OF course the information or the translation of them may not have been out yet either.
I soo love the internet at times.
BTW translations were not available until affter VPW's death.
In the Advanced Class, he stated that The Dead Sea Scrolls were counterfeit.
Pretty hasty judgment of something he hadn't even examined.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered nearly 60 years ago. Wow, that's a loooong time.
Scholars have been examining them bit by bit, very slowly to start with, but copies have been released for quite a long time now. You would think a "research" ministry would have something to say, wouldn't you? I was expecting something, at least, as Corps studies: "We don't understand all this yet, but..." Historical value and background, even if not accepted as authoritative or copies of the scriptures. There are reference books and materials available.
Looks from a post on this thread that Karen M had some interest; no doubt Walter C would also be interested. But of course anyone who knew anything or had interests other than simply VPW material got run off before they could expose the guru.
Twinky and waysider and leafytwiglet,
From your research into the Dead Sea Scrolls, could you please tell me WHICH books from the New Testament are included in that discovery? I'd just like to know ANYTHING that they say directly about Jesus Christ, OK?
I should check that out Whitedove, thanks. I've read excerpts here and there but the book would be a good one to get. Golb's work makes a very clear case for the Qumran site not being "the" long lost city of the Essenes. The more I've read on it I could see the possiblity that they came and went through that location but it's conjecture at best, based on other's work and conclusions which all make clear that the Essenes were a very nebulous group. But that location doesn't seem to be "the" spot. Who knows?
Once I read up on the pre-gospel history and the Maccabean war, I could place the Essenes, Sadduccees and the Phariseeic gang ("sect") correctly in the history and how they got to where they were in the gospels. And it's interesting that the Pharisees are so prominent because it kind of places a unique context around the life of Jesus due to the fact that He encountered them so directly. From what I understand they were such a powerful presence because of the way they came out of these wars - they're strong desire to establish their history and faith by being "separate" and distinct in their beliefs is more understandable. They were protecting their heritage fiercely in the face of opposition. That'll do things to you, clearly. Look at the Middle East today.
I'm probably about to put my hoof in my mouth but the collection of stuff from the Dead Sea Scrolls didn't contain any of what we'd call "new testament" writings, they were all scrolls of Old Testament books and were written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. So any dating of the content would relate to the Old Testament, and that dating is older in some cases than what we already had. Buuuut don't quote me, I don't have all the facts on which books were in which languages, and the respective dating committed to memory.
There were scrolls from the Essenes and they contained writings about a "Teacher of Righteousness" who's been compared to Jesus, but the dating is too early, or so the debate goes.
I'm probably about to put my hoof in my mouth but the collection of stuff from the Dead Sea Scrolls didn't contain any of what we'd call "new testament" writings, they were all scrolls of Old Testament books and were written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. So any dating of the content would relate to the Old Testament, and that dating is older in some cases than what we already had. Buuuut don't quote me, I don't have all the facts on which books were in which languages, and the respective dating committed to memory.
There were scrolls from the Essenes and they contained writings about a "Teacher of Righteousness" who's been compared to Jesus, but the dating is too early, or so the debate goes.
How about it Twinky and waysider and leafytwiglet?
Do YOU GUYS know of anything directly relating to Jesus Christ or New Testament scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Hey, I really don't want to miss out on anything important. Fill us in.
How about it Twinky and waysider and leafytwiglet?
Do YOU GUYS know of anything directly relating to Jesus Christ or New Testament scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Hey, I really don't want to miss out on anything important. Fill us in.
I never claimed to know anything at all about The Dead Sea Scrolls.
What I said is that Wierwille told us in the Advanced Class (1973) that they were "counterfeit".
I think most of us here know that when he said "counterfeit", he meant it in a spiritual sense, especially when you consider that it was in the context of a class where such matters were the topic of the day.
My knowledge of The Dead Sea Scrolls (or lack thereof) has no bearing on that point.
Your insistence that I demonstrate my knowledge of The Dead Sea Scrolls is nothing but a diversion tactic, a "strawman argument" if you will.
From your research into the Dead Sea Scrolls, could you please tell me WHICH books from the New Testament are included in that discovery? I'd just like to know ANYTHING that they say directly about Jesus Christ, OK?
I notice you didn't ask me, but I'll fill in the gap...
The answer is none. The only book from the OT not found was the book of Esther. There were no NT texts because the Essenes were not followers of Jesus.
I've seen some of the fragments at the museums in Jerusalem. There's a pretty decent museum at the site. The finding of the scrolls did prove that OT scribes did a pretty good job of keeping the text intact through the centuries.
Some of the best intact NT manuscripts have been found in various regions of Egypt. The compilation of those manuscripts seems to vary from region to region in what was the Roman Empire.
