Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Dead Sea Scroll

religion

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 jeneferlopez7

jeneferlopez7

    Lurker

  • Spawn
  • 2 posts

Posted 06 January 2013 - 05:32 AM

Well guys i am new on this forum. I am a business woman. i want to start here a discussion on Dead Sea Scroll Because we are a big seller of Dead sea scroll and want to know some ideas of people what they are think.
I will talk more after getting some reply.

Our Website Where you  can get more Detail about Dead Sea Scroll
http://www.biblicalreproductions.com/



#2 MysticalCookie

MysticalCookie

    Disciple

  • Darkling
  • 67 posts

Posted 02 July 2013 - 11:50 PM

I've seen them and though a wonderful presentation of old world. I found myself realizing that the bible was political back then because it's different parts of multiple bibles



#3 terryfingt

terryfingt

    Emissary

  • Darkling
  • Pip
  • 213 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 01:39 PM

This person was a bot, you know.

 

I'm not sure how you concluded that the bible was political when it was contemporary from the dead sea scrolls, but you did arrive at the correct conclusion.  As well, I'm not sure how you got that it was part of multiple bibles from the scrolls as they portray only one view of things, but again you are correct; there were multiple bibles before the canonization by Alexander the Great.

 

What will really twist your nipples is when you discover that literally every single concept in the bible except for the book of Ruth was plagiarized from other sources, except for several books that are no longer in the bible.  It's curious that they tossed out so much original works in favor of stolen stories and call it the truth.



#4 Rhuen

Rhuen

    Celestial Power

  • Twilight
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,272 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:56 PM

The fact it was a bot is why so few people have posted here. No point in having a discussion with something that is just leaving links on various sites.

 

wasn't the canonization done by Charlamagne the Great?

 

and yes, pretty much the whole thing took elements from various sources, thus is the story behind pretty much every written religion. Even Greek Mythology can be traced back to numerous sources from different regions being grouped together into an "accepted" version. Hell, Posieden predates Zeus in Pre-Hellinistic Greece as the chief diety. Many creation and divine war stories are really stories of different groups with different religious beliefs fighting and the winner telling the story.

 

Even Abrahamic,

on side we had the worshippers of Baal Peor, and on the other the worshippers of Yahweh.

 

as the Yahweh worshippers spread and became the larger more influential group their story became dominant and they pretty much wiped out the "heathens" and destroyed this other tribe's texts. What little survives paints the story of a "Yah" God that was evil and the enemy of Baal.

 

The best surviving direct example of this common feud is the Devas vs Asuras, in which the two sides moved away from each other. We today see one side that viewed the Devas as good and the Asuras as evil, and the other side vice versa.

 

Norse Mythology, the Aesir gods surplanted the Vanir gods is too taken as one culture defeating another and changing the roles of their gods.

 

hell, most demons in demonology are actually various European pagan gods the church goers who wrote those books decided to paint as evil. (in ultimate comedy at one point someone tried to declare Zeus a personification of the devil).



#5 terryfingt

terryfingt

    Emissary

  • Darkling
  • Pip
  • 213 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:03 PM

We were both wrong, actually.  It was Constantine that canonized the bible.



#6 Rhuen

Rhuen

    Celestial Power

  • Twilight
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,272 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 11:30 AM

We were both wrong, actually.  It was Constantine that canonized the bible.

 

***

 

oh right,



#7 Arawan

Arawan

    Saint

  • Twilight
  • PipPip
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:45 AM

We were both wrong, actually.  It was Constantine that canonized the bible.

 

 

***

 

oh right,

 

Coming in late to the conversation here but anyway. It is a misconception that Constantine canonized or the Council of Nicaea that he called did so either. What Constantine did do is commission several bibles and the hastened the ended of the discussion. However, by that point all the major books of the New Testament had already been widely promulgated and there was very little to discuss. In fact, the Catholic Church as a whole used almost identical bibles for over 1200 years before an actually canonized list came out of the Council of Trent. And that council only issued one because of the new found Protestant movement. That debate boiling down to three books and a handful of passages. 



#8 terryfingt

terryfingt

    Emissary

  • Darkling
  • Pip
  • 213 posts

Posted 05 August 2013 - 01:48 PM

If you'll examine the dates on what you just said you'll see something interesting, Arawan.

 

The Canon of Trent was issued by the Council of Trent as you said.  That happened between 1545 and 1563.

 

The First Council of Nicaea was held in 325.

 

You said that the Catholic Churches have been using almost identical bibles for over 1200 years.

 

1545 - 1200 = 345.  Over 1200 years puts the origin of the bible that the Catholic Church at the same time the First Council of Nicaea was held.  In other words, they took their bible from the FCoN, which happens to be the same bible that Constantine had made.



