Well thus far I've not said much in this thread.

Hopefully not to annoy dear Foxy :) I do wish to provide an 'alternative' opinion on Thierings writings.. (From Wikipedia)

<<Barbara Thiering (born 1930) is an Australian writer. In books and journal articles she has attempted to challenge Christian orthodoxy, drawing on claimed new evidence that gives alternative answers to its supernatural beliefs. Her claims have been almost entirely dismissed by scholars in the field.

From her speciality, the Dead Sea Scrolls, she has developed the argument that the miracles, including the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, were not just legends as critical scholars hold, but were deliberately manufactured myths.>>

Notice the words "entirely dismissed by scholars in the field"

They are not mine but Wiki's. (and wiki is ALLLways right:)

Of importance in assessing Thierings viewpoint, is the key identity "Teacher of Righteousness" of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

She apparently 're-dates' this personality such that he can be identified with Jesus.

Wiki continues:

While Thiering's thesis attracted some controversy in the media when "Jesus the Man" was published in 1990, her ideas have not received wide, openly acknowledged acceptance on the part of her academic peers. In a response to a letter Thiering wrote to The New York Review of Books, objecting to a review by Geza Vermes, Vermes summed up the academic reaction to her work:

"Professor Barbara Thiering's reinterpretation of the New Testament, in which the married, divorced, and remarried Jesus, father of four, becomes the "Wicked Priest" of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has made no impact on learned opinion. Scroll scholars and New Testament experts alike have found the basis of the new theory, Thiering's use of the so-called "pesher technique", without substance."

Now.. in all of this, I hope it is noticed that I've not ventured a syllable of 'my' opinion on Thierings work, but you can guess it :)

I want to add a postscript to my use of Barbara Thiering's, "Jesus the Man," in answering Oliver's last two questions. Oliver asked that we stay away from the "supernatural" in our answers. I found that Thiering's work suited this purpose.

Amazon.com - sums up the book description of "Jesus the Man," and Thiering's writings in particular, rather objectively:

"This controversial version of Christ's life is not the product of a mind which wants to debunk Christianity. Barbara Thiering is a theologian and a biblical scholar. But after 20 years of close study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospels she has developed a revolutionary new theory which, while upholding the fundamental faith of Christianity, challenges many of its most ingrained supernatural beliefs.

"Jesus the Man" will undoubtedly upset and even outrage those for whom Christianity is immutable and unchangeable. But for many who have found the rituals of the contemporary church too steeped in medieval thinking, it will provide new insights into Christianity in the context of the 1990's."

Here are a few other Editorial Reviews of Thiering's work:

1) "The impact of "Jesus the Man" may be as profound as that of Darwin's "Origin of Species on Theories of Human Origins."
-Focus.

2)"(The) sensational nature (of the book's findings) may disguise the strength and scholarship which Thiering has deployed in the course of her narrative."
-Peter Ackroyd, The Times Saturday Review.

3) "Some will see her as an anti-Christ, a mischievous scholar determined to destroy Christianity. To others she will be a source of comfort and peace enabling them to live Christian lives without having to accept as fact Jesus's divinity, his miracles, the virgin birth, and Resurrection."
-The Australian Magazine.

Other reviews of Thiering's work can be found in:

a) Dr. H. Shanks, Editor, Biblical Archaeology Review (B.A.R.)Sept/Oct
1992.
b) Dr P. Esler, The Bulletin, 9th June 1992.
c) Dr B. Byrne, Sydney Morning Herald, Sat. June 27th 1992.
d) Prof. A. Crown (Professor of Semitic Studies, Sydney University)
in, 'Annals,' June 22, 1992.

I agree, it's interesting in any discussion to hear various opinions.

Theists commonly refer to “Faith”; Let us have look at the word. It means “belief, trust and confidence” and was first used 1300 derived from the Latin Fides:

a1300 Cursor M. 3405 (Cott.) In drightin was his fayth ai fest. c1340 Ibid. 2286 (Trin.) In maumetrie furst fei he [nembrot] fond. c1391 CHAUCER Astrol. II. §4 Observauncez..& rytes of paiens, in which my spirit ne hath no feith. – OED – Unabridged.

So, Faith entered the English Language in 1300. Chaucer in 1391 states he has no confidence in Astrology.

Faith entered the "Religious" English language in 1383:

1382 WYCLIF Jas. ii. 17 Feith, if it haue not werkes, is deed in it silf. 1382 WYCLIF Jas. ii. 17 Feith, if it haue not werkes, is deed in it silf.

The speaker is saying that faith is a deed in itself. This is “justifying” faith. The other religious faith is “speculative” faith. John Wyclif addresses “justifying” faith.

The definition of “speculative faith” is:

“The spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof.” : e.g.,

1651 HOBBES Leviath. III. xlii. 271 Faith is a gift of God, which Man can neither give, nor take away. 1690 LOCKE Hum. Und. IV. xviii, Faith..is the Assent to any Proposition..upon the Credit of the Proposer, as coming from God, in some extraordinary way of Communication. 1700 BURKITT On N.T. John i. 12 Faith is..such an affiance in Christ..as is the parent and principle of obedience to him.

–OED– Unabridged.

Regarding faith, "it could be proved that the Hebrew does not in itself contain the notion of belief, it must necessarily presuppose it". (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

The Hebrew causative conjugation, or Hiph'il, means "to believe", e.g. Genesis 15:6. (Catholic Encyclopaedia) To conjoined with Latin Fides/Faith hundreds/thousands of years later it becomes, “I believe, because, I believe”.

