Industrial-Sized Deals TextBTS15 Shop Women's Handbags Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon $5 Albums Storm Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Find the Best Purina Pro Plan for Your Pet Shop Popular Services Home Theater Setup Plumbing Services Assembly Services Shop all TransparentGGWin TransparentGGWin TransparentGGWin  Amazon Echo Fire HD 6 Kindle Voyage The Walking Dead\ Gear Up for Football Deal of the Day
Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Will the Dead Sea scrolls have a greater impact on Christianity or Judaism, and what will that impact be?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 310 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 22, 2012 11:50:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 23, 2012 12:25:55 AM PDT
Allan says:
I took my first impression from Dead Sea Scrolls Deception and as a result followed this up with Eisenman and Thiering.

Not satisfied, I turned to Vermes and Golb and others then, because I found little interest in the scrolls being taken in these forums by either Jews or Christians, turned to Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library).

I now believe the scrolls will indeed have a major impact on both religions, with little to choose between which will be most affected.

Your thoughts?

Posted on Sep 23, 2012 1:21:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 23, 2012 6:53:52 AM PDT
I doubt that the scrolls will have much effect on either. Judaism adheres to the Torah, and Judaic conception of its words will not be affected; Christianity is based on the biblical texts as edited and revised in the fourth century, so they will have negligible effects on it as well. Consider the effects that the scrolls have had on religion so far -- if you can find any.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2012 3:50:52 AM PDT
yba says:
Post Time! Let us see how many make it into into the gates.
I am enjoying the lecture series by Schiffman on the DSS, Beyond the Mystique. :)

Posted on Sep 23, 2012 11:51:30 AM PDT
Allan says: "I took my first impression from Dead Sea Scrolls Deception and as a result followed this up with Eisenman and Thiering. Not satisfied, I turned to Vermes and Golb and others. ... I now believe the scrolls will indeed have a major impact on both religions (Jewish and Christian)."

Robert A. Saunders states in a subsequent post: "I doubt that the scrolls will have much effect on either. ... Consider the effects that the scrolls have had on religion so far -- if you can find any."

With those expressed sentiments, I add my initial comments. I have also read many of the books and articles on the subject. My current view is that many (if not most) of the early opinions (prior to the 1990's) reflect a rush to judgment by Roland de Vaux and his team who made the initial assessments in the mid-1950's. (It's worth noting that none of these men are Jewish academics.) Even today, scholarship still appears to be largely stuck on what has become known as The Essene Hypothesis, that the Jewish sect known as "Essenes" placed the scrolls in the caves overlooking the Dead Sea, and that the recluse Essenes lived in the settlement known as Qumran located at the northwest end of the Dead Sea.

However, within the last twenty years, these assumptions have been brought into question by fresh scholarship. Unfortunately, most of the contemporary concerns and alternatives for scroll authorship and interpretations have appeared in little known academic articles rather than popular books. Therefore, entrenched academic "fact" and errors concerning the scrolls escape public notice (much like most biblical enlightenment).

A shortcoming of scroll perceptions is there's little that has emerged from decades of studying the scrolls that leaps out and proclaims "Astounding, this throws a whole new light on Christian history and theology!" For most persons apart from dedicated academicians, the scrolls are essentially boring.

I submit that a fruitful discussion of the scrolls needs to consider, at minimum, the following topics.

1) Who were the authors of the scrolls? (Alternatives to the Essene Hypothesis) Were they really Essenes, some other Jewish sect, or a mixture? (Thus far, a history of the Essene movement has not been perceived in the documents.)

2) What was the purpose for amassing and protecting the scroll library? Did they actually come from Qumran, or from some other location such as Jerusalem?

3) Are the contents of the various scrolls consistent with what is known about the interests and practices of the Essene sect?

4) Is there anything in any of the scrolls that drastically affects Christian tenets?

Getting persuasive, as opposed to speculative, answers to these questions has proved difficult.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2012 1:15:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 23, 2012 1:23:32 PM PDT
JR Rawlins says:
I disagree that the scrolls will have much impact on either religion theologically; Christianity because they believe the Messiah has come, and Judaism because they still await his arrival.

