Getting down to business on Christian Origins
- From: David <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:03:23 -0700
On Aug 29, 12:38 pm, Ian <ian.gro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29 Aug, 15:50, David <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 29, 5:25 am, Ian <ian.gro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is your mind open, friend? What would it take to convince you that youA profound knowledge of Christian Origins in a comprehensive sense;
(and your guru) are wrong?
a seminar lasting the rest of this year.
Quantity of evidence is no substitute for quality. Can you give an
exampel of one piece of evidence which, if it shown, you would
instantly accept as proving you wrong?
By the way, I hope you will soon get round to answering the simple but
relevant questions I have posted for you on soc.history.ancient. Let's
get a conversation started.
Ian
I hope you understand that scholars look at the evidence first; then
they
see where it leads and draw their conclusions.
For starters, on soc.history.ancient in "Who's controlling the Dead
Sea Scrolls?"
I passed on the electrifying news that 1QpHab was written in 37 AD on
the
basis of paleography etc. in a long Thiering article that is well
worth studying.
---
How to identify the DSS Teacher of Righteousness as John the Baptist
and
the DSS Wicked Priest as Jesus Christ -
Omissions
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/4599
Extract -
The Teacher and the Wicked Priest appear in only one group of Scrolls,
the
pesharim and parts of CD. The pesharim are 1st century AD, as shown by
content,
carbondating and paleography (all this fully argued previously). The
parts of CD
mentioning the Teacher are shown by carbondating and paleography to
come from
the 1st century AD. The Teacher and his rival never appear in major
sectarian
documents (MMT, Temple Scroll, War Scroll) whose content shows them to
come from
the 1st century BC or earlier. These leaders come at the end of Qumran
history,
not the beginning. It was a major error to ignore these facts and to
assume that
the Teacher was the founder of the sect.
It is essential, before drawing conclusions, to take into account ALL
the
evidence. Evidence that should not be omitted is supplied by Qumran
usage,
differing from our own usage. Three examples in particular make a
great
difference. "Truth" for them, meant their particular doctrines,
opposed to all
others. If the WP had "been called by the name of truth when he first
arose",
then went wrong, he had been an initiate of their community then
turned against
it. When the WP is said to have previously "ruled over Israel" (1QpHab
8: 9-10),
he had been the superior of that part of the community that called
itself
"Israel", that is the laity as opposed to the levitical priests (1QS
8: 5-6;
9:3-4, 6-8, 11, 1QSa 2:20-21). Even more significant, if difficult for
us to
grasp, is the belief illustrated in all the pesharim that when the OT
talked
about "Babylonians" it was really talking about Romans. The NT took
the step of
using "Babylon" as code for Rome (1 Pet 5: 13, Rev 18). It was only a
further
step from this to use the name of the ruler of Babylon as political
code for the
ruler of Rome, in CD 1: 5-6. Compare calling a contemporary tyrant a
"Hitler".
When this is done, a date of AD 6 is supplied for the Period of Wrath,
giving AD
26 as the date of the Teacher. The consequent identification with the
Baptist
fits all other data seamlessly.
.
- References:
- I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: John
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Yowie
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Yowie
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Whiskers
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Yowie
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Ian
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Ian
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Ian
- I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- Prev by Date: Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- Next by Date: T*eiring again
- Previous by thread: Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- Next by thread: Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|