So I think a big clincher for many athiests is that they have to cling to evolution, so even though Darwin gave a means to disprove his theory, atheism is dependent on such a theory so many develop a deeper faith in evolution.  So much so that they will ignore any evidence that might possibly be presented against them.

Many even try to explain irreducible complexity away [1].  They put up these straw man arguments so that others will node their head and say “see, it can evolve!”.  The problem is they do the same thing as the rest of evolutionary scientists and they state vague overall statements without really scrutinising the details.  Even in this video, he stacks scenario on top of scenario without ever explaining how such a transformation could happen without the intermediary kinds dying off.   Such as the form with the “wiggly tail”.  If the tail wiggled slightly, the flagellum would cease to exist.  It would barely be able to move.

The video opens up by saying that “Logic tells us that Irreducible Complexity is an argument based on Ignorance.  Because I cannot image how something evolved, it must not have.”  I will leave out my comments on his misspellings and bad grammar and point out his logic is flawed.  The majority of intelligent design scientists began their careers as evolutionists, but once they began to study the intricate details they watched the theory fall apart.

Irreducible Complexity is not a conclusion based on not being able to imagine something, it is a statement of fact based on the inability of a mechanism to operate if even one component is missing.  If this cannot be so then it is impossible for it to develop over slow gradual improvements.

Atheists will not accept such a concept because to do so would deny their ability to be atheists unless they wish to follow in Richard Dawkins steps of believing aliens planted life on Earth.  However, conceding such a thing would mean that they are in fact not evolutionists but Intelligent Design believers as well.

I believe that no one becomes an atheist based on facts or logic.  I does not matter which one you talk to, if you go to the root of why they do not believe it has to do with a personal experience with someone who wronged them and was either a Christian or a deist of some sort.  Or they knew of no one who was a Christian or deist who could satisfy their questions and began to stereotype them as people who are uneducated and follow on blind faith.

I believe Richard Dawkins is the latter.  Aside from his arrogence, he just treats even highly educated peers, educated in the same college as him that disagree with him like drooling idiots.

I am willing to admit that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian becomes one for the right reason, but in the same turn many atheists do not believe in evolution because it is scientifically sound but rather because it supports the beliefs they already have.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

a

I have come to the conclusion that God did create evil.  It took me many years to come to this conclusion and only through a great deal of mediation on God’s word.  I will try to answer several questions this conclusion will raise but let me first explain why I believe this.

There are other things that brought me to this conclusion, but there is one specific verse in Isaiah that supports this conclusion.  Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

In that chapter, Isaiah is quoting God and throughout the chapter He is talking about how He is in charge of all things.  He is in charge of the good and the bad.  He is the God of all things and there is nothing that is not under his power to change.

Many translations do not translate the word “evil” in that verse as evil.  That quote is from the King James Version.  They used it because that is the main meaning of the Hebrew word “ra”.  Out of the 351 times the word is used in the NIV, 190 times it is translated as evil, 24 times as wicked, and 23 times as bad.  Those are its top meanings.

So how does this work?  How can God be love and have created evil?

Let us remember that God is separate from His creation.  If He did create evil, He has not done evil, nor does He like it.

So why create it?

That is the million dollar question.  Why would God create evil?  I believe it is a part of free will.  Love has to be a choice or it is not love.  You cannot force someone to love you.  So God gave us a choice.  We can love Him and love others or we can choose the alternative.  God made that alternative, evil, so that we can love.  Without it, we are merely drones doing God’s bidding.  God did not want robots, He wants love from us.

So how can God blame us for doing evil if He created it?

This is a question that throws the blame of us doing evil into God’s lap.  This is not the case.  One cannot equate giving someone the capacity to do evil with making someone do evil.  God does not want us to do evil and has also given us the capability to resist evil.  God merely allows evil to exist.  He can and will destroy it one day.  Until then we are to resist it and choose love over evil.

