness of the idea of the Christian Resurrection. The tablet appears to date authentically to the years just before the birth of Jesus and yet — at least according to one Israeli scholar — it announces the raising of a messiah after three days in the grave. If true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified. However, such a contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts; they are useful to prove less-spectacular points and to stir discussion on the big ones, but probably not to settle them nor shake anyone's faith.

(Van Biema and McGirk)
Click to expand...

The apocalyptic tablet, known to scholars for about ten years, has been dated to a period just before the alleged birth of Jesus. And, apparently, its eightieth line reads, "In three days, you shall live. I Gabriel command you."

As Van Biema and McGirk note, this reading

... undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up?

(ibid)
Click to expand...

Scholar Israel Knohl of Hebrew University suggests that the implications "should shake our basic view of Christianity", but scholars defending the traditional Christ myth disagree.

"It is certainly not perfectly clear that the tablet is talking about a crucified and risen savior figure called Simon," says Ben Witherington, an early-Christianity expert at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. The verb that Knohl translates as "rise!," Witherington says, could also mean "there arose," and so one can ask "does it mean 'he comes to life,' i.e., a resurrection, or that he just 'shows up?' " Witherington also points out that gospel texts are far less reliant on the observed fact of the Resurrection (there is no angelic command in them like the line in the Gabriel stone) than on the testimony of eyewitnesses to Jesus' post-Resurrection self. Finally, Witherington notes that if he is wrong and Knohl's reading is right, it at least sets to rest the notion that the various gospel quotes attributed to Christ foreshadowing his death and Resurrection were textual retrojections put in his mouth by later believers — Jesus the Messianic Jew, as Knohl sees him, would have been familiar with the vocabulary for his own fate.

(ibid)
Click to expand...

It's a curious argument:
(1) It is not perfectly clear that the tablet is talking about a specific person.
(2) The tablet might mean someone just showed up.
(3) Even if counterarguments (1) and (2) are wrong, it only means that some critics of the Christ myth are wrong.​
On the one hand, the discussion on the so-called "Gabriel's Revelation" is far from over. To the other, unshakable faith in a flexible and evolving truth is both fun and easy for many Christians, so even if the relic is real, the shaking of the foundations of faith will be acknowledged by few and generally forgotten save for maybe a couple books that the faithful won't read.

Still, it's one more to watch, for the time being. And it's not like the thing is going to require a whole lot of attention. These arguments, after all, play out over the course of years.

Stay tuned. Of course.
 
It is probably fake. Just like that tomb that was trying to be sold was just a bunch of imbeciles running around looking for a paycheck.
 
Funny thing about faith, it requires no proof.
Like, you have faith that you'll wake up tomorrow, yet, you have no proof that it's true.
 
I am very sceptical of rock dating myself. Plus for the right price a forger can do some very creative things.
 
As a matter of fact the only thing forgers, or for that matter researchers, cannot reproduce is the negative image of the shroud or Turin.

That is as far as i know anyway BUT i am fairly certain i am correct.
 
John99 said:
As a matter of fact the only thing forgers, or for that matter researchers, cannot reproduce is the negative image of the shroud or Turin.
Click to expand...

The shroud has been shown to be a fake. You must know that.
 
It does not matter because the Shroud of Turin has never been replicated. Show me where it has and i will believe you. If it has not than that means that it cannot be replicated. If it cannot be replicated than that is fairly compelling. Do you think so?
 
John99 said:
It does not matter because the Shroud of Turin has never been replicated. Show me where it has and i will believe you. If it has not than that means that it cannot be replicated. If it cannot be replicated than that is fairly compelling. Do you think so?
Click to expand...

Sloppy thinking; it means no more than many people have not tried. Why waste time ? Now, if the Pope offered a major prize things might change.
 
Why waste time?

You already know how many people have investigated it, how much time went into the investigation and the number of people involved. None of these tests show anything conclusive. The only thing that would is if someone just simply made another one.

Everyone agrees that is is from at least the middle ages, so if it really dated to the middle ages then why cant it be done today? And i am sure many have tried but but it just couldnt be done. Unless anyone knows of one that i am not aware of then there should be a web site but people cannot even agree on how it was made if it is fake. Which it might be but opinions are not proof of anything and the theories will not reproduce it anyway.

So maybe it has been and i dont know about it but i cannot find anything on reproduction. And why waste time on it is ridiculous response.
 
John99 said:
Why waste time?

