'Newly Discovered Ancient Manuscripts from Dead Sea Scrolls Cave.'

page: 7
36
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

beansidhe

WarminIndy
reply to post by beansidhe
 


Question: Why did this man say phylacteries were leather pouches, when phylacteries are the square boxes tied to their heads?

It's kind of tough to stuff a scroll into a phylactery. I therefore question this article until the author redacts phylactery.


Thankfully Utnap wrote this earlier, so I can answer your question:




My initial thought was, oh no, another pile of fragments to add to the already vast DSS puzzle. But after digging a little deeper (pun intended - Source), I understand these nine fragments were actually tiny scrolls found inside leather 'tefillin'. Tefillin are two little boxes each containing compartments with tiny handwritten scrolls inside which the observant Jew carefully bind around their hand and forehead as part of the morning prayer ritual.


The scrolls he refers to are very, very small, and the phylacteries were, in fact leather, so I think he's using the word pouch interchangeably with phylactery. It's hard to be certain, but that's my best guess.


When talking about Orthodox Judaism, I would think he would not say pouch when referring to tefillim and phylacteries.

But moving aside from that, why would First Century Christians be wearing phylacteries when it was not their practice to do so? If anything, it proves a Jewish source. So the DSS scrolls are Jewish, except for the Gnostic texts also found? If both were found together then this cave wasn't so hidden. Could it be they were put there in the Islamic invasion of the 7th Century?

But why then would both be found together? It's a mystery.




posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 04:52 AM
link   

beansidhe
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


On a good day. When doctrine really hits, it hits hard.
Hope all is good with you!


Indeed, yes, everything's fine. As fr the teffilin, I suppose they could also be made in the shape of pouches. Like I said, it's all about which doctrine you'd follow. Today, you can read a person like an open book judging from his teffilin and the scrolls inside. The typeface used, which order they are stuffed in and read and so on, it can tell a great deal about which rabbinical doctrine the person follows, and basically what kind of sect he belongs to and so on. I think it's just silly and only shows how far doctrine can stretch the band.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 04:54 AM
link   

WarminIndy

beansidhe

WarminIndy
reply to post by beansidhe
 


Question: Why did this man say phylacteries were leather pouches, when phylacteries are the square boxes tied to their heads?

It's kind of tough to stuff a scroll into a phylactery. I therefore question this article until the author redacts phylactery.


Thankfully Utnap wrote this earlier, so I can answer your question:




My initial thought was, oh no, another pile of fragments to add to the already vast DSS puzzle. But after digging a little deeper (pun intended - Source), I understand these nine fragments were actually tiny scrolls found inside leather 'tefillin'. Tefillin are two little boxes each containing compartments with tiny handwritten scrolls inside which the observant Jew carefully bind around their hand and forehead as part of the morning prayer ritual.


The scrolls he refers to are very, very small, and the phylacteries were, in fact leather, so I think he's using the word pouch interchangeably with phylactery. It's hard to be certain, but that's my best guess.


When talking about Orthodox Judaism, I would think he would not say pouch when referring to tefillim and phylacteries.

But moving aside from that, why would First Century Christians be wearing phylacteries when it was not their practice to do so? If anything, it proves a Jewish source. So the DSS scrolls are Jewish, except for the Gnostic texts also found? If both were found together then this cave wasn't so hidden. Could it be they were put there in the Islamic invasion of the 7th Century?

But why then would both be found together? It's a mystery.


Can you please tell me what Gnostic texts were found at Qumran? And how a Teffilin cannot be a pouch?



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Utnapisjtim

WarminIndy

beansidhe

WarminIndy
reply to post by beansidhe
 


Question: Why did this man say phylacteries were leather pouches, when phylacteries are the square boxes tied to their heads?

It's kind of tough to stuff a scroll into a phylactery. I therefore question this article until the author redacts phylactery.


Thankfully Utnap wrote this earlier, so I can answer your question:




My initial thought was, oh no, another pile of fragments to add to the already vast DSS puzzle. But after digging a little deeper (pun intended - Source), I understand these nine fragments were actually tiny scrolls found inside leather 'tefillin'. Tefillin are two little boxes each containing compartments with tiny handwritten scrolls inside which the observant Jew carefully bind around their hand and forehead as part of the morning prayer ritual.


The scrolls he refers to are very, very small, and the phylacteries were, in fact leather, so I think he's using the word pouch interchangeably with phylactery. It's hard to be certain, but that's my best guess.


When talking about Orthodox Judaism, I would think he would not say pouch when referring to tefillim and phylacteries.