Since the Dead Sea Sect were essentially divorced from society and awaiting the 'End of Days' that would bring Messiah, their theology, in opposition to the larger and more 'visible' sects of Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots and Herodians, seems to have had little impact on the beliefs of the Judean society at large. This Sect, rather than fight the corruption from within, left the Temple service and essentially formed a cult. In doing so, little of their theological beliefs were made available for national consumption.

In Christianity, we see the same thing with the Amish and Mennonites. Little is known of their theology amongst the other Christian denominations.

The greater implications the Dead Sea Scrolls have for Christianity is in regard to the corruption of the Priesthood of the Temple, and it's aftermath. When the Levitical Priest took upon himself to gather an army and subdue surrounding nations for profit and then to rule over the Nation of Judea, he stepped far outside of his Biblical ordination. The Levites were never even counted for the purpose of military duty and rulership was Biblically given to the tribe of Judah; the Levites were given the Priesthood, judicial and teaching authority. Very substantial authority in a theocratic nation, I might add.

We saw many of the same issues when corruption of the Catholic Priesthood ran rampant. The nations over which the Pope reigned threw him off and little changed for the better within the Priesthood and Catholic Church. I often wonder what changes would have, could have been made had one of the 'Protestants' remained within and became Pope....Now, even the Protestants divide over sometimes minor theological differences, and then divide and divide again....

But the implications for current Judaism are even greater, imho. Today's Judaism is essentially based on Talmud; the oral law as given to Moses, being their claim. That this Dead Sea Sect, likely a break off from the Sadducees, and being of the Temple Priesthood, had no knowledge of such an oral law, calling them liars and teachers of smooth things, leaves them in considerable need of an explaination...because, had there been such an oral law, it would most assuredly have been given to the Levitical Priesthood.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2012 1:36:05 PM PDT
JR Rawlins says:
Do come back and share!

Posted on Sep 23, 2012 1:40:19 PM PDT
The Dead Sea Scrolls will have a much greater impact on the Christian community than the Jewish community. Ever since their discovery, chocolate shavings resembling the scrolls have become more and more popular on desserts. There are more Christians than Jews, and per capita, Christians eat far more desserts.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2012 2:30:35 PM PDT
Allan says:
Robert A. Saunders says: I doubt that the scrolls will have much effect on either.

Allan: One of the reasons I created this thread, Robert, was my concern I am battling Confirmation Bias as I get deeper into the issue. I predicted some little time back that once the scrolls are up and running on Google more people will take an interest and I see a number of issues which will arise.

As a result of the destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora much of the history of the development of post-Tanakh Judaism was lost. The scrolls are starting to fill that gap, and we can see how rabbinic Judaism evolved in response to what happened then.

My impression, reinforced by discussions on other threads, is that today's Orthodox Jews in particular need to see Judaism as a monolith. The scrolls prove otherwise, and Schiffman along with others are saying we should be looking at Judaisms, not Judaism.

''Judaism adheres to the Torah, and Judaic conception of its words will not be affected;''

Not true, IMO. Rabbinic Judaism concentrates heavily on the Oral Law, yet there seems little if any reference to this in the scrolls. What will happen if the Talmud is challenged?

Schiffman places great emphasis on the Halakhic Letter ( Miqsat Ma'ase ha-Torah). This seems to have been the impetus for his book, and his argument convinced the JPS to publish it.

''Christianity is based on the biblical texts as edited and revised in the fourth century, so they will have negligible effects on it as well.''

One of the major issues in Christianity today is the influence of Paul. Many will argue that he altered the message of Jesus to fit the Gentile world and, if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying this was taken much further by the fourth century when new books were attributed to Paul which were in fact designed to widen the gap between him and Jesus.

''Consider the effects that the scrolls have had on religion so far -- if you can find any.''

