It is highly probable this stone tablet text is yet another sensationalist scam

I doubt it, mostly because the actual text appears to be pretty vague.

BTW, TXatheist, I took a look at your list of your risen savior myths:

1) It already starts out dicey in referring flat-out to Semele as a virgin, when in many forms of the myth, she was a straight-up paramour of Zeus. There is a form of the myth of Dionysus’ birth where he is born from Zeus raping Persephone and dismembered by the Titans, and then his heart is ground up into a potion that impregnates Semele with Dionysus, so in that case, I think she’s a virgin. Doesn’t really resemble Christian myths when viewed close up though.

2) Isis, despite assertions to the contrary, is clearly disqualified from being a virgin by having sex with Osiris.

3) The account of Mithras mixes up the Mithra of the Persian religion with the Mithras of the Roman mystery religion, which appears to have borrowed little more than the name from Persia. The Mithras that was born from Anahita was not born on December 25, and the Mithras that was born on the 25th was born from a rock. The stuff about Mithras having 12 disciples is pure crap.

In short, it’s an example of the strained or bogus pagan parallels that I mentioned in the previous post.

Mike — it’s not that they don’t consider this “authentic” — it’s more a matter of reflecting a “distinctive” point of view for the words recorded.

Umm, I’m afraid I’m going to have to differ with you there Steve. Authenticity seems to be very much the issue for the Seminar. For instance, the title of Robert Funk’s book based on the work of the Seminar is titled “The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus”. (Not to mention the follow-up book, “The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus”.)And if you go to the wikipedia entry for the Jesus Seminar there’s a whole section about their criterion for “authenticity”, by which it’s pretty clearly meant whether or not Jesus actually said it. For instance, the article states:

The Seminar concluded that of the various statements in the “five gospels” attributed to Jesus, only about 18% of them were likely uttered by Jesus himself (red or pink).

But at any rate, even if your interpretation of their work is correct, that is, even if this is true:

For example, the “golden rule” has been said by others besides Jesus (e.g. Hillel). Even if Jesus said the “golden rule,” since it isn’t unique to him, it doesn’t provide any information on Jesus.

That still doesn’t make any sense. Just because someone else said it, it doesn’t tell us anything about Jesus? Of course it does. At the very least it tells us that Jesus agreed with Hillel.

What you’re suggesting is like saying that since Barack Obama’s positions usually agree with a pre-existing Democratic Party platform, that therefore we don’t know anything about Obama’s own positions. But that’s crazy. Similarity to what other people also say is no indication that ones own beliefs aren’t authentic.

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html

I know the Jesus Seminar folks have created this wacko idea that if something in the gospels is at all similar to the Judaism that preceded it or the early Christianity that followed it, it therefore can’t be counted as authentic

Mike — it’s not that they don’t consider this “authentic” — it’s more a matter of reflecting a “distinctive” point of view for the words recorded.

For example, the “golden rule” has been said by others besides Jesus (e.g. Hillel). Even if Jesus said the “golden rule,” since it isn’t unique to him, it doesn’t provide any information on Jesus.

However, the sayings that are “red letter” in the Jesus Seminar translation do portray a distinctive voice and provide themes and ideas not reflected in the surrounding culture.

(1) that no specific information is available on its provenance and

(2) that no details are provided on carbon dating of the ink.

As such, this “news” falls right in line with the faked Lost-Tomb-of-Jesus “documentary” designed to make a profit off of people’s fascination with the “real” Jesus, and with the larger scandal of the biased and misleading way (oriented towards a Christian audience) the Dead Sea scrolls are being presented in museum exhibits around the world. See, e.g.,

http://spinozaslens.com/libet/articles/dworkin_ethicsofexhibition.htm

and

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/frontpew/archives/2008/06/dead_sea_scroll.shtml.

Faith is impervious to reason, unaffected by evidence, invulnerable to logic. Most believers rely heavily on faith to preserve their beliefs. Arguing with them using reason, evidence and logic is like shooting spit balls at a battleship. Some believers will venture out and exchange arguments in the reason/evidence/logic forum, but when their arguments are shot full of holes they run back inside their impenetrable fortress of faith and say, “Well regardless of everything you say and everything you show me, this is what I believe and you can’t shake me, so there, nya nya nya.” It’s a complete waste of time.

The difference between religion and the book club is that the latter knows that the book they’re discussing is fiction.