Sacred Scriptures

[JJWhite]

I'm talking about the intent of the expression. You can't always get the meaning from chasing down the root. The root of the word 'spirituality' is breath but if you translate that way you will lose its meaning entirely.

Yeah.. but if you study the Qur'aan in depth, you see preciseness of expression. In books that go into details about this, you will see pages of examples about how a word and synonyms were used in scores of Arabic poems throughout the centuries (usually focusing on pre-Islamic) and intricacies of words and expressions are shown.

"Follow limits" does not appear to be, to my limited knowledge (and of that I will confess), an Arabic expression that is used by Arabs to refer to transgressing limits. I may be wrong. But to me, it just sounds like funny Arabic. I tried to do a Google search of the phrase and besides one Facebook page where some person used those two words together, the only other place I could find them so far is in the Aqdas.

And it's not just that though... the whole book is like that. It surely does not use normal Arabic expression. It like grates at the ear.

 

[smaneck]

They do more than that; they tell us remarkably well-preserved our Scriptures are.

Well, they certainly establish that there haven't been a lot of changes in the Tanak since the 2nd century BCE. In other words, the canonization process was fairly complete by then. It doesn't tell us much about the period before that, however.

 

[razeontherock]

What do you mean by "validating"?
The Book of Mormon "validates" claims of both the OT and NT (at least if you ask LDS members). That sort of thing is easy to pull off if you have a copy of the scriptures in question in front of you, and just transpose your retroactive continuity upon them. It's like writing a sequel to a well-known tale: not much of a difficult task.

You're overlooking many things that couldn't possibly have been known, even if the first writing of any OT material was in the Babylonian exile. Things that point directly to the Gospel as we have it. To me, these are huge reasons to believe Paul's conclusion that it is "God breathed." (Take the names of the first 10 generations, as one example)

 

[JJWhite]

Anyway, smaneck. Gotta go pick my kids up from school

Thanks for the conversation. I enjoyed learning from you today and spending the day looking through Baha'i Scriptures. Maybe one day one of us will learn something new and change our minds regarding their authorship.

Love and peace,

JJ

 

[dlamberth]

They do more than that; they tell us remarkably well-preserved our Scriptures are.

What I find most interesting from the Dead Sea Scrolls are how diverse the beliefs about Jesus were back in those days.

.

 

[Rationalt]

That's not what you said. You said that all you saw was "the ideas of a 7th century man of Arabian desert who wanted to be in charge of people."

There is very little in the Qur'an about Muhammad's leadership.

I am afraid that you are unfamiliar with Quran.Quran says repeatedly to follow muhamad.The Quran even says Allah loves those who obey muhammad.

It is not the business of revelation to provide us with scientific knowledge, we can discover that for ourselves. The references to natural phenomenon in the Qur'an are largely poetic and should be read that way. It is the spiritual truths that matter.

The refernces to natural phenomenon is to Instill belief(The Quran says so).I think your knowledge of Quran is minimal.Please lookup the verses in quran and then we talk.

Qur'an 13:2 Qur'an 31:29 and Qur'an 55:5

 

[razeontherock]

I'm not sure whether you can appreciate what it's like for a strict literalist Christian to find that such stories aren't fact. Once a person, who once read the Bible literally, suddenly finds that these stories are not true, it is impossible to return to that faith they had in scripture once again.

Nah - been there, done that. You'll make it; one foot in front of the other
Perhaps the first thing to confront is, G-d did not lie to you? Or maybe, the first thing you need to is leave the land of your Fathers like Abram did, and also get out from Egypt and into the wilderness to worship G-d like Israel did ...

I'm speaking about myself of course. When I used to read of Paul and Peter saying that all scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, I understood that to mean it was to be read as literally as contextually possible. If the Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God, what is it? And were does it leave faith if the Bible is not inerrant? What you have is a cherry-picked Christianity that is made up from your own interpretations.

That would be troubling, no doubt; but such is not the case! I have kept my integrity and refused many teachings of various Churches that just didn't seem right to me. And come to find out that EO not only knows Scripture far better than any other branch I've been exposed to, but I have yet to find any real divergence from my own findings. So this is pretty significant to me, esp when you consider that EO prides itself on it's direct line of succession all the way to Christ.

And nowhere in their teaching do they affirm what you say here, that God breathed means as literal as possible. (Notice I'm still not chucking my brain out the window and allowing somebody else to do my thinking for me)

 

[smaneck]

What I find most interesting from the Dead Sea Scrolls are how diverse the beliefs about Jesus were back in those days.
.

I presume you mean their beliefs about the Messiah, not Jesus.