Early days yet.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2012 2:41:40 PM PDT
Re Carlton, 7-23 11:51 AM: "Getting persuasive, as opposed to speculative, answers to these questions has proved difficult." Quite so. And your point about publicizing the things is also apt. Which is why I proposed that the effect of the scrolls on religious practice has been nominal.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2012 3:01:52 PM PDT
Allan says:
''Getting persuasive, as opposed to speculative, answers to these questions has proved difficult.''

Precisely, James.

Why is it so?

''Even today, scholarship still appears to be largely stuck on what has become known as The Essene Hypothesis...Unfortunately, most of the contemporary concerns and alternatives for scroll authorship and interpretations have appeared in little known academic articles rather than popular books. Therefore, entrenched academic "fact" and errors concerning the scrolls escape public notice (much like most biblical enlightenment).''

While I agree that some of the argument is restricted to academia, it now seems the Essenes had little if anything to do with the scrolls, and the Qumran sect was more likely to have been a breakaway Sadducee sect. The scrolls are now seen as being too varied to have a single source.

I think you'd enjoy Lawrence H. Schiffman's Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library). For me, I see an emphasis on the End of Days as integral to many Jews of the time, and this is reflected in what both Jesus and Paul had to say.

'A shortcoming of scroll perceptions is there's little that has emerged from decades of studying the scrolls that leaps out and proclaims "Astounding, this throws a whole new light on Christian history and theology!" '

I doubt that very much. My impression for many decades has been that Christianity depends heavily on ignorance of the political and social reality of the time of Jesus. IMO the scrolls change that. The conflicts between Jewish sects, the battle against any form of assimilation with the Graeco-Roman world, have now been highlighted. For me, anyway, it seems Jesus was more likely to have been a Jewish mashiach along the lines of Bar Kochkba; this would make him a mortal, fallible, man chosen and anointed by God to fill a particular role.

While I do not agree with them, both Eisenman and Thiering argue that the scrolls are a record of the battle between James, the logical successor of Jesus, and the Gentile-oriented Paul, or between Jesus and John the Baptist. Eisenman in particular seems to have attracted a following, and it is a pity Sahansdal is not around as he strongly supports him.

''For most persons apart from dedicated academicians, the scrolls are essentially boring.''

We'll see. In an increasingly secular age, where there is growing antipathy to theocratic States and the influence of religion in government and schools, the scrolls will provide plenty of ammunition for the secularists.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2012 4:01:51 PM PDT
Allan says:
''Since the Dead Sea Sect were essentially divorced from society and awaiting the 'End of Days' that would bring Messiah, their theology, in opposition to the larger and more 'visible' sects of Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots and Herodians, seems to have had little impact on the beliefs of the Judean society at large.''

Not so IMO, JR.

Think you'll find the End of Days was a major issue across the board for Jews of that time. For me, this began with the exile to Babylon and was reinforced by the realisation that Judea/Israel simply could not compete with the major powers, Greece or Rome. They were losing the battle of assimilation in particular, though not limited to, with the threat of Greek philosophy.

Having absorbed and adapted Zoroastrian dualism teachings they anticipated an impending battle between the Sons of Light -- devout Torah Jews -- and the Sons of Darkness -- the Gentiles. God would send his heavenly hosts to ensure victory, and the arrest and trial of Jesus can be read in this light. This became the core of Christian teachings. Both Jesus and Paul were convinced they were living in the End Time.

The missing link is the Books of Enoch, which clearly had some impact on the Judaism of the time and most certainly a major impact on Christianity. Some, at least, of the Church fathers regarded Enoch as authoritative, yet for some reason both Christianity and Judaism now seem to want to pretend the books were irrelevant. For me, of course, Semj‚z‚ evolved into the Christian Devil (with some help from Angra Mainyu). Fragments of Enoch have been found at Qumran.

While I think Eisenman is on the wrong track in part because he fails to understand the pesher technique, we are left with the concept that the story of Jesus may parallel the story of the Teacher of Righteousness who may have been crucified along with a large number of Pharisees by the Maccabees (Alexander Jannaeus) a century or so earlier.