But moving aside from that, why would First Century Christians be wearing phylacteries when it was not their practice to do so? If anything, it proves a Jewish source. So the DSS scrolls are Jewish, except for the Gnostic texts also found? If both were found together then this cave wasn't so hidden. Could it be they were put there in the Islamic invasion of the 7th Century?

But why then would both be found together? It's a mystery.


Can you please tell me what Gnostic texts were found at Qumran? And how a Teffilin cannot be a pouch?


You are correct. It was late and I was confusing DSS with the Nag Hammadi, I don't know why I would confuse the two as normally it is not my way to do such things.

However, the phylactery, teffilin and pouch, I thought of pouch as something normally carried independently and not specifically tied onto the body. If you say teffilin can be a pouch, then perhaps it may be.

Phylacteries are usually square boxes, and all the pictures I have seen show that. The Orthodox rabbis I have seen usually weren't wearing phylacteries.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


The reason for it mostly being shaped like a cube is probably to act as a scaled down Holy of Holies, which is also cubic. The Kaba in Mecca is cubic, and The New Jerusalem of John is shaped like a cube. Seems to be one of the Abrahamian God's signatures, as a sign of his covenants with his humans in his astronomical ant farm experiment.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Utnapisjtim
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


The reason for it mostly being shaped like a cube is probably to act as a scaled down Holy of Holies, which is also cubic. The Kaba in Mecca is cubic, and The New Jerusalem of John is shaped like a cube. Seems to be one of the Abrahamian God's signatures, as a sign of his covenants with his humans in his astronomical ant farm experiment.


LOL, well since Ka'aba is actually borrowed from the language of Ethiopians, which in turn was borrowed from the Greek, which does mean cube, doesn't necessarily mean it was God's signature, because the Ka'aba could also be a Zoroastrian fire temple, because Zoroastrian fire temples were everywhere, including Saudi Arabia.

I think it's like anything else within a culture, whatever works works for them.

Zoroastrian might not be Abrahamic, but they did use cubes for their fire temples. No one really knows the history of the Ka'aba before Islam. We know it was there, we know they set idols in it, but we don't know exactly where all the idols came from. We simply don't know all of the religions that contributed to the 360 idols, except for one.

We do know that the black rock was associated with Artemis and Jupiter and found all over the ancient world. But I did see a video of a Hindu man explaning the Ka'aba was Shiva's lingam. I am not sure how he discovered that and if it is only his opinion, we don't know.

The Temple of Solomon had never actually been seen after the razing by Antiochus Epiphanes, but the Holy of Holies prior to the temple was housed in a tent, so I would assume it had to be designed for mobility and had to be taken down and easily set up again. Whatever works.

I do find it strange, and this is just me, why Solomon would knowingly build a temple with graven images of chimeras knowing the restrictions of creating them, and putting them in the temple. I don't get that because clearly the second commandment forbade that, but even the Ark was reputedly adorned with Seraphim.

I would assume that the catch was in whether or not people bowed down to them. But the commandment was "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, neither things in the earth nor in the sky and neither shall thou bow down unto them". So the commandment was two fold.

But I don't know, I wasn't living then.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Isaiah 19:23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. 24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: 25 Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless , saying , Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

Besides, only graven images are forbidden, the computer screen is a mosaic, thus it's not a graven image. A graven image can be useful in printing, perhaps it's printing God forbade?
edit on 16-3-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: Added last §



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Utnapisjtim
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Isaiah 19:23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. 24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: 25 Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless , saying , Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

Besides, only graven images are forbidden, the computer screen is a mosaic, thus it's not a graven image. A graven image can be useful in printing, perhaps it's printing God forbade?
edit on 16-3-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: Added last §


I suppose it's all a matter of semantics.

Mohammed said no pictures, but had a picture of Aisha given to him by Jibreel....

Who knows, I think if it is merely semantics, then statues certainly aren't forbidden, except chimeras were worshiped in other places. And money, that's graven and engraved by process.

But the commandment was given just as Aaron tossed all the gold into the pot and "out pops this golden calf' as though he wasn't expecting it. But they worshiped it, but then Moses makes the serpent on the pole and everyone who looked at it would be healed of snake bites. Maybe that's why there are so many Jewish doctors?

In semantics, anything is open to interpretation, after all that's why there are so many opinions in rabbinical councils. I once heard a rabbi say "Ask ten Jews one question and you get 11 different answers". So Judaism must be whatever one's opinion is of their Judaism, in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

WarminIndy
In semantics, anything is open to interpretation,


Hehe, well, though I would wish semantics had such magical properties, I'm afraid I have to dissapoint you, or in the light of the Word-- illuminate you a tad bit here. Semantics is the linguistic science of determining and categorising lexical meanings to any word. The semantics of a word either spesifically or on sentance level reveals the lexical meaning or what the word means, or may mean in different contextual or hermeneutical respects. Since the same word can have different meanings in different contexts, like the word for tree in Norwegian, 'tre'. This word has several semantical meanings, not just 'tree'. It is also the number 'three' and also 'to enter' and 'to pull on' [tight jeans] and 'thread' [a needle] and so on. Get the point? Have to fly here....



