Does this Pre-Jesus tablet disprove Xianity?

[daedalus 2.0]

Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: July 6, 2008
JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world ... yt&emc=rss



Xians have always claimed the story of Jesus's resurrection was unique.

It seems to have existed BEFORE Jesus was born.

[Goat]

I apologize I wrote that in a hurry. I meant if the tablet it true.

I can't imagine why we would think it was true.

TC

Well.
What do we have that says it is false?

Well.. there is no indication that any of the extraordinary events it relates actually happened for one, there is dispute about what it actually says, and then there is the dispute about if it is real or not. Biblical archaeological artifacts are one of the "HOT" for forgeries. One such article that was the only physical evidence that the Temple of Solomon was discovered to be a forgery after a decade of it being presented in a museum. When two new articles were shown to be clever forgeries,the museum went back to find out if the same technique that was used to artificially 'aged' the other two fakes were also used on that.. and they found,much to their dismay, it too was a fake.

The more important question, considering it's claim.. what are you referring to when you say 'it's true' (right age, or actual events??), and what evidence do you have of either of those. Before something needs to be shown to be 'false', evidence has to be presented that it is 'true' first.

[Thought Criminal]

Well.. there is no indication that any of the extraordinary events it relates actually happened for one, there is dispute about what it actually says, and then there is the dispute about if it is real or not. Biblical archaeological artifacts are one of the "HOT" for forgeries. One such article that was the only physical evidence that the Temple of Solomon was discovered to be a forgery after a decade of it being presented in a museum. When two new articles were shown to be clever forgeries,the museum went back to find out if the same technique that was used to artificially 'aged' the other two fakes were also used on that.. and they found,much to their dismay, it too was a fake.

The more important question, considering it's claim.. what are you referring to when you say 'it's true' (right age, or actual events??), and what evidence do you have of either of those. Before something needs to be shown to be 'false', evidence has to be presented that it is 'true' first.

There are two distinct issues here. The first one, which is controversial, is whether the tablet is legit. In other words, are the claims abouts its age, source and contents correct? We don't know. So far, there are indications that it's genuine, but it's stilly very iffy, to the point where entirely reasonable people could nonetheless disagree. After all, as you pointed out, there is a long tradition of religious forgeries.

The second one, which ought not have the slightest bit of controversy, is whether this guy really died, rotted for three days, then spontaneously got up and walked away, whistling the theme from "Shaft". This is an absurd claim and we ought to be rejecting it out of hand and without the least bit of regret. I cannot see a way in which a reasonable person could take this claim seriously.

TC

[Word_Swordsman]

Xians have always claimed the story of Jesus's resurrection was unique.

It seems to have existed BEFORE Jesus was born.

The Jews held the story about Jonah being a sign, one of the many typologies in the OT concerning the coming Messiah. Jesus declared to the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 12:39-40 "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: [40] For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

If anything that tablet confirms a wondrous prophesied event was imminent.

The resurrection of Jesus was indeed unique in that no other man did that the way it went with Jesus.

This is what is known as 'retrofitting', something that the author of Matthew did a lot of. Jonah is not a messanic passage. However, Christians have retrofitted phrases that have nothing to do with the Messiah, and wrote TO those phrases as if they meant something. The author of the Gospel of Matthew did that quite often.Oh, and "Messianic Jews" are Christians.

In your unfounded opinion, that claim conveniently nested in the lack of your presentation of empirical evidence for a "retrofitting" claim, I find no valid argument. Prophecy before and upon fulfillment is one of the features that sets the Bible apart from all other religious writings. The prophetic announcements predated Jesus by many centuries, repeated in Hebrew writings, followed by then undisputed accomplishment of Jesus' resurrection. Serious disputes arose after all living witnesses were gone. How is it Matthew retrofitted anything about Jesus in spite of a small army of Jewish theologians wanting to accomplish a refutation the people around them would accept?

