The Messiah Before Jesus

[Biggs3535]

BTW, Biggs, most of the Christians I encounter don't take the angle you are taking. They say the stories of previous resurrection don't exist and are misinterpretations.

I don't understand why stories of previous resurrections would bother them.  Actual resurrections?  That would be a problem...

Maybe this is too obvious but what's to differentiate those stories of previous resurrections from the story of Jesus's resurrection?

One is believed to have actually happened.

[BucsBullsBolts]

BTW, Biggs, most of the Christians I encounter don't take the angle you are taking. They say the stories of previous resurrection don't exist and are misinterpretations.

I don't understand why stories of previous resurrections would bother them.  Actual resurrections?  That would be a problem...

Maybe this is too obvious but what's to differentiate those stories of previous resurrections from the story of Jesus's resurrection?

[Biggs3535]

Is it possible that all of the magical aspects of Jesus (wine, water walking, rising from the dead, etc...) were
around before Jesus and yet he was the only one who actually did these things when he came on the scene?
Anything is possible.

Agreed.

But (and I'm not trying to be condescending here) logic would dictate that plagiarism is the reason why those details made it into the Jesus story.

I don't follow that logic, unless you are working under the assumption that those supernatural details CANNOT happen.  Can something that was written before someone not happen without plagiarism?  I will reference the Wright Brothers again.  Many people wrote, dreamed, and tried to fly before them, but they were the people who actually did it.  Did they plagiarize?

And the logic is backed up when you read what James and the others said about Paul and his Pauline Christianity. It's not just tablets or older stories that we're talking about.If Paul was known as "The Spouter of Lies," what did he do to get that moniker? Did he totally make up his own teachings and hijack the Jesus teachings?

There were many reasons why the first Christians and disciples disliked Paul, but is that what we are debating?

At what point, as a Christian, do you say, hey maybe the Christ story isn't what really happened?

I've studied and experience too much to believe otherwise.  I guess I would need to see tangible evidence that whole thing was made up, just as I would suppose you would need to see tangible evidence that it did happen to believe it.

BTW, Biggs, most of the Christians I encounter don't take the angle you are taking. They say the stories of previous resurrection don't exist and are misinterpretations.

I don't understand why stories of previous resurrections would bother them.  Actual resurrections?  That would be a problem...

[ufojoe]

Is it possible that all of the magical aspects of Jesus (wine, water walking, rising from the dead, etc...) were
around before Jesus and yet he was the only one who actually did these things when he came on the scene?
Anything is possible. But (and I'm not trying to be condescending here) logic would dictate that plagiarism is
the reason why those details made it into the Jesus story. And the logic is backed up when you read what
James and the others said about Paul and his Pauline Christianity. It's not just tablets or older stories that
we're talking about.

If Paul was known as "The Spouter of Lies," what did he do to get that moniker? Did he totally make up
his own teachings and hijack the Jesus teachings?

And why was James, brother of Jesus, teaching something totally different than what Paul taught, after
the death of Jesus.

At what point, as a Christian, do you say, hey maybe the Christ story isn't what really happened?

BTW, Biggs, most of the Christians I encounter don't take the angle you are taking. They say the
stories of previous resurrection don't exist and are misinterpretations.

[Biggs3535]

Where is it written that story is unique to Christianity? 

Colossians 1:18 - And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

1 Corinthians 15:20 - But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Revelation 20:5 - This is the first resurrection.

Acts 26:23 -  That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Revelation 1:17-18 - And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Romans 1:4 -  And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

If resurrection declares you to be the son of God, and there is only one Son of God, there can be only one resurrection. Yet here we have a second story of resurrection that took place just before the story of Jesus.

If there was a first actual resurrection, not resurrection story, but actual person who rose from the dead, then I would agree with you fellas.

All of the verses you quoted say that Jesus was the first man to actually rise from the dead.  If this tablet man actually did rise from the dead, and Jesus (as Christians believe) wasn't the first person to rise from the dead, then I would understand the magnitude of the claim.

[Biggs3535]

This tablet highly suggests that rising from the dead (in three days, no less) was not unique to Jesus.

Understood.  But the difference in the story, at least to Christians, is that Jesus did rise from the dead.

And highly suggests that the writers of the Bible took that and added it to the story of their Messiah later on.

Does the tablet suggest that, or does the story?

And if that's the case, then Jesus did NOT rise from the dead and he was nothing more than a charismatic leader who people mistakingly worship as something else.