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
How could these have been missed for so long? How is that possible.
You'd think that all the scrolls in that cave would have been found and examined by now.
It's odd ...



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Well you'd think, but apparently not...
It seems that the equipment is now available to read these documents, I think without unrolling them. I'll find out the exact procedure and get back to you



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Utnapisjtim

WarminIndy
In semantics, anything is open to interpretation,


Hehe, well, though I would wish semantics had such magical properties, I'm afraid I have to dissapoint you, or in the light of the Word-- illuminate you a tad bit here. Semantics is the linguistic science of determining and categorising lexical meanings to any word. The semantics of a word either spesifically or on sentance level reveals the lexical meaning or what the word means, or may mean in different contextual or hermeneutical respects. Since the same word can have different meanings in different contexts, like the word for tree in Norwegian, 'tre'. This word has several semantical meanings, not just 'tree'. It is also the number 'three' and also 'to enter' and 'to pull on' [tight jeans] and 'thread' [a needle] and so on. Get the point? Have to fly here....


Yeah, and....that's what I meant.

If it depends on the context, then context can be taken differently depending on the hearer is. Ok, just don't melt your wings.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   

WarminIndy
Ok, just don't melt your wings.


No worries, they're not the wax kind



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


A wee bit more info here:






'Either they didn’t realize that these were also scrolls, or they didn’t know how to open them,' the IAA's head of artefact treatment and conservation Pnina Shor said.

The tiny scrolls were found inside three phylacteries, small leather boxes with Biblical verses written on them (called tefillin) that are worn by Jews during their morning prayers.
Their discoverer, Yonatan Adler, had the boxes scanned using CT at a hospital in Israel in hopes there would be parchment inside.

Until now, the scrolls remained bound inside the phylacteries for approximately 2,000 years.
The IAA has been tasked with the difficult job of unrolling the scrolls without damaging them.
'We’re going to do it slowly, but we’ll first consult with all of our experts about how to go about this,' said Schor, who would not reveal when the process would start.
'We need to do a lot of research before we start doing this.'

Remains of more than 900 religious manuscripts were found in 11 caves near the Dead Sea in the 1940s and 50s in Qumran.
Once read , the scrolls are expected to shed new light on the religious practices of the Jewish people during the Second Temple Period between the years of 530 BC and 70, an era named for a holy place of worship for the Jewish people that was constructed by the builder of ancient Jerusalem King Herod.



Daily Mail



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I think the reason there is a conflict between the ten commandments and the fashioning the molten image of the cherubim and bulls, is that the graven image command was added later, by the Deuternomists to cover the fact that the history of Israel is full of idolatry, which they considered the worst crime. Their reasoning against the images comes from a lack of understanding of the images, that they represent something, like icons on your desktop are a portal into the actual file. These folks are the "by the letter" crowd that Paul and Jesus spoke against. Jesus is called the exact icon of the Father. The jews couldn't understand it, because they had become so base in their interpretation of the symbols of god, that had been passed down from time immemorial. In fairness the majority of the pagans didn't understand it at that point either, and so when idolatry is derided in the New Testament they are speaking against the by the letter understanding of the universal symbols. To the pagans it was priests actually having sex with women to impregnate them with a divine child. This is an exoteric understanding of the archetypes. Not knowing that what it really referred to was the implanting of the divine seed, aka the logos, or the exact image, into your womb(soul), creating a birthing of the son of God within you. Paul speaks of this when he says "I'm like a midwife with you enduring labor pains, until Christ (the wisdom/power of God) be birthed IN YOU".

Still the masses are taught an exoteric by the letter understanding of the Bible. Jesus spoke to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The cherubim throne is a powerful image of our divinization, in union with the caduceus (they are the same image in type). The problem comes when we don't see the images as what they are, a portal into the Divine realm. When we see them as the end all be all, then we have idolatry. Stephen spoke of this by quoting Amos while dying for recognizing the exact image for who he was/is. "it was not to me you made sacrifices to all those years in the wilderness, it was your moloch and chiyun" Also translated as siqquth or tabernacle deity. Moloch is melech or king, Jupiter. Chiyun is saturn. Moloch and Chiun are the two cherubim on the ark. And the Siqquth is the tent that covered the ark.