Some may still not want to accept this answer.  Believing that God created evil for any reason at all may make people turn against God and consider Him cruel and mean.  However, let us consider again the words of Isaiah.  “Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’  Does your work say, ‘He has no hands’?  Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What have you begotten?’ or to his mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?’” Isaiah 45:9-10

God is our creator and this is how He did things.  He knows more than I do, so I will accept His wisdom over mine.  Just because I may not fully understand how evil could be part of God’s loving plan does not mean that it is not or that it cannot be.  I cannot be expected to understand everything about God anymore than a dog can understand everything about humans.  We simply trust and obey.

a

That song in particular is vastly different than what I had heard from him before.  However, it certainly did not set the tone for the rest of the tracks.  The rest of the songs are more somber than it.

Do not think that I am saying it is bad in anyway, I am just warning you if you are buying the album to hear other songs like it.  It took a few more times of listening to it to get use to the vast contrast in what I thought it was going to be like and how it is.  Once I did that however, it has yet to leave my cd player.

The songs are emotional and real.  There are many Christian artists that sound like they force their lyrics, but these are smooth and run deep.  Even a love song to a woman creeps on there.  I am not sure if he is married or not, but the song certainly puts you in the feet of a man who despite having the potential to be in awe of his surroundings he is brought back to thinking about the woman he loves.

It is beautiful and diverse.  I would highly recommend this album to anyone who likes more of the somber tones and laid back listening.

a

There are actually three ways to answer this question.  All of them lead to the conclusion that Jesus is in fact from the line of David.  The first is that Jesus is from the line of David through adoption.  The second is that Jesus is from the line of David through Mary.  Last is that he is from the line of David however he wants to be.

That last one may sound strange and I will come back to it, but first I want to discuss why being adopted is just as valid as being born in the line of David.

To the Hebrews of the time, there was no such word as “adopted”.  Either someone was from your family or they were not.  There was no in between.

This is validated by Julius Africanus in the early 3rd century.  He states that “Names in the families of Israel were reckoned either according to nature or law: by nature in the case of genuine offspring; by law when another man fathered children in the name of a brother who died childless.”[1]

In Deuteronomy 25:5-10, this law is given.  It shows that even an adopted child would be considered continuing the lineage.  It is because of this that even the Pharisees did not argue with using Joseph’s lineage to prove he was from the line of David.

However, American skeptics seem to have a hard time getting past this.  It seems the only thing they will accept is that Jesus was genetically from the line of David or proves that he was not and therefore not the Messiah.  This kind of cultural blindness seems more dogmatic than proof however, God seems to have appeased them as well.

Africanus also pointed out that Jews were not allowed to marry outside of their tribe which Eusebius is quick to point out that is “virtual proof that Mary belonged to the same tribe as he.”  And since it also required that they be from the same town, it is highly likely that Mary is also from the line of David in a genetic sense.

Lastly, I will explain my odd comment about Jesus being from the line of David however he wants to be.

In Luke 3:8, Jesus says “do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.”  So if you might think you can convince someone that neither of the first two reasons are valid, it still does not hinder Jesus’ lineage.  If God can create children of Abraham from stones, He can make a child of David from a virgin Mary however He wants to.

In closer, Jesus is from the lineage of David by genetic link, adopted line, and because God made him that way.

1. Eusebius, The Person and Work of Christ 1:7

a

While short it is actually quite insightful and held concepts that I had never heard before and have used many times since.  Ravi is certainly on the level with Josh McDowell if this book is any indication.  He is the Christian Sam Harris should have been warned about.

The title is slightly misleading.  One would think this would be a direct response to The End of Faith, however it is actually focused more on Letter to a Christian Nation by the same author.  It was a clear and well thought out argument.  He sites the book and makes well placed rebuttals.

While reading it however, I was surprised that Sam Harris was able to make such an impact.  His statements are the same as many Antichrists before him.  In fact, many of his supposed proofs were combated by the early church fathers nearly two thousand years ago.  Why he thought he could regurgitate them and get away with it, I do not know.

