Dead Sea Scrolls

[tango]

Dead Sea Scrolls stir storm at ROM

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/616059

http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/dead-...lls-crisis.html

Again, to summarize the great theological dilemma faced by the Church following the discovery of the Scrolls: first, Jesus Christ (if historical) was not unique, and secondly, Christianity has little to do with the message of Christ or the sect to which he belonged. For nearly two thousand years, what the Church has propagated as 'history' has been an elaborately constructed mythology intended to support its doctrine and the theocratic empire built upon it. The source for much of this later mythology was the Jewish tradition preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls, going back at least a century before the birth of Christ. It is therefore hardly surprising that Catholic scholars who controlled access to the Scrolls should have done everything possible to suppress their evidence and mislead the public. What the Scrolls have to say truly leaves their institution with shattered foundations.

This is all news to me.

And quite shocking.

[Michael Hardner]

Dead Sea Scrolls stir storm at ROM

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/616059

http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/dead-...lls-crisis.html

Again, to summarize the great theological dilemma faced by the Church following the discovery of the Scrolls: first, Jesus Christ (if historical) was not unique, and secondly, Christianity has little to do with the message of Christ or the sect to which he belonged. For nearly two thousand years, what the Church has propagated as 'history' has been an elaborately constructed mythology intended to support its doctrine and the theocratic empire built upon it. The source for much of this later mythology was the Jewish tradition preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls, going back at least a century before the birth of Christ. It is therefore hardly surprising that Catholic scholars who controlled access to the Scrolls should have done everything possible to suppress their evidence and mislead the public. What the Scrolls have to say truly leaves their institution with shattered foundations.

This is all news to me.

And quite shocking.

The first link is about the Palestinian Authority asking the ROM to cancel the show.

The second link is a long article ostensibly about the scrolls and the Catholic church, but it is not academic, and is biased. At its heart, the article seems to say that the scrolls are Christian in origin and that this is a problem for the church. This is extremely misleading, as most scholars do not link the scrolls with Christianity.

The article is, in effect, anti-Catholic propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

[WIP]

The first link is about the Palestinian Authority asking the ROM to cancel the show.

The second link is a long article ostensibly about the scrolls and the Catholic church, but it is not academic, and is biased. At its heart, the article seems to say that the scrolls are Christian in origin and that this is a problem for the church. This is extremely misleading, as most scholars do not link the scrolls with Christianity.

The article is, in effect, anti-Catholic propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

Yeah, I have trouble taking someone who believes that Nostradamus had the gift of prophecy, seriously, and issues like the corruption of the Vatican - especially questions that still remain about financial scandals of the Vatican Bank, need to be dealt with, but how do they fit into a narrative about the origins of Christianity? He should have devoted more attention to his core subject, instead of commenting on every issue related to church history.

Anyway, he does cover some of the problems that the Dead Sea Scrolls present for the modern understanding of Christianity. The apocryphal books in the collection tell about a messiah who bears an uncanny resemblance to the later narratives about Jesus, and sheds some light on how "messiah" went from being understood as a future king who would liberate God's people to become God incarnate and die for the sins of mankind. And this has raised questions for years about why many of the fragmented documents were so slow to be released to the public. The likely reason is because the slow drip drip of gradual release of information does not draw as much attention to the subject.

[tango]

The first link is about the Palestinian Authority asking the ROM to cancel the show.

The second link is a long article ostensibly about the scrolls and the Catholic church, but it is not academic, and is biased. At its heart, the article seems to say that the scrolls are Christian in origin and that this is a problem for the church. This is extremely misleading, as most scholars do not link the scrolls with Christianity.

The article is, in effect, anti-Catholic propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

I see the bias, and I'm not promoting that view. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

It's the first time I've delved into this topic at all, and it began from a curiosity about the early Christians before Constantine.

It's just history to me.

[tango]

Yeah, I have trouble taking someone who believes that Nostradamus had the gift of prophecy, seriously, and issues like the corruption of the Vatican - especially questions that still remain about financial scandals of the Vatican Bank, need to be dealt with, but how do they fit into a narrative about the origins of Christianity? He should have devoted more attention to his core subject, instead of commenting on every issue related to church history.