The Israelites were worshipping these gods, as though they were anything more than a device or tool. Some will always get hung up on the shiny objects, and not see that they have no value in and of themselves, other than as a vehicle of trade, or a tool. The concept of a mytheme is relevant here. Or a meme. Just as money is a place holder for something, so is an icon. Jesus as the exact icon always pointed to the Father. The idolater points to the flesh Jesus, or the literal graven image of the ark and says that is the god. Paul said "now we know no man after the flesh" he says this in reference to Jesus, who was the Christ, or the Logos, aka the logo of God. We don't sit in front of a logo of a sports team and look at for 3 hours. No that logo represents the team we will watch.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   

hounddoghowlie


edit on 6-3-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)
man what happened to my post, i edited it and now the whole thing is gone.
edit on 6-3-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


I'm afraid it has fallen into the hands of the Rockerfellas



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Village Idiot

hounddoghowlie


edit on 6-3-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)
man what happened to my post, i edited it and now the whole thing is gone.
edit on 6-3-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


I'm afraid it has fallen into the hands of the Rockerfellas


Quote: "The Rocka-who?"

OK movie reference. But when I read that, it took me a bit to realize you meant Rockefellers...lol.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by beansidhe
 


News has finally reached the Smithsonian Foundation



The nine new scrolls were collected along with the others, but somewhere along the line archaeologists had just lost track of them. “Either they didn’t realise that these were also scrolls, or they didn’t know how to open them,” said the head of the Israel Antiquities Authority's Dead Sea Scrolls project to the Times of Israel.


==> www.smithsonianmag.com...



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


Keeping you current, indeed!
Thanks, Utnap- better late than never, Smithsonian!



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   

CommandoJoe

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by R_Clark
 


reply to post by borntowatch
 


i was replying to a members post about hiding some supposed imaginary truth about the origins of Christianity.
pointing out that jews don't coddle Christians.

i guess i should have said some instead of is not all that Christian friendly.
sometime the reading.., well i wont go there.

i should have pointed out that the IAA (Israel Antiquities Authority ) handles all matters of the dead sea scrolls in Israel.



In honor of the 60th anniversary of the discovery of the scrolls last year, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), the custodian of the scrolls, which maintains a laboratory dedicated solely to their conservation, convened a conference this year on the urgent matter of their conservation. The IAA called on experts from the Italian Ministry of Culture to seek solutions to unsolved issues, such as releasing fragments that are still encased in the original glass plates in which they were placed in the 1950s.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, Israel


then knowing that majority of the population of Israel identify as being jewish



Israel is also the only country in the world where a majority of citizens are Jewish. According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, the population in 2011 was 75.4% Jewish, 20.6% Arab, and 4.1% minority groups.[1] The religious affiliation of the Israeli population[vague] as of 2011 was 75.4% Jewish, 16.9% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.7% Druze, with the remaining 4.0% not classified by religion.[2]


then posted some of theses videos instead of a opinion piece from the wall street journal.

www.youtube.com...=208
i edited this and gave a link due to language, you should watch this one.




further, i support Israel and the Jewish state, sad fact is that just like any where else in the world one group hates another and Christians seem to take more heat world wide than anyone else.

edit on 6-3-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



McGinty
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


The first vid could be graffiti done sourly be the filmmaker - proves nothing, really.

However, the second vid is very disturbing indeed. No offence hounddoghowlie, but can anyone else shed light on it? Is it representative, or as the guy tells the interviewer is it this just a few nutters?


As an American Christian living in Israel for almost 4 years, I can say that neither me or my wife have ever felt discriminated against or mistreated in any way for being Christian (or American for that matter)... Quite the opposite in fact, we've been very well treated here.

Your first article was about a relatively small group of Palestinian Christians in the West Bank, and not Christians in Israel in general. And I think it is very likely they are mistreated more because they are being lumped in with all Palestinians rather than because they are Christian... I have an Arab Christian friend here, who lives in Israel, is an Israeli citizen, has a good job, and is well respected by our team.

Another thing - while the majority of the Israeli population identifies as Jewish, most are secular (I've heard #'s around 80%). The second video in your later post is NOT the majority, they are ultraconservative Orthodox Jews and some of those would be considered borderline extremist or radical. Some of the people (Jewish) I work with can't stand them - many are a burden on the welfare system and refuse to work and refuse to serve the mandatory military service, preferring to study Torah all day at the public's expense. Most of the bad behavior of religious Jews that is publicized abroad is going to be from the Orthodox community...


Thanks for that! I'm relieved that the world hasn't gone crazy. There'll always be a few bad apples, but glad to here the majority remain humane





top topics
 
36
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join