I encourage this book to Sam Harris followers.  It is short and sweet and shows as Sam Harris has been shown, that these questions have rebuttals.  Many times an argument can seem strong until a the rebuttal is heard.  This rebuttal is enough to shatter the words of Sam Harris and is small enough to be read quickly for skeptics who get bored easily.

a

The simple answer first, God cannot steal.  For some that seems like an excuse or dogma, but I’ll explain it in a little bit.  First, I want to talk about other arguments against this theft.

Some well educated people have said that Jesus could have very well have made arrangements with the owner before hand.  I agree that is possibility.  I don’t think it is though.  Jesus has not even gotten into the town where it is, but he knows the donkey is tied up.  He seems to be using divine revelation, rather than premeditated planning.  However, it could easily be both.  I do not disagree with this theory.  The only problem is, there really is no evidence to support it.

Let us give in to the skeptics for a moment.  Let’s say that Jesus did not ask permission, that the owner did not give it, and the disciples just wandered off with someone’s donkey.  I am completely okay with that scenerio.  This is why, Jesus was God.  Not a god, but the God creator of all things.

How can God steal?  What does God not own?  He created everything and it is because of him the the donkey was even born.  So if someone wishes to comment and let me know how it is even possible for God to steal, I would love to hear some theories.  God cannot steal for the same reason He cannot lie.  What God speaks is reality.  He spoke existence into being.  God cannot lie because what He says is truth in action.

I have had this revelation a while now and I have come to realize everything truly is God’s.  He merely lets us borrow it or puts us in charge of it for a certain time.  This revelation has given me great peace.  I honestly do not fret about losing things.

I say this the same day I have learned that my Jeep has been totalled beyond repair.  I only got to take it off road once and it was built for it.  I honestly really liked my Jeep.  When the accident happened, I did not even flinch about my Jeep.  Why would I?  It was never really mine to begin with.  I will get a new one and move on.  We all know the old saying, “There is no use crying over spilt milk”.

Everything is God’s and he will deal with it as he sees fit.  I am sure He will probably put me in charge of another vehicle and I will be greatful for it as well.

To conclude, to think that Jesus, being who he claimed to be, could steal the donkey is absurd.  Jesus could not steal if he wanted to.

a

Simple answer, no.  This was not a mistranslation.

They are correct when they say that commas were not present in the original manuscripts, nor are the present in the oldest manuscripts.  This leads them to conclude that there is no way of knowing where the comma should be.  Since they can put it where ever they want, they can make it say what they want.

This is false.  It’s actually very easy to determine where this comma should be placed.  You don’t even have to know Greek.

Jesus says “I tell you the truth” 78 times throughout the Gospels.  Aside from the possible Luke 23 passage, Jesus never in any other instance says “I tell you the truth today” before his statement.  So to assume that this sole time, Jesus decided to change his very common phrase is quite far fetched and irrational.

So, to go a little further in depth, we can examine this from Greek speaking perspective.  The Greeks were very good at their language.  They did not need commas or punctuation to understand it.  In fact, that is why it was the norm to read out loud when reading, even if in private.  It was to understand the context.  Word placement is essential in these types of understanding.

If Jesus wanted to clarify that he was saying that he was saying today, the word placement would have been different.  He would have said “Today I tell you the truth” not “I tell you the truth today”.

This misconception however, can be easily taken on as true because it is hard for English speakers to understand a language without punctuation.  For Greeks, however, it was common knowledge.  You just don’t phrase things to be misunderstood.

I do not even give this a slim chance of being a mistranslation.  It’s very clear by his 77 previous statements that Jesus says “I tell you the truth” and then makes his statement.  One would need just cause or some kind of evidence to claim that this one time he added “today” to his opening clause.  For which there is none.

a

This will probably be one of my more controversial entries.  Simple answer first… ready for it?  Yes, there is at least one error in the Bible.  This would disqualify it from being inerrant.  However, do not be mistaken.  There are far far less than what many people claim.

