'Gabriel’s Revelation,' Part II
John sends in a link that argues 'Gabriel's Revelation' could just as easily confirm Christianity's belief in a resurrected Jesus. ... The whole thing is silly, when you think about it. A secular newspaper, the NYT, touting biblical-era tablet writings of quacks to knock down biblical-era claims of quacks. At some point doesn't seriously arguing an issue of spirituality become a form of validating an issue of spirituality? Very strange. And ironic. ...

Update -- Now the Times of London is engaging in the pack-journalism hype that Jesus' resurrection could be 'called into question' because of the tablet. But not even the owner of the tablet is buying into 'shake the view' silliness:

The whole thing is fascinating. Some people say it may take away from the uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrected but I believe it gives credibility to the story that the followers were expecting a messiah.

That's the point: The tablet's importance can be interpreted in many different ways -- even if everyone agreed on what it said. But they can't agree on what it says because huge portions of the text are missing. Yet the media keeps hyping the tweak-the-nose-of-Christians angle. Think they'd do it to other religions? Not a chance. ...  ¶ 10:16 AM