That term is a fuzzy one, waysider, agreed and I'd have to know the context of the statement to see any "truth" to it. They clearly aren't "counterfeit", they're the actual scrolls. The fact you find anything that old and of that field is significant though, regardless.
There was the big stink about them back in the early 70's and a lot of writers jumped on the bandwagon that they reframed "Jesus" as an Essene and early Christianity as an out growth of the sect. But as someone already noted access to them has been a long convoluted process. That's an assumption that sold books but even today isn't a gimme by any stretch, and like a lot of this stuff requires filling in some blanks and dots to get anything close to a straight line.
Which (as the non-expert me be) is what a lot of this stuff requires anyway. VPW says "it's a counterfeit". He thought everything was a counterfeit. A new kind of dog food - counterfeit. I'm kidding but he probably took the same position as 1,000's of other religious figures of that era and may have just seen it as another diversion of unknown worth - at the time - since so much work had to be done on them and with them still.
To add - I would have been more inspired I'll admit - if the Way and the VPster had gotten a little more consistent involvement in the ongoing discoveries, work, research, etc. That isn't meant to sound massively naive - but the ongoing background and historical information, the kind of academic inquiry of a research "institute" and ministry - that would have had legs I think. For some people, no. Overall, yes.
I never claimed to know anything at all about The Dead Sea Scrolls.
What I said is that Wierwille told us in the Advanced Class (1973) that they were "counterfeit".
I think most of us here know that when he said "counterfeit", he meant it in a spiritual sense, especially when you consider that it was in the context of a class where such matters were the topic of the day.
My knowledge of The Dead Sea Scrolls (or lack thereof) has no bearing on that point.
Your insistence that I demonstrate my knowledge of The Dead Sea Scrolls is nothing but a diversion tactic, a "strawman argument" if you will.
Didn't you also say that his counterfeit label was "hasty" ???
How would you know that was hasty?
From what I know the Dead Sea Scrolls have a lot of the book of Isaiah which is pretty much into the coming of the Messiah. That "Teacher of Righteousness" socks talks about sounds like Messiah too. From the 4 Gospels we see that pretty much everyone had the WRONG idea as to how the actual coming of the Messiah was to take place. If that applied to the Essenes too, then the expectations the Dead Sea Scrolls expressed of his coming would be counterfeit, and vpw' label of counterfeit would be correct. I think VPW was right in steering us away from them.
The fact that the scrolls could be useful in OT language studies is not contradictory with their message being counterfeit.
********
I notice you didn't ask me, but I'll fill in the gap...
The answer is none. The only book from the OT not found was the book of Esther. There were no NT texts because the Essenes were not followers of Jesus.
I've seen some of the fragments at the museums in Jerusalem. There's a pretty decent museum at the site. The finding of the scrolls did prove that OT scribes did a pretty good job of keeping the text intact through the centuries.
Some of the best intact NT manuscripts have been found in various regions of Egypt. The compilation of those manuscripts seems to vary from region to region in what was the Roman Empire.
This is correct, and socks was correct also.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain NOTHING on the NT and NOTHING on Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Unless you're into ancient languages they can be a huge distraction.
Didn't you also say that his counterfeit label was "hasty" ???
How would you know that was hasty?
********
He knew virtually nothing about The Dead Sea Scrolls beyond their very existence.
Yet, he passed his personal judgment on them without any real investigation.
That's hasty. Kinda like a kid who says "I hate green beans!" but has never actually tried them.
When Wierwille said they were "counterfeit", he was not implying that someone had created fake copies of real documents like a fake knock-off of a real Rolex watch. He was implying that, although they may have been real documents, they had been inspired by "devilish" influences.
For a study in how Wierwille presented "The Genuine Vs. The Counterfeit", refer to page 14 in the 1971 Advanced Class syllabus. The entire page is dedicated to contrasting the two.
Here are some interesting examples:
God's Word vs. Mistranslations and Misquotations
Signs and wonders vs. Lying signs and wonders
Give to the work of God's ministry vs. Give to a good cause.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain NOTHING on the NT and NOTHING on Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Unless you're into ancient languages they can be a huge distraction.
I just finished reading Bart Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press, USA. 1999. ISBN 0-19-512474-X. It gets into John the Baptist, a little on the Essenes, and the Pharisees. Interesting read.
I just finished reading Bart Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press, USA. 1999. ISBN 0-19-512474-X. It gets into John the Baptist, a little on the Essenes, and the Pharisees. Interesting read.
Interestingly, EVEN John the Baptist seemed to have his difficulties recognizing Jesus as the Christ.
He knew virtually nothing about The Dead Sea Scrolls beyond their very existence.
Yet, he passed his personal judgment on them without any real investigation.