This is the error that I know of.  Mark 1:2 (NIV) says this:

It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”—
“a voice of one calling in the desert,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’ “

For those that did not catch it.  “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” is Malachi 3:1, not Isaiah.  I have heard some try to protest and say “well this was common in Greek”.  That is simply false.  I have never seen any example of someone saying a person said this and then quoting something they did not say, even if it was only half.  I might accept that if it was the second half of the quote, but it is the first half.

Some have said that it was not included in the original writing but was added later by scribes.  That’s just a dangerous idea, because then you wind up like Bart Ehrman.  No, we cannot presume a scribal error unless we have evidence of it.  All the manuscripts we have (some dating back to 150 A.D. and earlier) include this quote.  There is just no evidence to support such a claim.

Many will claim that the Bible itself claims to be inerrant, but this is not true.  This idea comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17.  “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

I’m sure the first question is how can I believe the Bible has an error and also believe that Scripture is “God-breathed”?  Well, I’ll make another statement that might confuse you.  I also believe the Bible is perfect.

Paul does not define the qualities of “God-breathed”.  God breathed the breath of life into us, but we are not inerrant, so why do we assume that because Scripture is God-breathed, that it is inerrant?  I find no reason to make that association.

My second odd statement might bring this question: “How can the Bible be perfect but have an error?”.  Just because something has an error, does not mean it is not perfect.  Perfection is defined by use.  If I have an anvil that has a bolt hole (the holes used to put bolts in to bolt it down) in the wrong place in the base, does that change it from being a perfect example of an anvil?  Does it not still do its task the same as any anvil that had the bolt hole in the expect place?

How can we say a quotation error disqualifies the Bible from being perfect when what it is used for is “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”.  How does a minor misquotation change any of those attributes?

I have had this view for more than 10 years and in those 10 years I have studied many more of what people have considered “errors” and I have found them lacking.  The error I mentioned is the only error I have found that did not have a satisfactory answer to it.  How phenomenal that a compilation of books over a 1,500 year time span written over 2000 years ago only has one acknowledged error.  I’d say that ranks in the league of a miracle.

Second, who cares?  As Christians we do not worship the Bible.  The only true inerrant thing in existence is God.  I see no need to elevate the status of the Bible beyond what it is: the book of God meant to teach and instruct about Him.  I do not worship the Bible; it is not my God.  My God is a living entity that hears my prayers and has mercy on me.

For those who claim such small irrelevant errors, I say this.  You are wasting your time.  Christianity stands or falls on the Resurrection.  You can point out errors all day long but until you are able show that Jesus was not resurrected, you will never be able to dent the spreading of God’s word.  If you can’t prove a negative, tough luck.  There is plenty of evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, so if you have no evidence against it, then I guess you would lose in a court of law.

One more response might be, “if there is one error, how do we know there are not many more?”  Show me.  If you have no evidence for other errors then it is futile waste time wondering if there are.  Aristotle’s philosophy of history is still a very wise statement today.  The benefit of the doubt is to be given until evidence is given to the contrary.  If we doubt everything that we don’t have evidence for all of reality begins to blur.

Take with you this.  Scripture is still God-breathed.  There is no better tool for teaching about God and what is good and righteous.  It is still the most unique book on the planet.  This does not tarnish it in any way.  For those that think it does, they either reject God or they worship the Bible.  Neither is good.

a

The first thing I want to address is many will claim that a valid scientific theory requires that no evidence is able to be given to the contrary of it.  In which case, many will call scientific theories facts until proven otherwise.  This is a valid approach to science as without such a clause there would be no such things as facts.

We all know that there is evidence for the validity of the evolutionary theory.  There is evidence of the flying spaghetti monster as well, the problem is that there is an insurmountable amount of evidence against it.  Is there such evidence against evolution?

I may catch some grief from conservative creationists for saying that there is evidence for evolution, but that fact is that there is evidence for it.  However, the problem lies in the evidence against it.  Though I could do a series of thesis on the multiple evidences against it, I believe there are two major physical evidences that evolution has yet to overcome in order to regain its ability to be called an accepted scientific theory.