Both the faith & trust have continuity between ancient times & 1300 CE. Only in the fourteenth century is the notion of “confidence” in said faith & judgement added. Contrarily, in Moses' additive is “steadfastness”. (Catholic Encyclopaeda)

Boaz my good friend,

The idea of Pesher and the Quell document/construct are devices to dead largely with period 50 BCE - 50CE. The constructs are derived but not speculative to the point of being unreasonable. Like Troy [now found] and Atlantis [a sizable, but ordinary Minoan City-State].

Thiering is peer published on the dead sea scrolls - I checked. She would well aware that her work would be so outside orthodox discipline it would desk rejected jounal editors and not make it to review. So ideas are not accepted easily Einstein, at first, did believe Heinsenberg. Dirac, at first, did not believe Dirac! [He discovered anti-matter and didn't accept the findings of his equations.]

One thing Thiering's calendar does support is Herod being alive when Jesus was born. The Bible doesn't. I do not think histographers would accept the Bible's use of the Virgin. I have also read in Rome that the terms Vigin and Crone, were used generically designate young womwn and old women, respectively.

Incidently, Vestal Vigins, did have to stay virgins all they lives. Also, I think I am correct in saying some Essene Preists, could have comfort with sacred prostitutes, at designated times.

I would accept Thiering an expert on the Dead Seas Scrolls and Frisrt Century Languages, the Pesher is testing new ground. But secret codes are not new.

Further, I would accept an expert Dawkins on genetics, not culture nor history. Richard Leakey, an expert on paleo-anthopology. Gell-Mann, sub-atomic physics & QM. Penrose, cosmology. Greenfield, neuroscience. The evidence of many disciplines provide alternatives to go and sometimes cross-valid each other. Alternatives, to religion, god and Jesus. Each is a separate construct as I have noted on several times:

Intelligent Design if itis true, hypothetically, what is the proof that Jesus' "in ousia" was that Designer

ok oliver
so on belief on faith alone dosnt make much sense
Same for non belief based on science opinion or theory alone,many athiests have no understanding only following science by blind faith[trusting faulse gods]

we base our belief on facts as we witness every day [most of those who believe in god do so by proof we recieve via gods great creation and books reporting past 'god' teachings and errors]

so out of the athiests ,apparently a billion [or there abouts] how many understand science? [how many can explain evolutionary inheritors?]
or Have any scientific opinion or understanding [how many blindly have faith in science and follow the likes of dorkins ,quoting his delusions mindlessly of his science con

faith can move mountains [True or faulse]
if your insane enough to say faulse explain placebo affect

having faith in science mindlessly is as dumb as having faith in religion [mindlessly] ,
But dont be thinking some clever spin on faith has any real proof [or can be claimed to be scientific ,if science cant measure it or duplicate it it isnt science]
Last i heard science hadnt egsactly gotten arround to making even its first cell [nor-even-only-a-cell membrane]

Sure they can take a GOD-given-membrane and adapt or replace the chromosonal-contents ,but they have never evolved one species into any other genome.

[And dont be quoting plastic bacteria [cause thats micro-evolution within-the-same-species [just like darwins-pigions and-finches]
''science'' claims a family-accendant-tree decending down to the very first-cell into new genome,yet cant replicate the damm thing from nothing or mutate nothing-into-something

[Blind-faith in science is dumber than having blind-faith in-a greater power]

When we both die [those who find life-hereafter who believed-in-god can say i told you so , to the-athiests ,

But if-it-is-we-who-are-decieved and it-so-turns-out-that there is no after life or/no god then>no athiest will-be-able-to-say :see there was nothing ,we-told-you-so

Blind-faith alone its not a good reason-for-anything-but why-do-you have a problem with a know-it-all god who-is-smarter than you ?and-Smarter-than-all-his-creation?

Who by-letting-us-use-our own freewill freely-allows us to believe it as-we-chose or-not

BD consider Judea has a Greek foundation and Rome a Latin foundation. Herein, the Jews were stuggling to maintain different relationships with the Roman Empire, while the orthodox Jews were trying to retain said orthodoxy in a Diaspora, under other non-Latin cultural traditions: e.g., Greek.

[Many of the Roman legions that pushed the Roman Empire West would gave ethnically Greek soldiers.]

It wasn't like Hollywood makes out. There were Orthodox Jews and Hellenised Jews. Jesus, the latter. Later the Greek to be turbo-charged by Paul :-). I think Jesus may have been trying to build Hellenised Judaism organically by lessening the barriers for Gentile membership. After Jesus was dead [whenever], Hadrian forced the cause because the persecution of the Jewish religion required that some Jewish feign as non-Jews by having Gentile Bishops, to overcome excile and move into holy [to Jews] otherwise banned areas.

As noted above, "Faith" as you express it, probably started around the fourteen century. The OT & NT were different than that Middle-Ages expression, and, different from each other!

Cheers.

All,

If infinite regress can be posited as God as the delimited; it would seem to humans are trying to make anthromophic that delimiter/stop. [we and God share the same image in Christianity at least]. Why not a closed sytem that creates universes. Time itself is a derived dimension. Said derivations are could between indetreminancy and determinancy; not requiring the more primative notion of cause-and-effect.

C'mon theists, please provide a conceptual model with defined constructs. Some tangibility or substance of the latent variables, thanks.

Still respect your right to believe.

George [an OLO contributor] is correct, I am a seeker. I am not anti-theism/religion. "A" in atheism means "not", rather than opposed to. Anyway Theism and Atheism sit to close to claiming infalliability for me to accept either on philosophic. Any postulate/hypothesis should be held tentatively.


Foxy,

Enjoying your comments across posts.

Good work. Keep it up!