It appears to me you are simply in denial regardless of stated facts that stood many centuries without serious challenge. Given enough time George Washington's feats will be "proved" to be mythical fables just like the Jewish Holocaust is being regarded today by many skeptics even while witnesses, both victims and liberators, live.

In fact, the writers documenting Christ simply took the Hebrew prophecies literally as applicable to Jesus, noting the peculiarities of his fulfillments. Jesus has been denied so long by some Jews as to preclude the possibility of any Messiah arising to fit any prophecies of Messiah, the logistics of possibility long rendered unattainable without a complete restoration of Israel, the temple, and the full priesthood.

No, my opinion is quite founded in the theology of the Holy scriptures,and in the CONTEXT of the passages that were distorted by the writers of the Gospels.
You do know what 'CONTEXT' is, don't you? If you read Jonah in CONTEXT, it is not a prophecy. Nor, will you find any document older than the gospels that point to that passage to be a prophecy.. messanic or otherwise. Some of the Gospel stories are in the form of a Midrash, which is not literal, and would have been understood by the Jewish community of the time. However, the Gentile converts to Christianity and the more modern Christians take the form of the Midrash , make it literal, and turn it into a 'prophecy'.

The Jewish Encyclopedia online states "In the assumption that Jonah is identical with the Messiah, the son of Joseph, the influence of Christian thought is discernible (comp. Matt. xii. 39-41)." [url]http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 8&letter=J

Jesus didn't say He would do what Jonah did, but that He would demonstrate a sign similar to the story of Jonah which certainly can be taken literally as having signs of more than pertained to the story itself, referring to what happened to Jonah as something in common with the future Messiah, able to be resurrected after three days dead in a fish belly. That sign in Jonah was the only scriptural precedent available, made amazing in that Jesus did perform a similar resurrection in the same time span. Believing or not believing Jesus did that isn't part of this issue. Jesus said He would do it and it is reported He did just that. I see that as something similar to a young boy saying as his father was an admiral in the Navy, so would he be one, then do it decades later. Jesus was telling the Jews about a future event the Jews denied as reasonable, not at all disputing whether such a sign was in the Book of Jonah, not are there any writings of antiquity I know of that dispute Jesus' claim His sign was not related to any sign in Jonah. It has long been recognized the Jews of antiquity failed to see some very direct major prophet sayings as predictive, yet hold the same major prophets as true prophets in the absence of fulfillments of prophecies. Many things spoken of by Isaiah have to do obviously with a very far future Israel, yet the Jews didn't see that coming, Israel itself scattered around the world, for all practical purposes any predictions of those prophets being impossible to fulfill. Modern Jews of course dismiss any claims of signs applicable to the Christian Christ Jesus, now claiming some of their scriptures to be mere fables, simple stories, with little or no spiritual value, in an effort to dispel any beliefs Jesus fulfilled a single prophecy of the Tanach. It hasn't always been so among the Jews. In doing so they have effectively demolished reality of a literal Messiah since it is now impossible for a Jewish Messiah to arise and fulfill the ancient duties expected of a Messiah. Consequently some Jewish scholars have identified a few candidates who might have been the Messiah come and gone, or maybe nested in the concepts of Messiah ben Joseph/ben David.

[Goat]

The Jewish Encyclopedia online states "In the assumption that Jonah is identical with the Messiah, the son of Joseph, the influence of Christian thought is discernible (comp. Matt. xii. 39-41)." [url]http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 8&letter=J

Ah.. this is what is known as 'mine quoting', and is fairly misunderstanding of what is being said.

the full paragraph is

In the Zohar (Wayaḳhel) it is related that the fish died as soon as Jonah entered, but was revived after three days. When Jonah was thrown into the sea his soul immediately left his body and soared up to God's throne, where it was judged and sent back. As soon as it touched the mouth of the fish on its way back to the body, the fish died, but was later restored to life. The fish's name is given in "Shalshelet ha-Ḳabbalah" as (i.e., "cetos" = "whale"). The fate of Jonah is allegorized in the Zohar (Wayaḳhel) as illustrative of the soul's relation to the body and to death. In the assumption that Jonah is identical with the Messiah, the son of Joseph, the influence of Christian thought is discernible (comp. Matt. xii. 39-41).