The first physical evidence I wish to present is the fact that a T-Rex bone was found.  Note that I did not say fossil.  A T-Rex bone was found with actual red blood cells, collagen, and vessels.  It was spotted by evolutionists and tested by evolutionists. [1]  Their surprise is interesting to note.  Even Richard Dawkins’ friend and associate PZ Myers had to put his article out on it twice. [2]

The reason this is getting so much attention is because it calls into question the dates of fossils on a large scale.  This is because collagen has shown to be unable to last longer than 1 million years.  And if it is in a 68 million year old fossil, then there is a severe miscalculation some where.  If the dates of this fossil is wrong, then the dates of all fossils could be called into question.  So how then did these evolutionists explain this?

PZ Myers was wise and did not put in his two cents but allowed the original researcher to state the case.  The problem was that Mary Schweitzer’s statement was as vague as it comes:

This T. rex also contains flexible and fibrillar bone matrices that retain elasticity. The unusual preservation of the originally organic matrix may be due in part to the dense mineralization of dinosaur bone, because a certain portion of the organic matrix within extant bone is intracrystalline and therefore extremely resistant to degradation. These factors, combined with as yet undetermined geochemical and environmental factors, presumably also contribute to the preservation of soft-tissue vessels. Because they have not been embedded or subjected to other chemical treatments, the cells and vessels are capable of being analyzed further for the persistence of molecular or other chemical information.[2]

In other words, she is saying “I don’t know.  Possibly some geochemical and environmental factors we don’t know about or have ever seen are involved.  I’ll get back to you.”  Well Ms. Schweitzer, it has been three years since your discovery, why do you still not have a better explanation?

It is by mathematical calculations and lab experimentation that we know collagen cannot physically last any longer than 1 million years. [3-7]  So in order to believe that this fossil is 68 million years old, one has to deny experimental science.  Schweitzer suggests that these experiments should be called into question because we “know” these fossils are 68 million years old.  However, the experiments are done in the most ideal condition and the 1 million year number is the max, not the norm.  Even at zero degrees Celsius, it is only able to last 2.7 million years and you really cannot get more idealistic than that.  Can these calculations truly be at a bare minimum 65 million years off the mark?

So now in order to be an evolutionists who rests assured that their dating methods are absolute, one has to deny actual experimental and calculable data.  This in turn denies evolution its right to be a scientific fact.

The next physical evidence against the dating method of the fossils is that as of a press release on July 28, 2008, there is now a limestone rock with the impression of an Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur’s foot discovered by Alvis Delk.  While this is not amazing in itself, what is amazing is that it is partially over the top of a human foot print.[8]

While there have been other supposed instances of such occurrences, no one could be completely convinced.  Some were even proven to be mistaken prints.  While those of the past may be questionable, this rock is undeniable.  The prints are not side by side, they are overlapping.  X-rays were performed and showed conclusively that there is higher density beneath the prints in the rock, which means they could not have been carved.  It is a limestone rock, which means it could not have been made by man made techniques.

What are the evolutionists response to this?  What I have come to expect.  Outlandish claims of forgeries and fakes and those meddling creationists.  Again, PZ Myers understands the implications of what this could mean were it true.  It calls into question all of their dating methods.  So he posted his blog full of conspiracy theories and biases against creationists with no actual acknowledgment of the facts or research presented.[9]

He actually posts a picture of another print of the same species and says “See, it doesn’t look anything like it”.  Rest assured, Mr. Myers, the print you showed was probably not the same Acrocanthosaurus that made the print in Texas. It probably looks different because it was a different dinosaur stepping on completely different mud.

No physical evidence of a forgery has been found.  It is a genuine find that the evolutionary theory cannot handle.

These two are sufficient to show that evolution is not a fact and it is not quantifiable even as a scientific theory because there is physical evidence and lab results that conclude facts that contradict it.