You already know how many people have investigated it, how much time went into the investigation and the number of people involved. None of these tests show anything conclusive. The only thing that would is if someone just simply made another one.

Everyone agrees that is is from at least the middle ages, so if it really dated to the middle ages then why cant it be done today? And i am sure many have tried but but it just couldnt be done. Unless anyone knows of one that i am not aware of then there should be a web site but people cannot even agree on how it was made if it is fake. Which it might be but opinions are not proof of anything and the theories will not reproduce it anyway.

So maybe it has been and i dont know about it but i cannot find anything on reproduction. And why waste time on it is ridiculous response.
Click to expand...



According to a team of scientists the cloth is from the Middle Ages and the colouring is pigment, not human blood. Lastly, there is nothing to link it to Jesus. A recent documentary covered the subject thoroughly.

Why would you expect highly skilled people to spend time trying to reproduce it ? What's the payoff ? Why does the Vatican not fund such an undertaking ? Just think what it would mean ! It is, os course, more convenient to leave thins as they are because the guillible will continue to believe in the Shroud anyway.
 
Why would you expect highly skilled people to spend time trying to reproduce it ? What's the payoff ?
Click to expand...

Come on Myles. Your telling me about gullible? Here is STURP web site:
http://www.shroudstory.com/topic-sturp.htm

Look at the investigators, these are extremely, highly skilled people.

the colouring is pigment, not human blood
Click to expand...

There is pigment in human blood -

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/blood.html

It is blood. Either way i think a painting has been ruled out, i read about some type of camera but until it is replicated how can we be sure. So yes it has been tried on numerous occasions. Maybe real, maybe not. How can we not know if it is real?

Here is something interesting:

That there is a distance encoded representation, at all, is amazing and puzzling. It is important to note that no identified works of art, artifacts or relics of any kind will produce a 3D plot like the one produced from the Shroud. Researchers have tried every imaginable artistic method including bas-relief rubbings, scorching with hot statues, daubing the surface with pigment dust, and image transfer rubbings. Nothing works to produce a 3D plot. A way to envision this is with the pic

This is startling. You cannot do this with a regular photograph or a painting or any known type of pictorial art. There is nothing at all like this imagery in the history of art.
Click to expand...

http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-pixels.htm
 
Last edited:
John99 said:
Come on Myles. Your telling me about gullible? Here is STURP web site:
http://www.shroudstory.com/topic-sturp.htm

Look at the investigators, these are extremely, highly skilled people.



There is pigment in human blood -

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/blood.html

It is blood. Either way i think a painting has been ruled out, i read about some type of camera but until it is replicated how can we be sure. So yes it has been tried on numerous occasions. Maybe real, maybe not. How can we not know if it is real?


I should have been more specific. I know there is pigment in blood. My centreal point is that the Shroud is not contemporary with Christ and, even if it were, there is no reason to link it to him.

Here is something interesting:



http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-pixels.htm
Click to expand...

I should have been more specific about pigment. However, the Shroud has not been shown to be contemporary with Jesus and, even if it were there is nothing to link it to him.

This may not be relevant here, but I suggest it is worth remembering that a lot of relics were manufactured in the Middle Ages. Pig bones passed of as human bones, scraps of cloth from the sail of the boat in which Jesus sailed with the fishermen, wood from the cross and even a nail or two. Perhaps it's reasonable to suggest that the Shroud is an elaborate form of such hoaxes.
 
Interesting John99, how you immediately classify anything contrary to your faith as a fake, but then uphold a fake when it agrees with your dogma.

Let's look at some things we do know. The bible was written many years after the death of the character 'Jesus', and a lot of the attributes of this character were inherited from previous religions and myths. This stone tablet agrees with that picture.

Face it, Jesus, as described in the bible, is a construction, not a real person, and you have faith in a lie.
 
Interesting that you dont even know me and would make a statement about any beliefs i have.

As I have stated many times (over and over) i have never read the Bible and i dont adhere to any religious customs. If i did i would say it. I have read many, many other things...i read for hours every day. Probably much more than you ever have.

"but then uphold a fake when it agrees with your dogma."

That is the whole point, it does not seem to be fake. Instead of worrying about my faith or DOGMA then refute the subject we are discussing.

You want to discuss a F"ng rock and tell me with a straigh face that it can be dated past 2,000 years? how many? 2010, 2050. I am tired of being lied to.

Tell me about the other religions.

Go ahead and we will discuss them.
 
I am going out for awhile. So you have time to compile your material. Put as much thought as possible into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top