They acknowledge that the Christians used that as a messanic passage.. but you don't understand what the Zohar is. The Zohar is a 12 century book of Jewish mysticism, not taken very seriously by most Jews (the hascids are an exception).
It is late enough to have a lot of Christian influences on it.

[Word_Swordsman]

No, my opinion is quite founded in the theology of the Holy scriptures,and in the CONTEXT of the passages that were distorted by the writers of the Gospels.
You do know what 'CONTEXT' is, don't you? If you read Jonah in CONTEXT, it is not a prophecy. Nor, will you find any document older than the gospels that point to that passage to be a prophecy.. messanic or otherwise. Some of the Gospel stories are in the form of a Midrash, which is not literal, and would have been understood by the Jewish community of the time. However, the Gentile converts to Christianity and the more modern Christians take the form of the Midrash , make it literal, and turn it into a 'prophecy'.

A midrash (Heb. term) is a teaching tool, a commentary, a homilitic (comparative) method of exegesis, in Christian circles called hermeneutics. Jesus' parables were along that line, none of them seriously taken as not true stories. They could easily have reflected current or not too old "news" in the region His hearers could relate to. What causes you to assume no Midrash story can't be taken literally is a mystery to me. They come out of a 2400 year old collection, the Tannaim, most of which was written between AD 200 and present. The stories certainly can include made-up stories, folklore with some historical fact, etc..

It is quite predictable the authors would have a great interest in diluting the claims of Christianity and the New Testament. The problem with your pick of terms is none of those writers affected the Tanach or the New testament, their works being no better than commentaries, like Matthew Henry Commentaries I consult but never make equal to the word of God.

The tablet in question contains a reference directly related to continued revelation from God the Jews didn't get. Jesus revealed the New Covenant connection while also proving He was the Messiah. That tablet only shores up what Jesus taught and did. It actually shows the Jews who tolerated that stone admitted prophetic value in such words, especially prophecies of the Messiah. Nothing was written there to indicate resurrections were common or a matter of fact as not being unique. The very uniqueness of a future resurrection captivated imaginations, and Jesus fulfilled it, not only for the first recorded instance of raising Lazarus after 4 days of death, but accomplished his own after 3 days, and upon that raised trust in a future resurrection of the dead in Christ, then of all the other dead a thousand years later. If you can point out supposedly common, non-unique resurrections prior to Jesus, please let us know.

The tablet doesn't affect the uniqueness of what Jesus did, but in fact offer actual evidence the Jews believed it would happen in the Messiah. The writer of the article took a perspective of threat to the Christian resurrection.

[Goat]

No, my opinion is quite founded in the theology of the Holy scriptures,and in the CONTEXT of the passages that were distorted by the writers of the Gospels.
You do know what 'CONTEXT' is, don't you? If you read Jonah in CONTEXT, it is not a prophecy. Nor, will you find any document older than the gospels that point to that passage to be a prophecy.. messanic or otherwise. Some of the Gospel stories are in the form of a Midrash, which is not literal, and would have been understood by the Jewish community of the time. However, the Gentile converts to Christianity and the more modern Christians take the form of the Midrash , make it literal, and turn it into a 'prophecy'.

A midrash (Heb. term) is a teaching tool, a commentary, a homilitic (comparative) method of exegesis, in Christian circles called hermeneutics. Jesus' parables were along that line, none of them seriously taken as not true stories. They could easily have reflected current or not too old "news" in the region His hearers could relate to. What causes you to assume no Midrash story can't be taken literally is a mystery to me. They come out of a 2400 year old collection, the Tannaim, most of which was written between AD 200 and present. The stories certainly can include made-up stories, folklore with some historical fact, etc..

It is quite predictable the authors would have a great interest in diluting the claims of Christianity and the New Testament. The problem with your pick of terms is none of those writers affected the Tanach or the New testament, their works being no better than commentaries, like Matthew Henry Commentaries I consult but never make equal to the word of God.