#9 Arawan

Arawan

    Saint

  • Twilight
  • PipPip
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:30 PM

If you'll examine the dates on what you just said you'll see something interesting, Arawan.

 

The Canon of Trent was issued by the Council of Trent as you said.  That happened between 1545 and 1563.

 

The First Council of Nicaea was held in 325.

 

You said that the Catholic Churches have been using almost identical bibles for over 1200 years.

 

1545 - 1200 = 345.  Over 1200 years puts the origin of the bible that the Catholic Church at the same time the First Council of Nicaea was held.  In other words, they took their bible from the FCoN, which happens to be the same bible that Constantine had made.

 

Well, the clarification went wrong. Constantine did not chose the books of the Bible. What he did do was print a large copy of bibles that were already in wide use at the time. Meaning the books were already well established as sacred texts in a good time before the Council and Constantine's printing of bibles.   



#10 terryfingt

terryfingt

    Emissary

  • Darkling
  • Pip
  • 213 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:59 PM

And many were not.  Many are to this day contested, but those who would argue at this point are in the minority and are mostly ignored by others.

 

Constantine and his little council de facto established the canon.



#11 Arawan

Arawan

    Saint

  • Twilight
  • PipPip
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 10 August 2013 - 09:44 PM

And many were not.  Many are to this day contested, but those who would argue at this point are in the minority and are mostly ignored by others.

 

Constantine and his little council de facto established the canon.

 

There is no way of telling that for two reasons: 1. the Council never discussed it nor did it promulgate a prospective gift and 2. no one knows what configuration of the Bible Constantine printed. It could have been the whole thing, just the New Testament or just the Gospels. That's important because there has been a very little debate over books of the New Testament and the Gospels hadn't been disputed since Origen's time which was close to a hundred years before the Council. Again, Constantine's printing may have had a slight impact on a push towards a canon but there wasn't much to discuss at that point. The only reason the Council of Trent weighed in on the subject was because of the rise of Protestantism. Even then, they used several lesser councils over 12 centuries to support the current Bible as canon because they arrived there independently. 



#12 Caulfield

Caulfield

    TROLLOLOL

  • Twilight
  • PipPip
  • 2,148 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 06:57 AM

Good grief, it's not that hard to do a bit of your own research, opposed to just believing the rubbish you watch on MSNBC.

http://en.wikipedia....uncil_of_Nicaea
 

 

Misconceptions[edit source | editbeta] Biblical canon[edit source | editbeta]

A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.[68] The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[69]

In 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople, but little else is known (in fact, it is not even certain whether his request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and New Testaments, only the New Testament, or merely the Gospels), and it is doubtful that this request provided motivation for canon lists as is sometimes speculated. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith[70][71] he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".

 



There was no discussion of the scriptures at the First Council of Nicea. Constantine didn't commission any bibles (of which the content is unknown) until six years after the First Council of Nicea.

It's hardly controversial knowledge.



#13 terryfingt

terryfingt

    Emissary

  • Darkling
  • Pip
  • 213 posts

Posted 13 August 2013 - 08:05 PM

Yeah, ho's be all like, oh no he di'int!  And then they be all, oh yeah he did!  And then Weezy goed up and be all in the grill about it when, really, chill yo?



#14 Fluid of life

Fluid of life

    Resident Fool

  • Twilight
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,440 posts

Posted 23 August 2013 - 08:57 PM

I always found it funny that there was a conflict between Peter and Paul about the course the new church should take and the church followed Paul. Christ said of Peter that he was the rck upon which the church would be built. Sounds like they got off on the wrong foot real early.



#15 Caulfield

Caulfield

    TROLLOLOL

  • Twilight
  • PipPip
  • 2,148 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 01:59 AM

Peter was a two-bit player in the early church. Incidentally, in his letters he affirms everything that Paul taught so not really a "conflict" there. 

The conflict that did occur was a singular instance where Peter was in the wrong and admitted as much.



#16 Arawan

Arawan

    Saint

  • Twilight
  • PipPip
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 08:46 PM

I always found it funny that there was a conflict between Peter and Paul about the course the new church should take and the church followed Paul. Christ said of Peter that he was the rck upon which the church would be built. Sounds like they got off on the wrong foot real early.

 

 

Peter was a two-bit player in the early church. Incidentally, in his letters he affirms everything that Paul taught so not really a "conflict" there. 

The conflict that did occur was a singular instance where Peter was in the wrong and admitted as much.

 

Ah, the much touted Incident at Antioch. Caulfield is right, Paul rebuked Peter and Peter had to admit he was wrong. This closely relates with the Circumcision Controversy that happened in the beginning of the Church's growth. Mainly, there was dispute of whether or not Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism (of which, Christianity is still a part) before becoming Christians and continue following the old laws in addition to the teachings of Christ. Paul had it right from the beginning that neither was required.  







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: religion