We need to remember, too, that the Qumran sect regarded themselves as being part of the New Covenant long before Christianity appeared on the scene and made exactly the same claim.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2012 4:07:31 PM PDT
Allan says: "As a result of the destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora much of the history of the development of post-Tanakh Judaism was lost. The scrolls are starting to fill that gap, and we can see how rabbinic Judaism evolved in response to what happened then."

Results from paleography, radiocarbon analysis, and other scientific tests (e.g., measurement of the shrinkage temperature of fibers of skin or leather) demonstrate that the scrolls were all written/copied in a period between the third century BCE and the first half of the first century CE. Moreover, the Jewish Apocrypha and most of the Pseudepigrapha were also produced during the period between the end of biblical writing (ca. 400 BCE) and the onset of rabbinic literature during the latter part of the first century CE.

The oldest known Jewish work not included in the Tanakh is the Book of Enoch. This complex work, was written in the third (or perhaps even the late fourth) century BCE after the return from the Babylonian Exile. Interestingly, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls were a number of manuscripts of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, including ten manuscripts of the Book of Enoch in the original Aramaic.

I seems to me that the overlap of the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Dead Sea Scrolls is hardly coincidental. They are all a product of the inter-testament and Second Temple literature. So why are the Dead Sea Scrolls generally considered apart from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha? Aren't they just a later (and perhaps minor) addition to the earlier known documents? Weren't all produced by unknown Jewish authors? It's my opinion that all these writings fall within evolving Jewish concerns by various sectarian groups, and should be analyzed and interpreted as a whole.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2012 4:32:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 23, 2012 5:03:40 PM PDT
JR Rawlins says:
I may be wrong here, but when I read 'End of Days' I'm reading the end of 'National Judea' as prophecied in Daniel. Daniel had given a timeline for arrival of Messiah and then the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, and they were nearing the end of that timeline. It was an anticipation even for the followers of Jesus, so I assume that it was also an anticipation for all the sects. However, this sect (as well as some in the NT) also seems to have believed that 'End of Days' also meant the immediate overthrow of the Gentiles and the setting up of the Messianic Kingdom.

As far as: "Both Jesus and Paul were convinced they were living in the End Time." I think this is a misconception gathered from their speaking of the 'Last Days' in reference to the end of Jerusalem and Temple, and therefore the end of Judea as a Nation.

And yes, I agree that the Book of Enoch had an empact on some of the Jewish sects, especially Christianity; but clearly not the Pharisaic Judaism. [edit] Seems they have deliberately distanced themselves from it, because their intention was to distance themselves from Christianity?

I do agree that Eisenman is reaching, but disagree that the New Covenant of the Qumran Sect had anything to do with the New Covenant spoken of by Jeremiah. This sect's covenant seems to have been a covenant among themselves to uphold the rules of the secterian community whereas the Christian New Covenant is the one spoken of in Jeremiah.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2012 4:48:51 PM PDT
Allan says:
''It's my opinion that all these writings fall within evolving Jewish concerns by various sectarian groups, and should be analyzed and interpreted as a whole.''

Exactly, James.

''This complex work (Book of Enoch), was written in the third (or perhaps even the late fourth) century BCE after the return from the Babylonian Exile.''

This in large part explains for me why so much of this is being avoided both by Jews and by Christians. Both fear what to me is staring us in the face. Judaism underwent a radical rewrite as a direct consequence of the exile. While the priests tried to assert that the exiles deserved their fate because of their failure to obey God, the exiles themselves said otherwise. This led to the creation of the Book of Job, designed specifically to recreate Judaism once again. This time, the focus was on changing the reward/punishment relationship with God to a simple acceptance that God IS and should be worshipped for that reason alone. The messiah Cyrus fits neatly into this script, an ordinary human (and a Persian to boot) anointed to the role of saviour of the Jews.

Another aspect also carefully avoided is the tension between the returning exiles with their new religion and those who had remained behind and saw it as a direct threat to the Torah. There is another significant gap here; where are the stories of this conflict and how it was resolved?

For me, the impact of Zoroastrian teachings on the new Judaism is undeniable, something the scrolls reinforce. This, for Jew and Christian alike, is anathema.