Can you document this like a good scholar would, or is this another possibly hasty conjecture on your part?
I was able to find out in the 70's that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not worth looking into for the reasons cited, and I too am not a scholar.
Didn't you also say that his counterfeit label was "hasty" ???
How would you know that was hasty?
From what I know the Dead Sea Scrolls have a lot of the book of Isaiah which is pretty much into the coming of the Messiah. That "Teacher of Righteousness" socks talks about sounds like Messiah too. From the 4 Gospels we see that pretty much everyone had the WRONG idea as to how the actual coming of the Messiah was to take place. If that applied to the Essenes too, then the expectations the Dead Sea Scrolls expressed of his coming would be counterfeit, and vpw' label of counterfeit would be correct. I think VPW was right in steering us away from them.
The fact that the scrolls could be useful in OT language studies is not contradictory with their message being counterfeit.
********
This is correct, and socks was correct also.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain NOTHING on the NT and NOTHING on Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Unless you're into ancient languages they can be a huge distraction.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have fragments from every OT book except Esther, in addition to other non-Biblical writing. Many of them have established the accurate preservation of the OT texts. Do you consider the OT a distraction?
The Essenes' expectations of the coming Messiah, if they were comparable to what we read in the Gospels, may have been misunderstood but that doesn't make them a "devilish counterfeit." The Jews' expectation of the Messiah was based on OT prophecies, not lies made up by false teachers. What they didn't understand was that some things had to happen first, before he reigned as king and restored the kingdom to Israel. These things included the king dying for our sins, and then a period during which he would be seated at God's right hand while the Church proclaimed the Gospel. These were details added to the OT prophecies, and it was the failure to understand them when Jesus preached them that was the main reason the Jews rejected him. But the expectation of a king reigning in Israel again is based on Biblical prophecy, not counterfeit teaching.
Read what I wrote: Unless someone is into ancient languages the DEAD SEA SCROLLS are a distraction.
A non-language scholar cannot read the OT from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
A non-language scholar CAN read the OT in his KJV and not be distracted by the sensation of the news surrounding the scrolls. I never said anything about the OT being a distraction. Why would you want to put those words into my mouth?
He knew virtually nothing about The Dead Sea Scrolls beyond their very existence.
Yet, he passed his personal judgment on them without any real investigation.
Can you document this like a good scholar would, or is this another possibly hasty conjecture on your part?
I was able to find out in the 70's that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not worth looking into for the reasons cited, and I too am not a scholar.
What is there to document?
Very few people knew much about the contents of the scrolls in 1972 or 73 when Wierwille made the statement.
Are you saying Wierwille had some sort of privileged access to their contents?
I rather doubt that, yet he declared them to be "counterfeit".
That, my friend, is a rush to judgment. It's "hasty".
Which brings me to the question of what it was that YOU knew about The Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1970s that enabled YOU to deem them "not worth looking at"? Was it because you heard Wierwille say so?
Read what I wrote: Unless someone is into ancient languages the DEAD SEA SCROLLS are a distraction.
I read what you wrote. You said, "The Dead Sea Scrolls contain NOTHING on the NT and NOTHING on Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Unless you're into ancient languages they can be a huge distraction."
In response, I pointed out that the Dead Sea Scrolls have established the accurate preservation of the OT texts. It was in response to what seemed like an implication that the scrolls are a distraction because they contain nothing about the NT that I said, "Do you consider the OT a distraction?"
A non-language scholar cannot read the OT from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
A non-language scholar CAN read the OT in his KJV and not be distracted by the sensation of the news surrounding the scrolls. I never said anything about the OT being a distraction. Why would you want to put those words into my mouth?
Since none of us actually saw the scrolls (at least not in the '70s) what we are talking about is not reading them ourselves but finding out what they say. A non-language scholar can read what language scholars say about them, and thereby learn what their significance is and what it means to textual research, and therefore whether or not the news is simply sensationalism with no substance. I don't see how that could be considered a distraction, if you're into Biblical Research.
Edited by Mark Clarke
"Distraction" is what we were so well conditioned to ignore. (Session 7/ PFAL)
Never allow yourself to be "distracted" by rationale and genuine inquiry.
Rather, "renew your mind" with a regimen of self delusion exercises.
Make a deliberate and systematic practice of anesthetizing the regions of the brain that allow for critical thinking, by means of strange and enticing utterances. And finally, having perfected these things---- STAND. Yes, stand firmly planted in one spot, like a rock that can't be budged, hopelessly immobile, oblivious to the life that ebbs and flows around it. Anything else could result in unspeakable consequences.