The tablet in question contains a reference directly related to continued revelation from God the Jews didn't get. Jesus revealed the New Covenant connection while also proving He was the Messiah. That tablet only shores up what Jesus taught and did. It actually shows the Jews who tolerated that stone admitted prophetic value in such words, especially prophecies of the Messiah. Nothing was written there to indicate resurrections were common or a matter of fact as not being unique. The very uniqueness of a future resurrection captivated imaginations, and Jesus fulfilled it, not only for the first recorded instance of raising Lazarus after 4 days of death, but accomplished his own after 3 days, and upon that raised trust in a future resurrection of the dead in Christ, then of all the other dead a thousand years later. If you can point out supposedly common, non-unique resurrections prior to Jesus, please let us know.

The tablet doesn't affect the uniqueness of what Jesus did, but in fact offer actual evidence the Jews believed it would happen in the Messiah. The writer of the article took a perspective of threat to the Christian resurrection.

Well.. it shows what one group thought. (not in general)..and of course, it has to be proven to be genuine.. and an accurate translation.

If the tablet is genuine, it shows that the Jesus myth is just even more of a rip off from other traditions... and yes.. nothing you said elminates the concept that the gospels.. particularly the Gospel of Matthew is a Midrash.

[Word_Swordsman]

They acknowledge that the Christians used that as a messanic passage.. but you don't understand what the Zohar is. The Zohar is a 12 century book of Jewish mysticism, not taken very seriously by most Jews (the hascids are an exception).
It is late enough to have a lot of Christian influences on it.

Think it through. The Zohar was written 12th century, well after Christians penned the claims in the New testament. Too late, what is written is written forever. Jesus and the apostles caught on long before any Jewish scholar did. If anything the Zohar was influenced by Christian thought influencing some Jews, or maybe a mystic Jew tried to link the doctrine to mysticism 12 centuries after the fact. Just because the doctrine was so linked doesn't assign the doctrine to mysticism, but does demonstrate some Jews valued the connection of the Christian doctrine to a decided prophecy in Jonah. The Christians stole the Jews' thunder by beating every Jewish scholar to the connection which cannot be disproved using the scriptures. Ever since then Jews have had to reconstruct what was allowed 2,000 years ago, using commentary, while ignoring the proofs Jesus met the demands of the Messianic prophecies, even those Jews didn't previously realize were for the Messiah. Try to keep in mind the many OT statements that seem totally disconnected to the context, such as in Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

That did not happen to Isaiah. Would you then conclude Isaiah was a false prophet? Or could that not only refer to a future virgin having a son actually named Emmanuel? Jesus met that one dead on.

Some then turn to saying the NT writers embedded prophecies into their writings to invent a Christ that met all the prophecies. Which way will they go next?

[Goat]

They acknowledge that the Christians used that as a messanic passage.. but you don't understand what the Zohar is. The Zohar is a 12 century book of Jewish mysticism, not taken very seriously by most Jews (the hascids are an exception).
It is late enough to have a lot of Christian influences on it.

Think it through. The Zohar was written 12th century, well after Christians penned the claims in the New testament. Too late, what is written is written forever. Jesus and the apostles caught on long before any Jewish scholar did. If anything the Zohar was influenced by Christian thought influencing some Jews, or maybe a mystic Jew tried to link the doctrine to mysticism 12 centuries after the fact. Just because the doctrine was so linked doesn't assign the doctrine to mysticism, but does demonstrate some Jews valued the connection of the Christian doctrine to a decided prophecy in Jonah. The Christians stole the Jews' thunder by beating every Jewish scholar to the connection which cannot be disproved using the scriptures. Ever since then Jews have had to reconstruct what was allowed 2,000 years ago, using commentary, while ignoring the proofs Jesus met the demands of the Messianic prophecies, even those Jews didn't previously realize were for the Messiah. Try to keep in mind the many OT statements that seem totally disconnected to the context, such as in Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

That did not happen to Isaiah. Would you then conclude Isaiah was a false prophet? Or could that not only refer to a future virgin having a son actually named Emmanuel? Jesus met that one dead on.