Zoroaster's End Time battle between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu now became the Jewish End Time battle between their Angel/Prince of Light and their Angel/Prince of Darkness, which reached its zenith in the Christian version of God versus the Christian Devil.

Once again we see the impact of Enoch. There are NO fallen angels in the Tanakh, except for a brief, clearly inserted, mention of the Sons of God who mated with human women to create the Nephilim and pave the way for the Jewish rewrite of Utnapishtim's flood to fit their own needs. This mythological strand clearly was important at the time,. and we need to know why Enoch was subsequently shunted aside despite its obvious importance to both Judaism and Christianity.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2012 4:52:13 PM PDT
JR Rawlins says:
"It's my opinion that all these writings fall within evolving Jewish concerns by various sectarian groups, and should be analyzed and interpreted as a whole."

I essentially agree. However, this particular 'closed' sect's documents were not meant for public consumption as the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were. A fact that may make some difference under stringent analysis.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2012 5:44:07 PM PDT
J. Rawlins says: "this particular 'closed' sect's documents were not meant for public consumption as the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were. A fact that may make some difference under stringent analysis."

If by "closed sect" you mean the Essenes, there may be a "difference." However, I find the evidence for exclusively Essene origination of the scrolls problematical. If the scroll library was drawn from several sources before the destruction of Jerusalem, then several sects may be represented. This would account for some of the documents that don't dovetail with Essene customs and beliefs. But as of yet, there is no proof for this possibility.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2012 6:02:23 PM PDT
JR Rawlins says:
James, by ''closed sect' I mean the Qumran Sect, regardless of their affiliation, or lack thereof, with the Essenes. And by 'sect's documents' I mean the docutmentation that they produced, not copies of Biblical documents and widely available Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

But, I also have documents that do not necessarily agree with my 'theology', so I'm not real sure any of that should be problematical in reference to the Qumran Sect's collection.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 24, 2012 2:41:25 AM PDT
yba says:
I will, J., and thank you. I need to catch-up and I don't want to answer questions until I see how many ave already been answered. I will, however, return and answer your well thought out post. Did you pickup a copy of Schiffman's, " Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls? If not, it is well worth the investment and will guide you to an understanding of what the circumstances were in the early 1st-century b.c.e. & c.e. Thank you for your ki8nd post, J., My life is a little topsy-turvy at the moment and demanding immediate attention.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 24, 2012 3:17:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 24, 2012 3:38:49 AM PDT
yba says:
Good Morning, James!
I would like to respond to some of the points you made in your well constructed post. I will use your numbering in my responses.
1.) I think you are spot on in removing the homogeneity, or at least bringing into critical analysis, of the Essene sect. I believe in the last 25-years, we have seen that the Essenes were not the sect of solidarity they were once considered. Likewise,the thinking of Judaism as a monolithic structure has been proven to be largely false to all be the most ardent of believers that it is an unbroken chain of tradition handed down by Moses.
Likewise, Christianity has had to deal with the same concept after the crystalization of the "Apostolic Succession" by what became the RCC.
In current scholarly understanding, accepted by all but a few outriders, the Judaism that presented itself at the destruction of the second-temple, was extremely diverse and rich. There were several Jewish sects and sub-sects extant at the time. Each claimed to be the true bearers of the tradition of Moses. The split of the Saducees (Schiffman's understanding) c. 154 b.c.e., is only one example. We also had the Pharisees and the Maccabees, each having their own particular idiosyncratic beliefs they claimed as the true and authentic tradition.
Like now, however, it would be inaccurate, imno, to consider these disparate groups to be radically different one from another. More, I think there was a core set of beliefs which they held, together.. The differences, as Schiffman points out, were more int hte applciability of the core beliefs to given situations. In the Halakhic Letter, we have the complaint, of one sect, later to become a part of Qumran, to the laxity they considered the temple priests were showing regarding the purity of vessels in Temple use. One group, those that left, believed a ritually pure vessel with pure liquid pouring into another vessel not ritually pure, would itself become impure and in need of a purifying ritual prior to being used. The other sect, believed that impurity did not rise up; the flowing stream against the current.