Sorry I took so long to reply... I brought up the dead sea scrolls as a question to this quoted below right at the beginning of the thread. I realize now that how I worded it came across as flippant and it wasn't really intended to be that way, but as an honest but what about these.
The poll thread was getting very derailed by discussion of the "Orange" book, so I'm starting a new thread.
Mike quoted:
Since I have taken up research, I was astounded that this statement was written with no citation. Actually, there isn't a citation in the entire book, but that's beside the point.
It is an inaccurate statement. Greek was the common administrative and written language for the entire region. This is historic fact. Most of the people of that day were illiterate. This is also historical fact. People who spoke Aramaic probably couldn't read it, much less write it down as it was primarily an oral means of communication.
I believe statements such as the one in red was just the beginning of how VPW started romancing people to his way of thinking regarding how the bible was to be read and interpreted. Back when he wrote the book, it was pretty hard to check that little tidbit against other sources. Now there is a wealth of information available, and it's usually free. MIKE: the fact that you aren't looking at that information that has come out largely since you started studying TWI materials exclusively does not reflect well regarding your scholarship, especially since VPW admonished us to not take his word for things. Read his stuff and study it, but to do it without a critical eye is foolish. That lack of critical evaluation is what allowed the abuses to start and grow.
Now that these tools are readily available for research, any discussion of VPW's "work" can and should be evaluated using standard methods of scholarship and critiqued accordingly.
I am the first person to say I am no biblical scholar... I am the average "Joe believer" from "TWI". One of the reasons I got involved with the ministry is because I Love God and I Love his Word... For me the word of God(Bible) was a healing balm to my beleaguered soul and mind. I got involved because of the whole "it fits like a hand in a glove" thing and because of the respect and Love for the word of God that VPW expressed so well in the PFAL class.
I find the whole dead sea scroll issue fascinating because they show the integrity of the Old testament and thus I believe because of that alone they present a good argument that the New Testament also has integrity..
Can I argue it with the likes of all of you who are so much more schooled in researching and stating your own case ... NO probably not. I came to the discussion to learn more about what teachings are out there.
I believe all of it Old and New Testament is there speaking directly to us. All of it is there for us to study and learn from.
I believe in the Integrity of GOD's WORD, All of God's word and it is obvious that ALL of you do also.
Do I have proof and can I site this scholar or that scholar or which page in PFAL or Advanced Class it was in No I can not... but I do know what God's word did for me.
Sorry I took so long to reply... I brought up the dead sea scrolls as a question to this quoted below right at the beginning of the thread. I realize now that how I worded it came across as flippant and it wasn't really intended to be that way, but as an honest but what about these.
Ok, I can accept this. I too had the same question long ago "What about these."
I am the first person to say I am no biblical scholar... I am the average "Joe believer" from "TWI". One of the reasons I got involved with the ministry is because I Love God and I Love his Word... For me the word of God(Bible) was a healing balm to my beleaguered soul and mind. I got involved because of the whole "it fits like a hand in a glove" thing and because of the respect and Love for the word of God that VPW expressed so well in the PFAL class.
Same for me. I then got distracted by the baloney and gossip from the good I had received, but I eventually returned to be blessed again in a SIMPLE way, not involving heavy duty research, just REsearching what we were given in written form... like the ORANGE BOOK. (...had to get back to topic.)
I find the whole dead sea scroll issue fascinating because they show the integrity of the Old testament and thus I believe because of that alone they present a good argument that the New Testament also has integrity..
Yes, absolutely the same for me. It was encouraging. Mark Clarke, this is in response to you too.
However, years later I found out more about problems with the sharp accuracy with the NT. This didn't affect the general emotional blessings and the encouragement and the mental healing, but it did affect certain areas like the details on the Return of Christ and our power in Christ.
It shouldn't be too surprising that problems crept into the NT, though. In the OT there are quite a few stories about the loss of scriptures and the corruption of scriptures. That the NT should take a hit in certain key areas shouldn't surprise us too much. It's in THESE areas that the unrecoverable scrambling took place. This was not an accident, but very deliberate on the adversary's part.
Can I argue it with the likes of all of you who are so much more schooled in researching and stating your own case ... NO probably not. I came to the discussion to learn more about what teachings are out there.
I believe all of it Old and New Testament is there speaking directly to us. All of it is there for us to study and learn from.
I believe in the Integrity of GOD's WORD, All of God's word and it is obvious that ALL of you do also.
Do I have proof and can I site this scholar or that scholar or which page in PFAL or Advanced Class it was in No I can not... but I do know what God's word did for me.
Ditto for me, and I'd add that if it weren't for the class and the ORANGE BOOK I'd have never been able to approach the KJV and get as much out of it as I did.
Ditto for me, and I'd add that if it weren't for the class and the ORANGE BOOK I'd have never been able to approach the KJV and get as much out of it as I did.