Update 8/13/08

The skepticism on Alvis Delk’s finding is all over the place.  However, Mineral Wells Index is still sticking by the story and ready to answer all the questions that come at them[10].  They even specifically respond to some of the individual bloggers.  Most of what they said is what I said early on.  They have done not research or any kind of studies, yet have blatantly denied its authenticity based on one photo, while all of the people doing the actual research seem highly convinced that either someone went to an obscene amount of trouble to make this or it is the real deal.  They are currently sending samples to a Canadian testing facitlity to have it dated.  I’ll try to keep up with it and see what turns out from that.  The main points are still valid.  If it is limestone and the x-rays show compression, then it really has to be old and the compression lines show the authenticity of the prints and could not have been carved.

1. Yeoman, B., Schweitzer’s dangerous discovery, Discover 27(4):37-41,77, April 2006
2. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/tyrannosaur_morsels.php, visited August 2, 2008
3. Schweitzer, M.H., Suo, Z., Avci, R., Asara, J.M., Allen, M.A., Arce, F.T. and Horner, J.R., Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein, Science 316(5822):277-280, 2007.
4. Wieland, C., ‘Oldest’ DNA-an exciting find! Creation 13(2):22-23, 1991
5. Greenblatt, C.L., et al., Diversity of microorganisms isolated from amber, Microbial Ecology 38:58-68, 1999.
6. Vreeland, R.H., Rosenzweig, W.D. and Powers, D.W., Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407(6806):897-900, 2000.
7. Nielsen-Marsh, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12-14, June 2002.
8. http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/homepage/local_story_210093256.html, visited August 2, 2008.
9. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/transparent_fakery.php, visited August 2, 2008.
10. http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/homepage/local_story_224120721.html, visited August 13, 2008.

a

It’s interesting to note that most of the material in the Gabriel’s Revelation tablet comes from Daniel , Zechariah and Haggai .  However, what has the anti-theists in an uproar is that this tablet may prophesy the death and resurrection, of a savior, after 3 days.  They then use this to make the claim that the concept of a messiah being dead for 3 days and being resurrected was not a new claim.

My response to this is: duh.

Biblical prophecy predicted the resurrection centuries beforehand.  Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 have the most detailed accounts.  In this, the anti-theists are correct, a resurrected messiah was not a new story.  It was prophesied about centuries before it happened.

Now let’s talk about the tablet itself for a moment.  The specific line in question says “In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you.”  I, personally, have not read the tablet.  I’m hoping to see if I can get a decent translation of the whole thing.  However, it is important to note that the word “live” is smudged out and is ,according to more than one scholar, unreadable.  However, if it does say “live,” it is followed by a line that says he is talking to the “prince of princes”.  One scholar says it is debatable on whether the “prince of princes” it mentions is even referencing Simon.  So this supposed prophecy of a resurrection, if it were authentic (though I have my doubts) could simply be a more specific prophecy about Jesus or the Messiah to come.

Aside from those uncertainties, let’s say this prophecy is about Simon, the Jewish rebel.  I still do not see how this affects Christianity.  Perhaps they hoped Simon was the messiah; however, no one ever claimed that Simon came back to life.  Even Josephus does not say that anyone made this claim; however, when he mentioned Jesus, he acknowledged that some thought he was the Messiah.  Two times Josephus affirms that people at least thought Jesus was the Messiah.  Never does he claim this about Simon.

So even if this random, unpopular Jewish Sect thought Simon might be resurrected they never claimed it after he died. If they did it certainly did not catch the attention of any significant amount of people.

Israel Knohl, an iconoclastic professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said this:

This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.

Mr. Knohl is wrong in this statement.  He wants to take the concept of Gabriel’s Revelation and apply it to the meaning of the theology of Christianity.  However, these two people, Simon and Jesus, were two very different people.  Simon did rebel in a violent way.  He tried to lead a rebellion against Rome with force.  Jesus did no such thing.  He turned down his followers when they offered to make him king, and he told the Jews to pay their taxes and obey the government.  That does not sound like the words of a military rebel to me.

