Dead Sea Scrolls

[Philippe]

Ok well in math today we were talking about countries in a lil group not the class then Vatican came up and this atheist said "the Vatican should burn" so ya i got up in arms and started just like casually talking to him not like attacking him or trying to convert him but he was saying things like how corrupt religions are and he was telling me about the dead sea scrolls and i told him that id look into it if he'd look at Catholocism and i told him phatmass if he wanted to learn cause i think its fair that i see what hes talking about (not that im gonna believe it) and he sees that the Church really isnt as corrupt as he thinks and that its cleaned up so now i gotta find out what these scrolls are so if anyone knows lemme know.

- lifeteener

[Philippe]

i posted this in open mic but i posteed it here if u could give me ideas on how to argue against them

[phatcatholic]

lifeteener,

these two articles are very helpful:

[b]--[url="http://catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2849"]The Dead Sea Scrolls[/url]
--[url="http://catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4199"]Threat to Christianity?[/url][/b]

the claim your friend was probably making is that the Vatican has withheld the scrolls and the information they contain from the public b/c the Vatican knows that the scrolls could be damaging to the historical claim of the Church. the first article describes the scrolls and the events surrounding them. the second article confronts this assertion about the vatican.

i hope this helps.......pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited May 21, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

a more lengthy and detailed version of the second article can be found [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DEADSEA.htm"][b]here[/b][/url]

[Philippe]

how do i explain this 2 an atheist? is it all there? cause like he doesnt believe in saints and stuff

[Theoketos]

I have in my hands a book called "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English" I have read it and it takes away nothing from my Faith.

[phatcatholic]

[url="http://www.crosscurrents.org/deadsea.htm"][b]here[/b][/url] is another excellent article. the resources i have provided as of yet are scarce b/c i want to read the whole thing first and make sure that it is not biased in nature. i want to make sure i provide for you the truth on this topic.

anyway, i have taken from the article linked above the most pertinent paragraphs as they relate to our apologetics:

[quote]The controversies about the publication of the Qumran scrolls reopened the debate about their relation to Christianity-modern and ancient. Carrying on a tradition represented by John Allegro (a member of the original editorial team), Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh charged in 1991 that since the Qumran scrolls contain material that is embarrassing and even fatal to the traditional claims of Christianity, the Vatican has carefully directed a plot to suppress their publication.[11] Despite the fact that these claims were patently absurd to those who know, their work became a publishing sensation not only in English-speaking lands but especially in Germany. About the same time, Barbara Thiering, an Australian scholar, used what she called the "peskier" method to assert that Jesus was part of the royal priestly line of the Qumran sect, was born out of wedlock, performed no miracles, did not die on the cross but was drugged and later revived in a burial cave, married twice and fathered three children![12] The "evidence" for these claims is set out in great detail, but in the last analysis the evidence is worthless and indeed nonexistent.[/quote]

also....

[quote][b]Christian Origins[/b]. The major reason why the Dead Sea scrolls have been "news" for almost fifty years is that they have repeatedly been connected with Jesus and the early Christians. In the effort to get at the "real" story the combination of Jesus and the Dead Sea scrolls has been irresistible. But attempts to demonstrate a direct relation between them turn out to be based on flimsy evidence and cannot be taken as in any way proved. Moreover, the claim that Qumran Cave 7 contained fragments of the Greek New Testament is very dubious.[16] Rather, the Qumran movement and early Christianity are best seen as independent and parallel groups within Judaism in the first century. The real significance of the Dead Sea scrolls for Christian origins is that they fill out and enrich our understanding of the Jewish world in which Jesus and the early Christians lived.

The closest parallels between the Dead Sea scrolls and the Christian Scriptures occur in theological language, eschatological consciousness, and community organization.[17] For both groups, the Hebrew Bible was the major source of theological words and concepts ("covenant," "thanksgiving/confession," etc.). For both groups theological creativity consisted in using old terms in new ways and new contexts. Both groups shared a lively interest in the present and future "fulfillment" of Scripture. The obvious difference is the centrality accorded to Jesus as the focus of early Christian theological language.

Both groups viewed themselves as living in the "last days." They saw the present as a struggle between light and darkness that would soon end with a definitive divine intervention. Both operated out of a schema of modified dualism-one that protected God's sovereignty in creation and at the end-time, while handing the present over to the Prince of Light and the Prince of Darkness. The most complete presentation of this dualism appears in columns 3 and 4 of the Community Rule: "From the God of knowledge comes all that is and shall be.... He has created man to govern the world, and has appointed for him two spirits in which to walk until the time of His visitation: the spirits of truth and falsehood." A similar schema underlies the theologies of Paul and John, Jesus' teachings about God's kingdom in the Synoptic Gospels, and the visions of John the Seer in Revelation. Again, the obvious difference is that the Christian Scriptures place more stress on the present or realized dimensions of God's reign through the decisive event of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Despite (or perhaps because of) their convictions about the imminent intervention of God and the coming of God's kingdom, both groups placed great emphasis on community structures. The group envisioned in the Community Rule had a leader or teacher (maskil) and an "overseer" (mebagger) an inner circle or executive committee of twelve men (standing for the twelve tribes of Israel) and three others (representing the three priestly clans descended from Aaron), and the body of the community called "the many." There are intriguing parallels here to the place of the Twelve Apostles in earliest Christianity, the development of the office of "overseer" or "bishop" (episkopos in Greek), and the references to the whole Christian community in Acts as "the many" (plethos). The obvious difference is the urban and open character of the early Christian community.

There are other fascinating but in the last analysis less convincing parallels: the Qumran practice of community of goods and the sharing practiced by the Jerusalem Christians according to Acts; the ritual washings practiced by the Qumran people and the baptisms of John the Baptist and Jesus' followers; the community meals anticipating the eschatological banquet at Qumran and the Lord's Supper/Eucharist among early Christians; the solar calendar used at Qumran and the chronological discrepancies in the Gospel passion narratives. In each case there are impressive surface communalities but also profound differences, illustrating the basic contention that these were independent and parallel movements within Second Temple Judaism. It is not impossible that John the Baptist once belonged to something like the Qumran movement and that members of such movements became Christians. But early Christian claims about Jesus set Christianity apart from the Qumran and other Jewish movements. [/quote]

i hope this helps.......pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='lifeteener' date='May 20 2004, 11:36 PM'] how do i explain this 2 an atheist? is it all there? cause like he doesnt believe in saints and stuff [/quote]
well, what are you wanting to explain?

actually, if he made the assertion that the Vatican is witholding damaging information about the Church, then the burden of proof is on him to defend his assertion. you may not have to explain anything.

does that help?

i may need a clearer picture of what exactly you are hoping to achieve w/ ur discussion w/ him about the scrolls.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

ooh ooh, another [url="http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0500.asp"][b]good one[/b][/url]

[Philippe]

thanks when ill read them over the weekend so im prepared on monday when i see him again... im gonna have to work hard on this one and be a true Church Militant

[code] Lord, please let the holy spirit guide me in my defence of the Church.

Amen [/code]

[phatcatholic]

you can do it bro