The resurrection "tablet" keep your shirts on

Right on cue, there's another "discovery" that is supposed to "shake" the Christian world. *Yawn*

I just read the article about this big tablet that supposedly talks about a messiah figure who will come to life again after three days. The spin that the "interpreters" want to put on this is that the buzz was "already" around before Jesus that a "messiah" figure would die and then come back to life in three days, and hence Jesus and followers "got the idea" from this other guy. I wish I was kidding but I'm not. There are missing lines of text galore and painfully obvious hoping by the supposedly objective scholars (yeah, right) that they have found something to make Christians feel that the whole Jesus resurrecting thing was just made up or contrived.

Here's the one teeny weensy little thing they forget. It's not like there wasn't already the prophecy that the Messiah would raise up from the dead. King David, and Isaiah, are the two great prophets of the Messiah in the Old Testament. Isaiah, as you know, prophesied in great detail about the suffering of the Messiah, how he will be treated with scorn, and so forth, and his humility (which I recently wrote about, where he enters Jerusalem on an ass). But King David also provided much of the prophecy about the Messiah, including that he will resurrect from the dead.

Psalm 16
Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth; my flesh also shall rest in hope.
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

I'm not going to get all involved in discussing, like all the "big discoveries that will rock Christians' faith" before it, this tablet thing because it's all so contrived with it's being "uncovered" and "studied" now (and folks are so handy to guess what the missing lines say). But I wanted to nip in the bud that the Messiah resurrecting from the dead was "an idea that Jesus and his followers came up with" based on an "idea that some other messiah figure guy came up with before Jesus," like no one has even prophesied the resurrection of the body and of specifically the Messiah.

They are such needy and desperate attention seekers. It's sad, really.

Keep the faith, they are just jealous and insecure. What's sad is they ruin the information that legitimate archaeological finds offer, because they can't wait to twist them into kicking the legs out of Christianity. They deliberately miss the point because they are infidels and do not believe in God. They think that everything is contrived, just as they are in their agendas. So they assume that nothing in the Bible really can be true except the geopolitical events of the Old Testament. They figure that Jesus was just another inspirational guy, and people cobbled together belief in him and created a work of inspirational fiction. So because they have that view, they keep trying to find a "smoking gun" that demonstrates that it's all a fictional story and not the miraculous events that did indeed occur.

But where they go wrong is that they think that if they can show that "other people" had "those ideas" "before Jesus" that they can go, "Nah, nah, copy cat!" It's the old pagan argument "Oh pagans believed in a virgin birth or celebrated their holidays on this day so Christians just copied those ideas" (again, ignoring the non-pagan prophecies in the Old Testament).

In a weird way it's like they are saying that the "real" Messiah would have done something that absolutely no human would ever have imagined using no events that anyone ever humanly did before.

So I guess for them to believe the following would have had to happen. Jesus would have had to been born from an animal species... oh, but wait, pagans have stories about humans being born of animals. Hmm. Well, then Jesus would have had to fall out of the sky fully formed...oh, but wait, the Greek and Roman gods did that all the time. Sooooo.... well, then I guess there is no way Jesus could have had a "totally unique origin birth" since humans already thought of all the possibilities. So I guess he'd have to have a life style no one thought of before to be believed he is really the Messiah. Maybe if he ate only one kind of fruit his entire life and never anything else, that would be unique.....hmm... but wait, I bet there is a pagan myth somewhere about a god who could only eat one special kind of food. So really, what could Jesus have done that "no one would never never never uh uh no way nope nada absolutely nothing ever thought of by any human in any society ever before?" There's only one thing I can think of and that's if he never died and just stayed alive in his buff thirty plus year old body for 2000 years, walking and talking to people about God. But see, that's not God's plan. Why would God send Jesus to just live forever in the same body on earth to prove he's real? And when people grew old and neared death, Jesus could say, "Oops, looks like it's your time to go! Say hi to God (or Satan) for me! I'm OK and I'm going to live forever! Enjoy the death!"

Does that sound like God's mercy and wisdom to you? If the only thing Jesus could do would be to stay alive miraculously in his body for 2000 years, yet watch generation after generation kick off without having the assurance that he had given them that for the believers, it really IS alright, that the soul really does live on in God's embrace, as Jesus demonstrated with his own body..... how exactly would the arrival of the Messiah have proven anything and provided salvation at all? Why would God even have bothered to make people feel worse, actually, hearing the preaching of Jesus, yet seeing him at endless dinners seeing endless people off on their own deaths in time? See, Jesus wouldn't be performing miracles for those 2000 years because after all, according to the "scholars" that's all fiction and made up anyway. And pagans and others gave him the idea. So literally the only thing Jesus could do to convince infidels through the ages is if he was born and then stayed young and alive in his body for thousands of years, but only preaching and not performing miracles.

How merciful would that have been? Not so much. Really, I do wonder why the media and others keep stoking the egos and wallets of these people. Suppose you sent a Food and Drug inspector who doesn't believe in eating food. How logical would that be? You see this gaunt person starving themselves to death, and she introduces herself as your farm's FDA inspector, and when you ask, um, why are you dying of starvation she tells you, "Oh, I don't believe in food. I don't think you need it to live. But I'm your food inspector."

I'm not saying scholars have to be believers. But don't call yourself a scholar if you are determined to disprove something, rather than objectively study it. I mean, that's just basic intelligence and intellectual morality.