Some then turn to saying the NT writers embedded prophecies into their writings to invent a Christ that met all the prophecies. Which way will they go next?

Ah... there you go with mistranslations out out of context things with Isaiah. First of all, the word Christians use for Virgin is "almah" .. which does not mean virgin, but young lady. Next..if you read the passage in context (do you remember context?? ) you will see that Isaiah is not talking about somebody 700 years in the future, but rather his OWN wife. Jesus was never called Immanuel in his life, and Mary never called him Immanuel.

YOu see.. if you read Isaiah 7:1 to 8:19.. King Ahaz had a problem with King of Syria.. and Isaiah said "hey king.. I'll give you a sign. " King Ahaz said No, since that woudl be testing God.

Isaiah said "let me give you a sign anyway. I am gonna have a son.. and by the time this son is old enough to have some measure of what is good and evil , the King of Syria won't be a problem any more'..

So, if you read Isaiah 8:3. you will see Isaiah say "I went to the prophetess and insured she conceived'. ... There is only one way as a man that Isaiah could make sure a woman conceived..and it does not include virginity...

and the sign given is in Isaiah 8:4

8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

He confirms this in Isaiah 8:18 by saying

8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

So.. if you bother to read the passage IN CONTEXT (remember context.. it's very important you know).. you will see it's not talking about some kid born 700 years later.. but someone immedately then and there.. and born in the natural way..

I said it before.. and I will repeat it to you.. since this is something you should take to heart. Theology by sound bits is not sound theology.

Then he oohs and aahs about his son. and proclaims in Isaiah 8:18 that

[Bennettresearch]

Do you ever read what scholars say about the Gospels? Only die hard dogmatists deny that the gospels were Judaized in the oral tradition before they were written down. The synoptic gospels, excluding GJohn, are considered to be propaganda and not a true historical narrative. Paul himself draws from the OT to explain the crucifixion. A lot of dogmatists also point to Jesus fulfilling OT prophecy.
Craig

Present one of those "scholar" statements with a reference to their source material, like title of their book, and exact quote, please. I'd be happy to evaluate such statements using only the Bible, and perhaps looking at your selection from the source in context of what the author really said. You will find most if not all skeptic "scholars" are but "wannabe" scholars rejected by their peers in their own time, some found out in later generations, failing to fit their doctrines to what the Bible says, even allowing very liberal "interpretation" of the Bible.

Hey,

OK, just one, Burton L. Mack, "Who Wrote the New Testament"


"And so, before the destruction of the temple, early Jesus people and Christians had already started to point to this or that feature of the history of Israel in order to claim some link with the illustrious traditions of Israel. As we shall see, all of the early myths about Jesus were attempts to paint him and his followers in acceptable colors from the Israel epic."

"Who Wrote the New Testament?", by Burton L. Mack, pages 14-15

“One cannot assume that anyone knows why the individual books of the Bible were first written, how they were understood by those who first read them, when and why they were brought together in a single volume, what the historical significance of that moment was, how the Christian Church has reinterpreted all of them many times in the course of Western cultural history, and what the lasting effect of that layered text has been.�

"Who Wrote the New Testament?", by Burton L. Mack, pages 3-4.


I could fill up this entire forum with biblical scholars of high repute who have traced the origins of the OT and NT. Common features, no traceable authorship, and many many examples of editing and redacting, Isaiah being the most flagrant example of this. The Gospel of Mark was edited and they have copies!!!!

"3. A collection of prophetic material has been detached from its original historical moorings and subordinated to a new theological context. The classic example of this canonical move is so-called "Second Isaiah." Critical scholarship has made out a convincing case for dating chapters 40–55 (some scholars include the remaining chapters of the book as well) to the period of the Babylonian exile. Yet in their present canonical position these chapters have been consciously loosened from their original setting and placed within the context of the eighth-century prophet, Isaiah of Jerusalem. Moreover the original historical background of the exilic prophet has been drained of its historical particularity–Cyrus has become a theological construct almost indistinguishable from Abraham (cf. Kissane)–and the prophetic message has been rendered suitable for use by later generations by transmitting it as a purely eschatological word."