Have you ever tried to read that book? ...ALL the way through?
I'd say I would have fallen asleep if someone PAID me to read it in my early prePFAL searching days, in my late teens and early twenties, with pot and hippie music rattling my head.
That book is a hard nut to crack EVEN NOW. It was only when I saw how similar it was to PFAL that I had the motivation to slog through it's arcane and scholarly English style. The Orange Book was written for the people, while Bullinger's book was for pointy heads of a previous century.
The poll thread was getting very derailed by discussion of the "Orange" book, so I'm starting a new thread.
Mike quoted:
Since I have taken up research, I was astounded that this statement was written with no citation. Actually, there isn't a citation in the entire book, but that's beside the point.
It is an inaccurate statement. Greek was the common administrative and written language for the entire region. This is historic fact. Most of the people of that day were illiterate. This is also historical fact. People who spoke Aramaic probably couldn't read it, much less write it down as it was primarily an oral means of communication.
I believe statements such as the one in red was just the beginning of how VPW started romancing people to his way of thinking regarding how the bible was to be read and interpreted. Back when he wrote the book, it was pretty hard to check that little tidbit against other sources. Now there is a wealth of information available, and it's usually free. MIKE: the fact that you aren't looking at that information that has come out largely since you started studying TWI materials exclusively does not reflect well regarding your scholarship, especially since VPW admonished us to not take his word for things. Read his stuff and study it, but to do it without a critical eye is foolish. That lack of critical evaluation is what allowed the abuses to start and grow.
Now that these tools are readily available for research, any discussion of VPW's "work" can and should be evaluated using standard methods of scholarship and critiqued accordingly.
In Argentina ther is ex TWI who has a site based on what he said is and original New Testament Text in Arameo Galileo called P-E-S-H-I-T-T-A?.
Your criticisms of Bullinger's written work perfectly frames your discussion here and all of your subsequent points - they're your preferences, choices and opinions.
As you've already stated you've come up with this and as we already know, for years you've stumbled through (and I'm being kind here) trying to get a head of steam going to coherently put forth just a foundational statement of what your point is. That took months and months of some of the weirdest and blatantly duplicitous posting I've ever seen or read to get to. I actually took breaks from your threads for months, checked in briefly, and checked out because the same discusson was going on, usually punctuated by your 1. being away sick, 2. being away working 3. it raining 4. it being sunny...and you're trying to get caught up.
That's my opinion though - so don't chalenge me as I'm not here to offer a logical argument on this, I'm just presenting my opinion. Please feel free to read this though, no problem.
So fine. So what's the big whoopdee doo then? Well, there isn't any really. When you describe Bullinger though it clearly shows the choices you've made and why. You want to do "the work" now, but you weren't willing to do it then and apparently your choices are the same - E-Z Read, E-Z Road.
Many of the "old grads" you talk about did just the opposite - studied Bullinger, read Bullinger and enjoyed Bullinger. How to enjoy the Bible was an easy read. Not for you though. You wanted, needed and kept to the E-Z read versions.
That's fine. It was your choice. It is your choice. But all of this sarcasm about "pointy heads" is ridiculous. Revealing, but silly.
I don't recall it being word-for-word PFAL, but most of PFAL's main doctrinal points are covered, albeit much more coherently. In places Wierwille betrays a pitiful lack of understanding of what Bullinger is trying to say.
I don't recall it being word-for-word PFAL, but most of PFAL's main doctrinal points are covered, albeit much more coherently. In places Wierwille betrays a pitiful lack of understanding of what Bullinger is trying to say.
In many cases, vpw lifts Bullinger word-for-word. In other cases, vpw lifts Bullinger concept-for-concept.
If there were no Bullinger, there would be no "Are the Dead Alive Now", no Orange Book, and the White Book
would be thinner.
Mind you, vpw also lifts Bullinger's MISTAKES. The claim that "God directed vpw to plagiarize all the correct
stuff from Bullinger" ignores that vpw lifted errors that sounded good.
One obvious example is "the kingdom of heaven" vs "the kingdom of God".
Bullinger gave a detailed explanation of their differences in the Bible.
vpw lifted his detailed explanation of their differences in the Bible.
