The "Dead Sea Scrolls" . . .what's your opinion on

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-04-18 03:31pm

What is your opinion of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which supposedly have portions of all the Old Testiment books (except Esther) as well other biblical and non-biblical writings?

What would you like to say about them?

*disclaimer* - did a search, but didn't find any original posts started about them.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-04-18 03:38pm

Don't let SEELE get ahold of them, else bad things happen.

On a more serious note, it is my understanding that certain parts are selectively accepted as canon and other parts dismissed. Yet another arbitrary selection of what constitutes a religion? I guess so.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-04-18 03:54pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Don't let SEELE get ahold of them, else bad things happen.

On a more serious note, it is my understanding that certain parts are selectively accepted as canon and other parts dismissed. Yet another arbitrary selection of what constitutes a religion? I guess so.

So, similar to what happened with that religious council in Constantine's day when they decided which books would be included and which ones would NOT be included. . . . . just a "religious buerocracy" at work trying to dictate what the masses were to believe.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2006-04-18 04:43pm

I think they're kosher. I have no problem with them, as long as they are considered as a whole and not selectively pick-n-chosen from. Unfortunately, as a fair few of them are severely deteriorated, there's really not much we can do in that regard, as there are missing sections and the like.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-04-18 05:20pm

Just another addition to the rather enormous pile of evidence that the Church fathers basically decided on their own what the "truth" of the Bible would be. There are shitloads of Gospels, all saying different things, and shitloads of different versions of each Gospel, all copied imperfectly, edited, altered, etc.

As one author pointed out, alteration of the texts was so widespread that the Bible even contains an angry condemnation of the people who are doing it.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2006-04-18 06:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:Just another addition to the rather enormous pile of evidence that the Church fathers basically decided on their own what the "truth" of the Bible would be. There are shitloads of Gospels, all saying different things, and shitloads of different versions of each Gospel, all copied imperfectly, edited, altered, etc.

The problem is that alot of these "Gospels" were written well into the late 100's starting with the Gospel of Judas as St. Irenaeus makes mention of it in his "Adversus Heresies". Plenty more like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of May Magdelene even came on the scene later than 200 AD. None of these the Gnostic Gospels were ever included in any of the ancient Canons starting with Justin Martyr's and St. Ignatius of Antioch's Canons.

The only additions that differ from our NT canon is the inclusion of such things like the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of the Martyrs, the First Epistle of Pope Clement, the Letter of Ignatius to the Laodiceans etc. These Books were deemed orthodox and traditional but were not included in the Canon becuase of the question of Authorship on the part of Hermas and also on the basis of what was appropriate for the Liturgy.After all, it was on what writings were appropriate for the Mass or Divine Liturgy, upon which the NT was compiled.

As one author pointed out, alteration of the texts was so widespread that the Bible even contains an angry condemnation of the people who are doing it.

It's only to the Book of Revelation only as the Bible does not say which book should be in the NT outside a vague reference to the Four Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.) and several of paul's letters and Peters.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-04-18 06:29pm

They are genuine documents. Most of them corroborate the stories of the Talmud. Some are slightly different. Some are quite different. Among the well known parts of the Bible known as "canon", they also have copies of the ones considered Apocryphal.

I find it strange that they left out some of the good ones that talked about the war of angels, the angelic watchers that got horny when they saw human females and fall from grace when they fucked them, the offspring they ended up with that became giants that rampaged over the earth eating animals and humans alike, etc. Lots of fascinating shit there. Especially in regards to these angels becoming demons. It's where you will see a great deal of the names that spawned demonic namesakes like Mephistopheles, Beelzebub, Asmodeus, etc.

The Jewish Bible includes all of these. Makes it a lot more interesting reading. Why they left those out and kept in the other boring pieces of shit like Leviticus and Numbers in the Christian ones is beyond me.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2006-04-18 06:30pm

Elheru Aran wrote:I think they're kosher. I have no problem with them, as long as they are considered as a whole and not selectively pick-n-chosen from. Unfortunately, as a fair few of them are severely deteriorated, there's really not much we can do in that regard, as there are missing sections and the like.

They also include books that are missing from Protestant OT's such as the Book of Jubilees, the Booksof the Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, the Books of Enoch, and addittions to Esther and Daniel.

God Fearing Atheist · Post by **God Fearing Atheist** » 2006-04-18 11:50pm

Magnetic wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Don't let SEELE get ahold of them, else bad things happen.

On a more serious note, it is my understanding that certain parts are selectively accepted as canon and other parts dismissed. Yet another arbitrary selection of what constitutes a religion? I guess so.
So, similar to what happened with that religious council in Constantine's day when they decided which books would be included and which ones would NOT be included. . . . . just a "religious buerocracy" at work trying to dictate what the masses were to believe.

There was only one ecumenical council under Constantine (the First Council of Nicaea), and the orthodox canon had nothing to do with it.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2006-04-19 12:01am

Didn't the Dead Sea Scrolls basically deal with old know documents from hebrewish story, almost nothing or nothing about christianity or Jesus and the most interesting new material are daily stuff and apokalyptic stuff of the local sect anyways ?

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2006-04-19 01:00am

God Fearing Atheist wrote:
There was only one ecumenical council under Constantine (the First Council of Nicaea), and the orthodox canon had nothing to do with it.

Indeed, The Councils of Carthage, Laodicea, and Ephesus and the Synod of Rome and the Infallible declaration of Canon by Pope Damasus I would pretty end the debate on what constitutes the canon until the Council of Trent in 1546.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2006-04-19 01:02am

lgot wrote:Didn't the Dead Sea Scrolls basically deal with old know documents from hebrewish story, almost nothing or nothing about christianity or Jesus and the most interesting new material are daily stuff and apokalyptic stuff of the local sect anyways ?

Eh? The dead Sea Scrolls were scrolls found in abandoned cave in Israel. They were the collected writings of a radical jewish group known as the Essenes. The dead sea scrolls had everything from diaries to daily routines to books of the bible, of which included the 7 deuterocanonical books not found in the Protestant Bibles.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-04-19 01:56am

As a historical ancient document, they rock.

However, as a base for a religious canon they totally fail due to the reasons stated before: controversies, different versions, etc.

And I agree, the DSS by themselves contain a lot more interesting myths than the Bible.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2006-04-19 11:13am

Stas Bush wrote:As a historical ancient document, they rock.

However, as a base for a religious canon they totally fail due to the reasons stated before: controversies, different versions, etc.

And I agree, the DSS by themselves contain a lot more interesting myths than the Bible.

Again you are equating thhe finished canon with the bible. May I remind people that the jews of Jesus's day did not have a closed Canon, they had writings which were included in the written and oral tradition. The Pharisees used a canon that included not only the Torah but also other writings, the saducees had a canon that only consisted of the Pentatuch. The Greek Jews used the Seputangint. It wasn't until 90 AD with the rise of Christianity did the Jews close thier canon.