/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>794311

They were never hidden knowledge. They’re just a stash of valuable books that were stowed away by Jews who didn’t want them burned. Mostly OT books of prophecy, and some other books that aren’t considered inspired scripture. Most are written on parchment and papyrus but there’s a few that were on sheets of bronze.

>>794313

Oh. Doesn't have anything with the Lord's acts and such?

>>794315

Yeah, books like Ezekiel.

Not God's word. God promised to preserve his word to every generation, so either they aren't God's word or God didn't keep his promise

>>794322

Hey, I'm trying to have a real thread over here.

If you want to know about the Old Testament, you better learn Greek

>>794322

Obligitory

>>794311

from what I know, they really just provide evidence of ancient versions of the masoretic text, the oldest versions we had being from the 9th century. It does have, however, slight differences, but I haven't heard of any that would change any theology.

the dead sea scrolls prove that the Masoretes did an excellent job of preserving the OT.

I honestly thought /christian/ was more informed. Not God's word? There are remains of all of the scriptures besides Esther, and a very intact scroll of Isaiah that is the best of the bunch. They've been invaluable to get to the truth behind the Septuagint and Syriac especially and why it differs a bit from the Masoretic - and the result is what the Church always said it was - that Rabbis corrupted their own texts and purposely tried to take out Messianic references. It's all there for you to see, once you to stop putting Jews on a pedestal and know who your actual enemy is (hint: It's not the Church).

The rest, yes, are some apocryphal books and other writings specific to the community there, but that isn't the bulk of it.

>>794343

It's not the Masoretic. That's from a thousand years later. It represents many readings underlining the Septuagint, Samaritan, Syriac, and even Josephus (a segment of Pharisee scholarship himself from the 1st century.. but before they really mobilized and codified Rabbinicism as we know it).

>>794311

>What does /christian/ thinks about them ?

Most exciting thing on this planet to be quite frank and honest, family.

>>794358

Huh, I was under the impression that they were basically an older version of the Masoretic, though I do remember reading somewhere that they were somewhere in between the ot variations.

>>794363

Well, they all share like 90% of the same readings. That should still be encouraging. But the remaining differences are some important passages in the church, coincidentally. I just find it shameful that anyone even bothered giving Rabbis the benefit of the doubt in the first place.

The Reformers in particular put the Jews in high regard, and cast suspicion on Christian tradition and history in it's stead. As if everyone but Jews were the dishonest ones. I understand that they disliked the papacy for legitimate reasons, but this was just plain retarded. They threw out the baby with the bathwater, and created a whole slew of evangelical followers who give the benefit of the doubt to Jews over the church.. without fail.. time and time again. To me, it's one of the biggest betrayals in the church. It's like one of those heart-sinking moments when someone you love, like a family member, embraces an outsider and works against you… except this is on a larger scale. I'm glad something like the Dead Sea Scrolls were preserved, in the hopes it might drop some suspicions and place them in the right place. At least a little.

It's also grounded in the most retarded reason: They use to have a theory that Hebrew was the "original language". So naturally, they started placing any Hebrew biblical text over and above all others too… just because it was in Hebrew, regardless if it came from blasphemers. Merely because the Septuagint was in Greek, they cast undue suspicion on it. They were "judges with evil thoughts" as scripture puts it, and assigning blame in the wrong ways. If you really want to cast suspicion, cast it first on the guy who denies Christ. Not the guy who simply wrote in Greek.

Besides, linguistics has shown the origin of Hebrew to not be the "first language". It's a ridiculously outdated theory, but evangelicals still unconsciously operate by it. But it's also silly because what we have now isn't even Hebrew as Moses or David knew it. Moses wrote the Torah in Paleo-Hebrew, and scholars thought it was lost by the Exile (the Hebrew form we have now is derived from a Babylonian script). So another interesting sidenote about the Dead Sea Scrolls is that this community also had many documents and could read Paleo-Hebrew into the 1st century AD. Some people kept it alive, and they were one of the groups.

>>794369

I think part of that is this misconception of Rabbinical Judaism as being frozen in time, right before the birth of Christ, which is both propaganda from the Rabbis themselves, and flatly wrong. In the US at least there's this conception that the Jews simply deny Christ, and that's their only problem. With certain sects that may be true, but certainly with most of the ones that I've seen, they tend to either blatantly disregard the law, or like their ancestors the Pharisees, the orthodox follow their man-made esoteric rules in order to gain outer cleanliness. They are literally almost completely the same as the Pharisees, and we never consider how they really shouldn't be trusted in matters of theology.

>>794421

I would have to agree the level of craziness is insane, which only gives Christ's criticisms more validity.

>>794421

why is dat jue in a plastic bag is he kill?

>>794355

Maybe because you're new, like the ignorant morons you're taking issue with?

>>794574

Luther was generally speaking a lot more conservative than most other reformers. Probably the best example is his insistence on real presence, but not liking the aristotelian explanation of transubstantiation.