Both were wrong-in the Bible, the terms were interchangeable, and still are.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
8
10
10
Popular Days
Jan 13
19
Jan 11
11
Jan 14
11
Jan 10
8
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 6 posts
Mark Clarke 8 posts
Mike 10 posts
waysider 10 posts
Popular Days
Jan 13 2009
19 posts
Jan 11 2009
11 posts
Jan 14 2009
11 posts
Jan 10 2009
8 posts
Mike
Twinky and waysider and leafytwiglet,
From your research into the Dead Sea Scrolls, could you please tell me WHICH books from the New Testament are included in that discovery? I'd just like to know ANYTHING that they say directly about Jesus Christ, OK?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I should check that out Whitedove, thanks. I've read excerpts here and there but the book would be a good one to get. Golb's work makes a very clear case for the Qumran site not being "the" long lost city of the Essenes. The more I've read on it I could see the possiblity that they came and went through that location but it's conjecture at best, based on other's work and conclusions which all make clear that the Essenes were a very nebulous group. But that location doesn't seem to be "the" spot. Who knows?
Once I read up on the pre-gospel history and the Maccabean war, I could place the Essenes, Sadduccees and the Phariseeic gang ("sect") correctly in the history and how they got to where they were in the gospels. And it's interesting that the Pharisees are so prominent because it kind of places a unique context around the life of Jesus due to the fact that He encountered them so directly. From what I understand they were such a powerful presence because of the way they came out of these wars - they're strong desire to establish their history and faith by being "separate" and distinct in their beliefs is more understandable. They were protecting their heritage fiercely in the face of opposition. That'll do things to you, clearly. Look at the Middle East today.
I'm probably about to put my hoof in my mouth but the collection of stuff from the Dead Sea Scrolls didn't contain any of what we'd call "new testament" writings, they were all scrolls of Old Testament books and were written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. So any dating of the content would relate to the Old Testament, and that dating is older in some cases than what we already had. Buuuut don't quote me, I don't have all the facts on which books were in which languages, and the respective dating committed to memory.
There were scrolls from the Essenes and they contained writings about a "Teacher of Righteousness" who's been compared to Jesus, but the dating is too early, or so the debate goes.
Anyhoo...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
How about it Twinky and waysider and leafytwiglet?
Do YOU GUYS know of anything directly relating to Jesus Christ or New Testament scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Hey, I really don't want to miss out on anything important. Fill us in.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I never claimed to know anything at all about The Dead Sea Scrolls.
What I said is that Wierwille told us in the Advanced Class (1973) that they were "counterfeit".
I think most of us here know that when he said "counterfeit", he meant it in a spiritual sense, especially when you consider that it was in the context of a class where such matters were the topic of the day.
My knowledge of The Dead Sea Scrolls (or lack thereof) has no bearing on that point.
Your insistence that I demonstrate my knowledge of The Dead Sea Scrolls is nothing but a diversion tactic, a "strawman argument" if you will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I notice you didn't ask me, but I'll fill in the gap...
The answer is none. The only book from the OT not found was the book of Esther. There were no NT texts because the Essenes were not followers of Jesus.
I've seen some of the fragments at the museums in Jerusalem. There's a pretty decent museum at the site. The finding of the scrolls did prove that OT scribes did a pretty good job of keeping the text intact through the centuries.
Some of the best intact NT manuscripts have been found in various regions of Egypt. The compilation of those manuscripts seems to vary from region to region in what was the Roman Empire.
Edited by TzaiaLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
That term is a fuzzy one, waysider, agreed and I'd have to know the context of the statement to see any "truth" to it. They clearly aren't "counterfeit", they're the actual scrolls. The fact you find anything that old and of that field is significant though, regardless.
There was the big stink about them back in the early 70's and a lot of writers jumped on the bandwagon that they reframed "Jesus" as an Essene and early Christianity as an out growth of the sect. But as someone already noted access to them has been a long convoluted process. That's an assumption that sold books but even today isn't a gimme by any stretch, and like a lot of this stuff requires filling in some blanks and dots to get anything close to a straight line.
Which (as the non-expert me be) is what a lot of this stuff requires anyway. VPW says "it's a counterfeit". He thought everything was a counterfeit. A new kind of dog food - counterfeit. I'm kidding but he probably took the same position as 1,000's of other religious figures of that era and may have just seen it as another diversion of unknown worth - at the time - since so much work had to be done on them and with them still.
To add - I would have been more inspired I'll admit - if the Way and the VPster had gotten a little more consistent involvement in the ongoing discoveries, work, research, etc. That isn't meant to sound massively naive - but the ongoing background and historical information, the kind of academic inquiry of a research "institute" and ministry - that would have had legs I think. For some people, no. Overall, yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Didn't you also say that his counterfeit label was "hasty" ???
How would you know that was hasty?
From what I know the Dead Sea Scrolls have a lot of the book of Isaiah which is pretty much into the coming of the Messiah. That "Teacher of Righteousness" socks talks about sounds like Messiah too. From the 4 Gospels we see that pretty much everyone had the WRONG idea as to how the actual coming of the Messiah was to take place. If that applied to the Essenes too, then the expectations the Dead Sea Scrolls expressed of his coming would be counterfeit, and vpw' label of counterfeit would be correct. I think VPW was right in steering us away from them.
