The Gabriel Stone: what does it tell us?

[polonius]

There is a considerable debate among archeologists as to when the “Gabriel Stone� was written. If written before the time of Christ, could this be the basis of the Resurrection stories?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/3 ... 84953.html

Any opinions?

[Ancient of Years]

There is a considerable debate among archeologists as to when the “Gabriel Stone� was written. If written before the time of Christ, could this be the basis of the Resurrection stories?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/3 ... 84953.html

Any opinions?

Not according to current thinking.

What is not so well known is that Professor Knohl has changed his mind about the transliteration, and thus the translation, of the key line 80 in the text that he had previously argued talked about resurrection of the dead after three days:

• By three days–live, I Gabriel command you, prince of princes, the dung of rocky crevices

In a paper given at a 2009 conference at Rice University on the Gabriel Stone, now published in the conference volume as, “The Apocalyptic Dimensions of the Gabriel Revelation in Their Historical Context,� Knohl says he was mistaken in his original reading. Knohl still maintains that the text was “composed shortly after 4 B.C.E.� by “followers of the messianic leader Simon, who was killed in Transjordan in 4 B.C.E.,� which is where the stone was probably found. He continues to see it as an example of what he calls “catastrophic messianism� where a slain Messiah gives a new/holy covenant to Israel. What he now doubts is that the text speaks of “making the dead live after three days.� Following the readings of Yardeni and Elizur he accepts as the translation for line 80:

• In three days the sign will be (given). I am Gabriel

The critical word that Knohl once read as a verb, “to make live� (ח�יה) now is read as the noun “sign� (ה�ות). On the whole, however, his overall interpretation is the same and if he is correct the text continues to have great significance for our understanding of “messianism� among late 2nd Temple Jewish groups.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... n-display/

[Willum]

So not for nothing, but I've been parsing over Canaan religions and languages etc., and coming to a conclusion.

It is rather meaningless to look at things like this anymore:
If you look at the Bible and consider debating interpretations of scripture when it is very clear that ancient Hebrews took some proto-OT and went through it poorly converting it to a arguably monotheistic book. Scripture is confusing and meaningless, because it has been grossly written and re-written. It is happening on wiki as we speak: You can see apologists diversions and disclaimers all over the poor thing.
No, I am not making assumptions or being offensive, here is a good survey, and only a survey-there is plenty more within mouse-clicks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panbabylonism

The Dead Sea scrolls were faked, this is faked.
Why?: The OT was overwritten, and it's about time we all drew a sigh, and acknowledged that, the OT was based on Babylon Sumer etc., and it is likely that these were constructed for selfish human reasons, which have been used the same way since.

One simply cannot trust the source.
It is pretty clear that if god ever did come down from the mountain, hand out scripture, mankind would wait all of five minutes before "cleverly" perverting it to his own ends.

It's happening now, conflicting with verified references, it was worse then.

[Elijah John]

There is a considerable debate among archeologists as to when the “Gabriel Stone� was written. If written before the time of Christ, could this be the basis of the Resurrection stories?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/3 ... 84953.html

Any opinions?

VERY interesting.

I wish the article included the translation of the 80 or so lines the scholars DO agree on.

From what I understand, the agent of the Apocalypse seems to be the archangel Gabriel, not the Messiah per se.

I wonder if the historical Jesus foresaw the event in a similar fashion.

How 'bout you, what do you make of the stone?

[catnip]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Of course, there is more on the net about this and "the Gabriel Stone" isn't the only thing it is called. Here is the Wikipedia article that provides a bit of background.

Here is the link to the lines as they are translated:
http://hartman.org.il/SHINews_View.asp?Article_Id=162&

I don't think the text is complete enough to derive anything from, but it is interesting.

[The Nice Centurion]

So not for nothing, but I've been parsing over Canaan religions and languages etc., and coming to a conclusion.

It is rather meaningless to look at things like this anymore:
If you look at the Bible and consider debating interpretations of scripture when it is very clear that ancient Hebrews took some proto-OT and went through it poorly converting it to a arguably monotheistic book. Scripture is confusing and meaningless, because it has been grossly written and re-written. It is happening on wiki as we speak: You can see apologists diversions and disclaimers all over the poor thing.
No, I am not making assumptions or being offensive, here is a good survey, and only a survey-there is plenty more within mouse-clicks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panbabylonism

The Dead Sea scrolls were faked, this is faked.
Why?: The OT was overwritten, and it's about time we all drew a sigh, and acknowledged that, the OT was based on Babylon Sumer etc., and it is likely that these were constructed for selfish human reasons, which have been used the same way since.