Mr. Knohl’s theory of blood shed for the redemption of Israel and not for salvation from sins cannot be applied to Christianity.  Even the 12 disciples initially expected Jesus to reign as king of Israel freeing them from Roman rule, but Jesus specifically taught different.  It is only in Jewish tradition that the Messiah will come and conquer in God’s name.  It is not presented in the prophecies.

What this tablet does, is confirm what we already knew through the Gospels.  That people thought the Messiah would be a military leader, like Simon.  However, Jesus did something totally unexpected, yet written about long before.  He came to save the world not with violence, but with love and compassion.

If a three day resurrection of the Messiah was a popular idea at the time it is significant to note that in every single case, except for Jesus, the followers of what they thought was the messiah dispersed after that person died.  No claims of a resurrection followed their death.

It would have happened to Jesus’ followers too.  After Jesus crucifixion they were ready to go their own way.  To go home and hide, and forget all about Jesus.  They were distraught, and some lost all hope.  I imagine that it is what happened to the followers of Simon, they were given no sign or hope and their sect faded into time as the illusion that it always was.  But, not Jesus’ followers.  On that third day Jesus did rise again and renew their hope.  There was no more despair, they knew then that they were following the true Messiah.

These disciples would then go on, every single one of them, to be persecuted to the highest degree and all but one martyred in horrible ways because of their steadfast hope in the leader that really did come back from the grave.

Simon’s followers did not.  It is not recorded that anyone after his death claimed that he rose again. Nor were they persecuted for this belief because they simply saw that Simon did not come back.  He was dead, and so was his rebellion.

Who would die for something they claimed to have seen but did not?  If-as the anti-theists claim-the three day resurrection prophecy was common to most Jewish rebels leading their cause, why didn’t any of those other followers die for what they thought was the messiah after their death?  I mean any of them at all?  The pattern of every one of the false messiah’s was that they died and their followers no longer had faith in them.  In Jesus Christ alone we find that after Jesus’ death his followers did not abandon their faith, and they even claimed to have seen his resurrected body with their own eyes.  Not one single person left that saw the resurrection for themselves, and all of them were martyred except John who was exiled.  No other messiah figure can make that claim, so Gabriel’s Revelation doesn’t even dent any of the claims of Christianity, if anything it supports and verifies them.

Update 7/23/08

On reading more on this topic, Joel Rosenberg mentions that this finding does fly in the face of both secular and Jewish ideas that the three day resurrection was a later Greek/Gentile addition[2].  They once felt it was added later because no concept of it was ever found specifically in Jewish tradition.  Those theorists have to take a step back now and accept that a three day death and resurrection was what was expected from the coming Messiah.

On further examination of its contents, the three day resurrection was not all that is given in the tablet.  It also is clear that Jewish tradition of the time was that the bloodshed of the Messiah would bring redemption[3].  Though the tablet itself may speak of only the redemption of Israel, the concept of the blood of the Messiah offering redemption was also what was expect from the coming Christ.

Though I have read some arguments that the tablet is not authentic, I have not read any thing credible against its authenticity.  The amount of scrutiny put on it to determine it is a fake could extend to the majority of finds ever made.  Such as the idea that not being able to carbon date the ink or not know its specific place of origin.  Not knowing something in archaeology does not disprove it.  There is room for doubt in absolutely any archaeological find.  Historical Science works off of Plato’s philosophy that it is given the benefit of the doubt until it is disqualified or disqualifies itself.

Christians responding with “It’s a fake and you can’t prove other wise!” are ignoring the evidence for the authenticity.  The stone and writing is consistent with the time period and will be considered authentic until proven otherwise.  Room for doubt is not evidence it is a fake.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss , visited 7/6/08
2. Joel Rosenburg, MISSILES & THE MESSIAH MAKING NEWS, Thursday, July 10, 2008, http://joelrosenberg.blogspot.com/
3. http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=128&view=item&idx=1790

a