Anyway, he does cover some of the problems that the Dead Sea Scrolls present for the modern understanding of Christianity. The apocryphal books in the collection tell about a messiah who bears an uncanny resemblance to the later narratives about Jesus, and sheds some light on how "messiah" went from being understood as a future king who would liberate God's people to become God incarnate and die for the sins of mankind. And this has raised questions for years about why many of the fragmented documents were so slow to be released to the public. The likely reason is because the slow drip drip of gradual release of information does not draw as much attention to the subject.

I definitely need to use more sources. The wiki page alludes to the "secrecy" too.

As a believer in the Bible as allegory, the inconsistencies of history are not surprising to me. What is shocking to me, though, is - my own ignorance - that this whole dilemma/discussion exists and I wasn't aware.

In some respects, it matters not how the various interpretations of God - religions of the world - came to be. If God is universal, they are merely cultural differences.

Edited April 11, 2009 by tango

[Michael Hardner]

I definitely need to use more sources. The wiki page alludes to the "secrecy" too.

As a believer in the Bible as allegory, the inconsistencies of history are not surprising to me. What is shocking to me, though, is - my own ignorance - that this whole dilemma/discussion exists and I wasn't aware.

In some respects, it matters not how the various interpretations of God - religions of the world - came to be. If God is universal, they are merely cultural differences.

It's definitely an interesting area. I read much about this topic after reading "Holy Blood Holy Grail" which spawned "The DaVinci Code". I even purchased a few heretic gospels - including The Gospel of the Infancy.

It's all speculation, as to what happened then though.

[eyeball]

In some respects, it matters not how the various interpretations of God - religions of the world - came to be. If God is universal, they are merely cultural differences.

Differences in cultures are certainly not mere in the here and now. I'm an atheist and view Jesus as being amongst the greatest humanists that ever lived on our planet. I regrd his presecription "do unto others as you'd have then do unto you" as being the E=mc2 of the physics of getting along. Both formulas describe universal realities that are true throughout time and space and thy're not any where near as transcendant as they are foundational.

I wonder if Jesus would be laughing his ass off at the spectacle of all the arguing that's still going on over his message or weeping inconsolably over the fighting that's gone on in its name.

[Michael Hardner]

Differences in cultures are certainly not mere in the here and now. I'm an atheist and view Jesus as being amongst the greatest humanists that ever lived on our planet. I regrd his presecription "do unto others as you'd have then do unto you" as being the E=mc2 of the physics of getting along. Both formulas describe universal realities that are true throughout time and space and thy're not any where near as transcendant as they are foundational.

I wonder if Jesus would be laughing his ass off at the spectacle of all the arguing that's still going on over his message or weeping inconsolably over the fighting that's gone on in its name.

Well, said, eyeball - I concur !

The best thing that can be said about Christianity is that the golden rule provided a priceless foundational principle for individuals and communities to follow.

[eyeball]

Well, said, eyeball - I concur !

The best thing that can be said about Christianity is that the golden rule provided a priceless foundational principle for individuals and communities to follow.

At risk of appearing combative (I do know what you meant), Christianity to me has little if anything to do with Jesus' prescription. This difference between Christianity and Jesus, in an allegorical manner of speaking is like the difference between a government and an individual or a culture and a community.

Its not hard at all for me to imagine Captain Jesus figuring out the world's problems whilst pondering them at sea behind his tiller. There's something about being a small speck on a vast ocean that steers one's thinking towards small humble solutions to big imposing problems. I often wonder if he regretted not just keeping his thoughts to himself when he was up there on his cross. If he could see the world today I bet he'd pack it all in for the chance to get back out to sea. I can definitely relate to that.

Jesus was a fisherman, his prescription comes naturally to anyone who has to get along within the confined space of a boat, just as it does to people living in a community. Its not exactly rocket science. Governments and cultures are an entirely different matter though. Trying to get them to see the light is just about impossible and can result in getting you crucified. I doubt if its worth the effort. I'll have to go away and think about that one for awhile.

Edited April 11, 2009 by eyeball

[WIP]

Differences in cultures are certainly not mere in the here and now. I'm an atheist and view Jesus as being amongst the greatest humanists that ever lived on our planet.

I don't! Because the hippy Jesus who acts like the Dalai Lama is only one picture drawn of this man in the books of the New Testament. At the other extreme, there are verses in the Synoptic Gospels that sound like the ravings of a crazed cult leader, and actually provide ammo for the David Koresh-type cult leaders:

MATTHEW

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Jesus was a hardliner regarding keeping the Law in the Gospel of Mark, where he condemns the Pharisees for not keeping the commandment in Exodus 21:15 to stone to death disobedient children:

MARK

7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

More indications that he acted like a typical cult leader who thought the world was coming to an end:

LUKE

14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

18:29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,

18:30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

I regrd his presecription "do unto others as you'd have then do unto you" as being the E=mc2 of the physics of getting along. Both formulas describe universal realities that are true throughout time and space and thy're not any where near as transcendant as they are foundational.