 

[Rationalt]

I presume you mean their beliefs about the Messiah, not Jesus.

I remember reading that the dead sea scrolls say Yahweh is one of the sons of EL.

 

[razeontherock]

I think you are quite wrong about this. It is in reference to Jews believing that God would not send a Prophet outside of the Hebrew people.

I think the meaning is clear. God could not have revealed Himself through an Arab like Muhammad.

I used to think that too, but a Jew here pointed out Judaism never says this and in fact, the Bible has a Gentile Prophet, Balaam son of Beor

 

[smaneck]

Nah - been there, done that. You'll make it; one foot in front of the other

This discussion reminds me of one of something one of my pastor friends said. He said if you can get through seminary and still be a believer you deserve your ordination. ;-}

And come to find out that EO not only knows Scripture far better than any other branch I've been exposed to, but I have yet to find any real divergence from my own findings.

I once met a guy on the internet who had belonged to a nutty cult that broke off from the Baha'i Faith. After he left that group he became an Evangelical Christian and would go to Baha'i newsgroups and websites in hopes of 'saving' us all. I suggested that maybe he needed to read more of the Early Church Fathers rather than buy into this fundamentalist 'old time religion' which really isn't any older than the Baha'i Faith. To my surprise, he took my advice. A few years later he wrote me back thanking me profusely for leading him to the Orthodox Church. Not exactly my intention but, oh well. I'm glad he found a home.

 

[smaneck]

I am afraid that you are unfamiliar with Quran.Quran says repeatedly to follow muhamad.The Quran even says Allah loves those who obey muhammad.

There are a few verses that say this, not many.

The refernces to natural phenomenon is to Instill belief(The Quran says so)

You missed the point. It is the natural phenomenon itself which out to instill belief. It is like saying, "How can you look at a beautiful sunset and not believe in God?" The fact that the sun doesn't really set, but rather the earth rotates is really beside the point.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

This discussion reminds me of one of something one of my pastor friends said. He said if you can get through seminary and still be a believer you deserve your ordination. ;-}

"Nobody makes it through seminary with their faith intact."

Indeed there are big hurdles to be crossed once one learns the facts. This is why tests/polls have atheists routinely scoring higher than theists. They tend to be better informed of the 'facts of faith.' Which usally leads to some form of agnosticism/atheism/deism/etc.

 

[razeontherock]

Well, they certainly establish that there haven't been a lot of changes in the Tanak since the 2nd century BCE. In other words, the canonization process was fairly complete by then. It doesn't tell us much about the period before that, however.

True! But most people that are worried abut such things, like to blame the Church, the dark ages, etc. So DSS becomes very significant in this respect, and I for one am not too worried about the Jews changing things from Babylonian exile to Malachi

 

[razeontherock]

What I find most interesting from the Dead Sea Scrolls are how diverse the beliefs about Jesus were back in those days.

.

Yes! He came and went and nobody really knew what happened. Kinda like:

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

 

[Rationalt]

There are a few verses that say this, not many.

But those few verses establish clearly that Muhammad is in charge.

You missed the point. It is the natural phenomenon itself which out to instill belief. It is like saying, "How can you look at a beautiful sunset and not believe in God?" The fact that the sun doesn't really set, but rather the earth rotates is really beside the point.

Right.But the description of the natural phenomenon is in tune with the undestanding of 7th century people.That makes it mundane and not miraculous.

Now, tell me if you have any basis to believe that there is any miraculous content in Quran.

 

[bling]

There was certainly a "church" by then:

"18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this arock I will build my bchurch; and the gates of chell shall not dprevail against it.

19 And I will agive unto thee the keys of the ckingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt dbind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matthew 16

I was addressing specific denominations.

 

[smaneck]

True! But most people that are worried abut such things, like to blame the Church, the dark ages, etc. So DSS becomes very significant in this respect, and I for one am not too worried about the Jews changing things from Babylonian exile to Malachi

Too many Christians are forgetting that the Tanak is not really their scriptures. So what happened during the Dark Ages etc. is really irrelevant to Old Testament Canon. Even the New Testament Canon doesn't change much after St. Jerome's Vulgate which was written just before the western half of the Roman Empire collapses.
What's perhaps a bit more complicated is what we do with the Apocrypha. Luther threw it out of the Bible, but much of the New Testament doesn't make any sense unless read in the context of works written during the Intertestamental period.

 

[smaneck]

I was addressing specific denominations.

Catholics and Orthodox Christians don't regard themselves as 'denominations.' That's a Protestant idea.

 

[razeontherock]

Catholics and Orthodox Christians don't regard themselves as 'denominations.' That's a Protestant idea.

He's saying that these sects now, aren't as they were then.