The fact that the scrolls could be useful in OT language studies is not contradictory with their message being counterfeit.
********
This is correct, and socks was correct also.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain NOTHING on the NT and NOTHING on Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Unless you're into ancient languages they can be a huge distraction.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
He knew virtually nothing about The Dead Sea Scrolls beyond their very existence.
Yet, he passed his personal judgment on them without any real investigation.
That's hasty. Kinda like a kid who says "I hate green beans!" but has never actually tried them.
When Wierwille said they were "counterfeit", he was not implying that someone had created fake copies of real documents like a fake knock-off of a real Rolex watch. He was implying that, although they may have been real documents, they had been inspired by "devilish" influences.
For a study in how Wierwille presented "The Genuine Vs. The Counterfeit", refer to page 14 in the 1971 Advanced Class syllabus. The entire page is dedicated to contrasting the two.
Here are some interesting examples:
God's Word vs. Mistranslations and Misquotations
Signs and wonders vs. Lying signs and wonders
Give to the work of God's ministry vs. Give to a good cause.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I just finished reading Bart Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press, USA. 1999. ISBN 0-19-512474-X. It gets into John the Baptist, a little on the Essenes, and the Pharisees. Interesting read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Interestingly, EVEN John the Baptist seemed to have his difficulties recognizing Jesus as the Christ.
Can you document this like a good scholar would, or is this another possibly hasty conjecture on your part?
I was able to find out in the 70's that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not worth looking into for the reasons cited, and I too am not a scholar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
The Dead Sea Scrolls have fragments from every OT book except Esther, in addition to other non-Biblical writing. Many of them have established the accurate preservation of the OT texts. Do you consider the OT a distraction?
The Essenes' expectations of the coming Messiah, if they were comparable to what we read in the Gospels, may have been misunderstood but that doesn't make them a "devilish counterfeit." The Jews' expectation of the Messiah was based on OT prophecies, not lies made up by false teachers. What they didn't understand was that some things had to happen first, before he reigned as king and restored the kingdom to Israel. These things included the king dying for our sins, and then a period during which he would be seated at God's right hand while the Church proclaimed the Gospel. These were details added to the OT prophecies, and it was the failure to understand them when Jesus preached them that was the main reason the Jews rejected him. But the expectation of a king reigning in Israel again is based on Biblical prophecy, not counterfeit teaching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Read what I wrote: Unless someone is into ancient languages the DEAD SEA SCROLLS are a distraction.
A non-language scholar cannot read the OT from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
A non-language scholar CAN read the OT in his KJV and not be distracted by the sensation of the news surrounding the scrolls. I never said anything about the OT being a distraction. Why would you want to put those words into my mouth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
QUOTE (waysider @ Jan 13 2009, 09:51 AM) *
He knew virtually nothing about The Dead Sea Scrolls beyond their very existence.
Yet, he passed his personal judgment on them without any real investigation.
What is there to document?
Very few people knew much about the contents of the scrolls in 1972 or 73 when Wierwille made the statement.
Are you saying Wierwille had some sort of privileged access to their contents?
I rather doubt that, yet he declared them to be "counterfeit".
That, my friend, is a rush to judgment. It's "hasty".
Which brings me to the question of what it was that YOU knew about The Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1970s that enabled YOU to deem them "not worth looking at"? Was it because you heard Wierwille say so?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
In response, I pointed out that the Dead Sea Scrolls have established the accurate preservation of the OT texts. It was in response to what seemed like an implication that the scrolls are a distraction because they contain nothing about the NT that I said, "Do you consider the OT a distraction?"
Since none of us actually saw the scrolls (at least not in the '70s) what we are talking about is not reading them ourselves but finding out what they say. A non-language scholar can read what language scholars say about them, and thereby learn what their significance is and what it means to textual research, and therefore whether or not the news is simply sensationalism with no substance. I don't see how that could be considered a distraction, if you're into Biblical Research. Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Distraction" is what we were so well conditioned to ignore. (Session 7/ PFAL)
Never allow yourself to be "distracted" by rationale and genuine inquiry.
Rather, "renew your mind" with a regimen of self delusion exercises.
Make a deliberate and systematic practice of anesthetizing the regions of the brain that allow for critical thinking, by means of strange and enticing utterances. And finally, having perfected these things---- STAND. Yes, stand firmly planted in one spot, like a rock that can't be budged, hopelessly immobile, oblivious to the life that ebbs and flows around it. Anything else could result in unspeakable consequences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Sorry I took so long to reply... I brought up the dead sea scrolls as a question to this quoted below right at the beginning of the thread. I realize now that how I worded it came across as flippant and it wasn't really intended to be that way, but as an honest but what about these.