That's because the principle expressed in the Golden Rule goes back long before Jesus. Confucius made a similar statement:"Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." Which I would say is a superior formulation of this principle, since it gets to the point of don't do harm to others that you would not want yourself. The Golden Rule version could see people doing what they consider charitable acts for others, that other people don't want.

The basic principle itself is not a scientific principle like E = MCsq.. It's just a basic fact of human psychology promoting altruistic behaviour: if we treat others the way we would like to treated, we will be happier and get along better than if we are ruthless or callous and try to use others for our own benefit.

[WIP]

I definitely need to use more sources. The wiki page alludes to the "secrecy" too.

As a believer in the Bible as allegory, the inconsistencies of history are not surprising to me. What is shocking to me, though, is - my own ignorance - that this whole dilemma/discussion exists and I wasn't aware.

In some respects, it matters not how the various interpretations of God - religions of the world - came to be. If God is universal, they are merely cultural differences.

I first read about the Dead Sea Scrolls about 25 or 30 years ago. Back then, the accepted theory was that the books were all part of the collection of an acetic Jewish sect called the Essenes. Over the years, as more writings have been released to the public, the consensus seems to be shifting and it's now believed that Qumran was not the Essenian headquarters, and the scrolls were collected from a range of different Jewish and early Christian groups to protect them from being destroyed by the advancing Roman legions.

There are many common features and themes in the world's religions. In the case of Christianity, many religious historians view the co-opting of Egyptian, Mithraism, and other religions of the Roman Empire as a replacement strategy, so that the worshipers of Isis or Dionysus would more easily adopt a new religion if it contained aspects of their existing religion. They even went so far as to alter statues of the Egyptian mother goddess "Isis" holding her infant saviour son Horus, changed into the Virgin Mary with infant Jesus. Attempting to replace the old religions with a radically different religion would have been much more difficult. This process of co-option and adaptation has occurred in Latin America and Africa in recent times, as local gods were converted into saints and in places like Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, festivals for the creator god "Oxala" and Iemanjá, the Goddess of the Water, were allowed by the Church to continue as major annual events over the years.

[eyeball]

That's because the principle expressed in the Golden Rule goes back long before Jesus. Confucius made a similar statement:"Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." Which I would say is a superior formulation of this principle, since it gets to the point of don't do harm to others that you would not want yourself. The Golden Rule version could see people doing what they consider charitable acts for others, that other people don't want.

I've always believed that what differentiated Jesus from all the rest is that he seems to have been the first with the temerity to suggest the state doesn't do any harm, that it act more humanely, which of course is likely what got him killed.

In light of this it would appear the golden rule version is yet another example of a good idea that's been co-opted by the state. Your interpretation of the golden rule ..."people doing what they consider charitable acts for others, that other people don't want" describes the context that many think the governments actions should be taken in.

The basic principle itself is not a scientific principle like E = MCsq.. It's just a basic fact of human psychology promoting altruistic behaviour: if we treat others the way we would like to treated, we will be happier and get along better than if we are ruthless or callous and try to use others for our own benefit.

I don't know if that's just a fact that's restricted to human psychology, all sorts of animals exhibit altruism even plants may do it. There is at least a whiff of a natural universal law in the air here.

[WIP]

I've always believed that what differentiated Jesus from all the rest is that he seems to have been the first with the temerity to suggest the state doesn't do any harm, that it act more humanely, which of course is likely what got him killed.

Jesus didn't say a whole lot about the state, aside from "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." Those overlooked verses I quoted earlier show that at least part of the picture of Jesus was as a endtime cult leader who wouldn't have given a lot of consideration to issues of governing.

I don't know if that's just a fact that's restricted to human psychology, all sorts of animals exhibit altruism even plants may do it. There is at least a whiff of a natural universal law in the air here.

I wouldn't describe it as a universal law, but rather the simple fact that cooperation often works better than competition. Just about every social animal exhibits some altruistic behaviour. It's necessary for any group to maintain social cohesion.

[Borg]

Nice piece of history - I would like to see them

Borg