One simply cannot trust the source.
It is pretty clear that if god ever did come down from the mountain, hand out scripture, mankind would wait all of five minutes before "cleverly" perverting it to his own ends.

It's happening now, conflicting with verified references, it was worse then.

Interesting and far too less recogniced.

So that means that Jewish religion is stolen and perverted from Babylonian religion the same way like Christian religion is stolen and perverted from Jewish religion.

We all know of the catastrophic Christian antisemitism that was developed by Matthew and Luther to destroy the Jews. Because it is comfotable to destroy the real owner after you stole something important from him.
It was that christian antisemitism that inspired the christian national sozialists to send Jews into the gas chambers.

And this also explains why Jews and Christians from ancient times until today articulate so much hate against Babylon.
Though, there are today no ancient Babylonians left to send them to the gas chambers, believers today have still biblical legitimation to fantasize about smashing their babys against rocks.

And to think that these evangelical christians today are the same people who work so much to ban abortion of babys.

Evangelical logic: Adoring a book that encourages to smash live babys against rocks is OK, while a female victim of incest or rape should never but never be allowed abortion.

Psalms 137:9
“Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Psalms-137-9/

[1213]

Scripture is confusing and meaningless, because it has been grossly written and re-written.

Please give one example.

The OT was overwritten, and it's about time we all drew a sigh, and acknowledged that, the OT was based on Babylon Sumer etc., and it is likely that these were constructed for selfish human reasons, which have been used the same way since.

Please tell, what selfish reason?

[TRANSPONDER]

Interesting. I'll have to learn more about this.

Of course it can be (from the little I've seen) interpreted in two ways - a genuine prediction of Jesus or the old beleif upon which the Jesus legend was built.

The Talpiot Tomb contained an ossuary with a graffiti of Jonah emerging from a fish's mouth. The third day was a traditional time for resurrection which is why Jesus had to do it over three days, even though the text shows it wasn't even two.

I'll have a read even though the story is carried by excited Christian sites and sensationalist Newsmax sites. And I have a dislike of clicking 'accept' every time "Agree to us stealing your identity or you can't look at our site" notices pop up.

But it might be a true artefact, even though religious artefact fakes have a long and disreputable tradition.

Damn that's interesting. If real.



I had to post this when they got to the rebellions after Herod's death Simon in Peraea (put down bt Varus after Herod's death) and Judas the Galilean when Rome took over and imposed the tax census. I think it can't be stressed too much that Messiaship for the Jews of the time was a state of rebellion. against pagan or at least ungodly rulers.

Of course they reference the Nativity story about Herod which is nonsense and surely a lie. But they end up opting for the revolt of Simon after Herod's time, and point up a similarity to the Qumran scrolls (in Hebrew, not Aramaic) but even though they mention Macheras and the Jordan and Josephus, they miss that this is the area of the Baptist's 'call to repentance'which Antipas (ruler of Peraea and Galilee) saw as subversive, and I think he was right.

Jesus took over the messianic mission after John was executed and (after a messianic declaration in Bathsaida) went - to Peraea before heading for Jerusalem. This all fits very nicely with a messiah as Jewish rebel, not as a Christian demigod.

Why did I not hear about this before? This additional vid gives the dating typology and how they made a copy.

[1213]

The third day was a traditional time for resurrection which is why Jesus had to do it over three days, even though the text shows it wasn't even two.

That is not true.

[TRANSPONDER]

The third day was a traditional time for resurrection which is why Jesus had to do it over three days, even though the text shows it wasn't even two.

That is not true.

It is true. Sure one can stretch it from the first (last hour Friday) to the Third, halfway through Sunday, so rose on the Third day is (just) Ok, but it is not three full days. Not that it really matters - it is a pointless point, but I rather like to se Bible apologists froth about it. Without even the point that Luke says Jesus rose before his body was even put in the cave, while Johns says he hadn't really risen to heaven even after he'd left the cave. But that's what 'witnesses' do when they make stuff up - they contradict.