I am the first person to say I am no biblical scholar... I am the average "Joe believer" from "TWI". One of the reasons I got involved with the ministry is because I Love God and I Love his Word... For me the word of God(Bible) was a healing balm to my beleaguered soul and mind. I got involved because of the whole "it fits like a hand in a glove" thing and because of the respect and Love for the word of God that VPW expressed so well in the PFAL class.
I find the whole dead sea scroll issue fascinating because they show the integrity of the Old testament and thus I believe because of that alone they present a good argument that the New Testament also has integrity..
Can I argue it with the likes of all of you who are so much more schooled in researching and stating your own case ... NO probably not. I came to the discussion to learn more about what teachings are out there.
I believe all of it Old and New Testament is there speaking directly to us. All of it is there for us to study and learn from.
I believe in the Integrity of GOD's WORD, All of God's word and it is obvious that ALL of you do also.
Do I have proof and can I site this scholar or that scholar or which page in PFAL or Advanced Class it was in No I can not... but I do know what God's word did for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike Posted Today, 12:51 AM
Ditto for me, and I'd add that if it weren't for the class and the ORANGE BOOK I'd have never been able to approach the KJV and get as much out of it as I did.
---------------------------------------------------------
You might have tried Bullinger's How To Enjoy The Bible.
It was readily available long before The "Orange" Book.
Here's a free download:
http://home.sprynet.com/~dvogel/dvogel.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Have you ever tried to read that book? ...ALL the way through?
I'd say I would have fallen asleep if someone PAID me to read it in my early prePFAL searching days, in my late teens and early twenties, with pot and hippie music rattling my head.
That book is a hard nut to crack EVEN NOW. It was only when I saw how similar it was to PFAL that I had the motivation to slog through it's arcane and scholarly English style. The Orange Book was written for the people, while Bullinger's book was for pointy heads of a previous century.
BUT THANKS FOR THE FREE DOWNLOAD LINK!!! :)
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
themex
In Argentina ther is ex TWI who has a site based on what he said is and original New Testament Text in Arameo Galileo called P-E-S-H-I-T-T-A?.
The link to the site is in the Cortright home page. http://ar.geocities.com/malpana2001/ :blink:
Edited by themexLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Your criticisms of Bullinger's written work perfectly frames your discussion here and all of your subsequent points - they're your preferences, choices and opinions.
As you've already stated you've come up with this and as we already know, for years you've stumbled through (and I'm being kind here) trying to get a head of steam going to coherently put forth just a foundational statement of what your point is. That took months and months of some of the weirdest and blatantly duplicitous posting I've ever seen or read to get to. I actually took breaks from your threads for months, checked in briefly, and checked out because the same discusson was going on, usually punctuated by your 1. being away sick, 2. being away working 3. it raining 4. it being sunny...and you're trying to get caught up.
That's my opinion though - so don't chalenge me as I'm not here to offer a logical argument on this, I'm just presenting my opinion. Please feel free to read this though, no problem.
So fine. So what's the big whoopdee doo then? Well, there isn't any really. When you describe Bullinger though it clearly shows the choices you've made and why. You want to do "the work" now, but you weren't willing to do it then and apparently your choices are the same - E-Z Read, E-Z Road.
Many of the "old grads" you talk about did just the opposite - studied Bullinger, read Bullinger and enjoyed Bullinger. How to enjoy the Bible was an easy read. Not for you though. You wanted, needed and kept to the E-Z read versions.
That's fine. It was your choice. It is your choice. But all of this sarcasm about "pointy heads" is ridiculous. Revealing, but silly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
IS it me, or is that first part almost word for word PFAL... or am I miss remembering again.
Okay I only got a little way through the beginning so far. "how to enjoy the bible" by Bullinger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I don't recall it being word-for-word PFAL, but most of PFAL's main doctrinal points are covered, albeit much more coherently. In places Wierwille betrays a pitiful lack of understanding of what Bullinger is trying to say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In many cases, vpw lifts Bullinger word-for-word. In other cases, vpw lifts Bullinger concept-for-concept.
If there were no Bullinger, there would be no "Are the Dead Alive Now", no Orange Book, and the White Book
would be thinner.
Mind you, vpw also lifts Bullinger's MISTAKES. The claim that "God directed vpw to plagiarize all the correct
stuff from Bullinger" ignores that vpw lifted errors that sounded good.
One obvious example is "the kingdom of heaven" vs "the kingdom of God".
Bullinger gave a detailed explanation of their differences in the Bible.
vpw lifted his detailed explanation of their differences in the Bible.
Both were wrong-in the Bible, the terms were interchangeable, and still are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.