Brevard S Childs, The Canonical Shape of Prophetic Literature p. 45 Interpreting the Prophets. Ed. Mays and Achtemeier: Fortress Press, Philadelphia 1987.


For you to arbitrarily dismiss these scholars and to demean their professionalism is incredible.

Craig

[Bennettresearch]

They acknowledge that the Christians used that as a messanic passage.. but you don't understand what the Zohar is. The Zohar is a 12 century book of Jewish mysticism, not taken very seriously by most Jews (the hascids are an exception).
It is late enough to have a lot of Christian influences on it.

Think it through. The Zohar was written 12th century, well after Christians penned the claims in the New testament. Too late, what is written is written forever. Jesus and the apostles caught on long before any Jewish scholar did. If anything the Zohar was influenced by Christian thought influencing some Jews, or maybe a mystic Jew tried to link the doctrine to mysticism 12 centuries after the fact. Just because the doctrine was so linked doesn't assign the doctrine to mysticism, but does demonstrate some Jews valued the connection of the Christian doctrine to a decided prophecy in Jonah. The Christians stole the Jews' thunder by beating every Jewish scholar to the connection which cannot be disproved using the scriptures. Ever since then Jews have had to reconstruct what was allowed 2,000 years ago, using commentary, while ignoring the proofs Jesus met the demands of the Messianic prophecies, even those Jews didn't previously realize were for the Messiah. Try to keep in mind the many OT statements that seem totally disconnected to the context, such as in Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

That did not happen to Isaiah. Would you then conclude Isaiah was a false prophet? Or could that not only refer to a future virgin having a son actually named Emmanuel? Jesus met that one dead on.

Some then turn to saying the NT writers embedded prophecies into their writings to invent a Christ that met all the prophecies. Which way will they go next?

Ah... there you go with mistranslations out out of context things with Isaiah. First of all, the word Christians use for Virgin is "almah" .. which does not mean virgin, but young lady. Next..if you read the passage in context (do you remember context?? ) you will see that Isaiah is not talking about somebody 700 years in the future, but rather his OWN wife. Jesus was never called Immanuel in his life, and Mary never called him Immanuel.

YOu see.. if you read Isaiah 7:1 to 8:19.. King Ahaz had a problem with King of Syria.. and Isaiah said "hey king.. I'll give you a sign. " King Ahaz said No, since that woudl be testing God.

Isaiah said "let me give you a sign anyway. I am gonna have a son.. and by the time this son is old enough to have some measure of what is good and evil , the King of Syria won't be a problem any more'..

So, if you read Isaiah 8:3. you will see Isaiah say "I went to the prophetess and insured she conceived'. ... There is only one way as a man that Isaiah could make sure a woman conceived..and it does not include virginity...

and the sign given is in Isaiah 8:4

8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

He confirms this in Isaiah 8:18 by saying

8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

So.. if you bother to read the passage IN CONTEXT (remember context.. it's very important you know).. you will see it's not talking about some kid born 700 years later.. but someone immedately then and there.. and born in the natural way..

I said it before.. and I will repeat it to you.. since this is something you should take to heart. Theology by sound bits is not sound theology.

Then he oohs and aahs about his son. and proclaims in Isaiah 8:18 that

Hi Goat,

Very good. I like your statement about later generations appropriating scripture to prove their idioscyncratic interpretations. Ezekiel is the most common, and it was fulfilled with Cyrus bringing the Jews back to Jerusalem. My work on Revelation has had a big resistance as so much has been interpreted into it that to come forth with any accurate interpretation is all but ignored. People have forwarded this prophecy into the 21st century while ignoring almost 2000 years worth of history. Might I plug my thread "Debunking the Antichrist Myth" to give an example of this.

Craig