Of course, if the writers of the Bible made the story up, then Jesus did not rise from the dead.  But I don't see the correlation between this tablet and then jumping to the conclusion that the Jesus story was made up.

Walking on water. Turning water into wine. Rising from the dead. All older stories that that made it into the Jesus story too.

Does that mean that Jesus did not do any of those things, because they were from older stories?

Not the Son of God? Then he didn't die for anyone's sins.  The entire basis for Christianity comes crashing down if that's the case.

Again, I don't feel this story brings any of that into question.

Where is it written that story is unique to Christianity? 

Colossians 1:18 - And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

1 Corinthians 15:20 - But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Revelation 20:5 - This is the first resurrection.

Acts 26:23 -  That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Revelation 1:17-18 - And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Romans 1:4 -  And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

If resurrection declares you to be the son of God, and there is only one Son of God, there can be only one resurrection. Yet here we have a second story of resurrection that took place just before the story of Jesus.

[ufojoe]

This tablet highly suggests that rising from the dead (in three days, no less) was not unique to
Jesus. And highly suggests that the writers of the Bible took that and added it to the story
of their Messiah later on. And if that's the case, then Jesus did NOT rise from the dead and
he was nothing more than a charismatic leader who people mistakingly worship as
something else.

Walking on water. Turning water into wine. Rising from the dead. All older stories that
that made it into the Jesus story too. Not the Son of God? Then he didn't die for anyone's
sins.

The entire basis for Christianity comes crashing down if that's the case.

[Biggs3535]

I don't know if I have ever heard or read where anyone was hyping the uniqueness of the story. �

You've got to be kidding. The entire Christian religion is based on the uniqueness of their savior
rising from the dead. It's all hype. You reject Jesus, the Messiah who died for our sins and rose
from the dead and you risk eternal damnation.

You can only have everlasting life if you accept Jesus as the SoG.

Yes, uniqueness is vital to the story.

Don't start the condescending crap, Joe.  The entire Christian religion is not based on the uniqueness of the story, it's based on the belief that Jesus actually did rise from the dead.

Unless you mean the uniqueness of actually rising from the dead, then no, uniqueness is not vital to my belief.

Where is it written that story is unique to Christianity?  And why does it matter?  To me, the important part is the rising from the dead, not who thought up the idea first.

[ufojoe]

I don't know if I have ever heard or read where anyone was hyping the uniqueness of the story.  

You've got to be kidding. The entire Christian religion is based on the uniqueness of their savior
rising from the dead. It's all hype. You reject Jesus, the Messiah who died for our sins and rose
from the dead and you risk eternal damnation.

You can only have everlasting life if you accept Jesus as the SoG.

Yes, uniqueness is vital to the story.

Actually I disagree.

This casts doubt on Judaism.

Care to expound?

[Biggs3535]

It's about a messiah rising after three days. When you find a story that similar that occurs before another supposedly "unique" story, it casts doubt on the story. When you find a story that outlines events before those events occur, it gives the rational mind reason to suspect that events may have been shaped or distorted to fit the the story rather than being an actual accounting of the events.

I don't know if I have ever heard or read where anyone was hyping the uniqueness of the story.  That's kinda what I'm talking about.  The fact that there might have been a resurrection story talked about before Jesus in history doesn't really bother me, or affect my belief.

You may have also missed the part about "To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel." This casts doubt on the entire basis of Christianity.

I read the whole article and saw that part at the end.  But wasn't that just Knohl's view of the tablet, and not necessarily what the tablet was saying?

[alldaway]

It's about a messiah rising after three days. When you find a story that similar that occurs before another supposedly "unique" story, it casts doubt on the story. When you find a story that outlines events before those events occur, it gives the rational mind reason to suspect that events may have been shaped or distorted to fit the the story rather than being an actual accounting of the events.

You may have also missed the part about "To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel." This casts doubt on the entire basis of Christianity.

Actually I disagree.

This casts doubt on Judaism.

[dbucfan]

It can provide the basis for misgivings - it is nothing more imvho Illuminator.  jmvho

The second paragragh I did not pay attention to - sorry.

It's about a messiah rising after three days. When you find a story that similar that occurs before another supposedly "unique" story, it casts doubt on the story. When you find a story that outlines events before those events occur, it gives the rational mind reason to suspect that events may have been shaped or distorted to fit the the story rather than being an actual accounting of the events.

You may have also missed the part about "To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel." This casts doubt on the entire basis of Christianity.