2. & 3 We may never know the "purpose" of amassing the library, but I should posit that it was simply as we have libraries today. One of the standards of assessing the value of scholarly institutions and universities is based on their libraries, size and content. You ask an extremely pertinent question in posing this consideration. We know that it is likely not the case that all these scrolls came from Qumran. Many were obviously written at different time, by different hands and reflect differing points of view, sometimes contradictory. It seems as though this was a real library much as we have today, without problems of doctrinal cohesion for a work's inclusion. This is all the more likely if we consider the Essenes to be just as fragmented as Christianity, Judaism, Hindu and Islam today. Each sect having its peculiarity but all falling under their respective umbrellas; RCC, Baptists, Protestants, Calvinists and Lutherans, for example, are generally all considered under the umbrella of Christianity. Similarly with the other faiths.


4) AS far as the DSSs radically a affecting today's Christianity or demanding radical change, I would suggest there is not anything demanding such change. What I do believe, is that the movement of Jesus be kept within the realm of Judaism until far later than is normaly considered a partingt of the ways of the two faiths. Certainly, one can see the beginnings of a departure with the writings attributed to Paul, but they would have had negligable affect until into the second century.The destruction of the temple in 70 c.e. is certainly another step but I don't see it as a full parting until Bar Kochba's rebellion c. 130 and the resultant total expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem. This edict would not have affected the Gentiles who had earlier converted to the Judaism as understood by Jesus. Thus, for the first time in Israel, Gentiles were the majority population in Jerusalem. Many of these were converts to Judaism, but as you earlier noted, there was a conflict between the Paulists and Jamesians. It was, I opine, in this atmosphere, we need to consider the growth of Rabbinic Judaism as well as Orthodox Christianity both about the same time, as the second century waned. Remembering, of course, the rootstalk from which each arose.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 24, 2012 4:11:18 AM PDT
yba says:
Well written, J! Good Morning.
You have hit on a valid point but have, I believe, taken the side road, distracted by "corruption."
I will not argue that point because I think there is validity there, as I have argued many ti8mes in the past.
I would suggest, that you expand your understanding regarding the Talmud and its place in
Today's Judaism" Indeed you are correct to an extend when you view the Haredim or Orthodox conservatives, but for the majority of the much larger number of Jews out there today, the Talmud, while respected as great wisdom from our sages, does not carryiwith it the authority you seem to present it with; for these, it is the Tanakh that is the basis for all authority. We do listen to the interpretations of our sages, but this is as any Christian would listen to the great Christian thinkers, Barth, Kierkegaard, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, etc., etc., etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 24, 2012 4:19:30 AM PDT
yba says:
Well said, O Purveyor of spotted fungal caps.

Any significant affect will be long in coming and only take place gradually as the older generation dies off. Remember the result of the spies? It takes a new generation to enter the land, from a mindset of slavery to one of freedom and the "Yes we can" attitude.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 24, 2012 4:24:03 AM PDT
yba says:
You really, Old Sot, need to get off this kick of the End of Days and start seeing it for what it is, the hope of a new beginning, a world we can work toward building. The mistake, I see all too commonly from understandings in Judaism as well as Christianity, is the idea of a "messiah" doing all the work. It is time we all got off our collective lazy tushes and made the world just a little bit better, yank out one weed at a time, or plant one flower, make one phone call to a friend and neighbor.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 24, 2012 4:25:35 AM PDT
yba says:
Nice catch on the "New Covenant" of Qumran!

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 24, 2012 4:29:10 AM PDT
yba says:
I think, like the Christian Scriptures and the Hebrew Scriptures, each work needs to be studied on a stand alone basis first, only then can one attempt to place them into a construct of understanding and inter-relation. One mistake people make today, imho, is considering Scriptures as a whole an failing to see the individual ideas, times and circumstances particular to each writer and time of the writing, and circumstances at that time.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 24, 2012 4:29:54 AM PDT
yba says:
Amen,James, well said.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  18
Total posts:  310
Initial post:  Sep 22, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 12, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions