Foxy,

<<However, I was hoping for a more objective discussion from you. Have you even read Thiering's book?>>

Of course I've read the book. I have a PhD in historical Jesus studies, with an examination of the heretical, postmodern, deconstructionist writings of John Dominic Crossan.

Those wanting to read Thiering's 1992 book, can read most of it online, http://books.google.com.au/books?id=eO7Mntu_v3MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thiering's Pesher method of interpretation is similar to Bultmann's demythologisation and Crossan's deconstructionism. All 3 of them love to engage in imposing their own anti-supernatural debunking of the Scriptures. It is eisegesis full blown.

I wouldn't trust anything Theiring has written to be a reliable interpretation of the text.

loudmouth2,

<<nothing in the universe operates outside of the laws of physics>>

Who made the laws of physics?

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote :

« After an early deep involvement with the Church and then frustration with certain of its doctrines. Prof. Thiering became more interested in the history of religion.

She provided a radically different history of the life of Christ based on her 20-year research into the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.

It gave us a new definition of scripture - that it is written on two levels »
.

Offering a third alternative (“middle of the road”, as it were) between a minimalist and maximalist dichotomic interpretation of first and second century historical religious scripture impregnated with myth, legend and evangelistic propaganda, though highly ambitious, is, nevertheless, an intelligent and admirable endeavour.

It, no doubt, seeks to purge the text of its non-factual trappings while preserving, as far as possible, a fairly solid degree of historicity and credibility. Whether Prof. Thiering has succeeded or not is another matter.

What doubts I have are not related to the seriousness, ability or impartiality of Prof. Thiering. They concern the subject matter itself which does not lend itself easily to the perilous “high trapeze act” she has undertaken.

There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All existing sources are documentary. The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. All extant (surviving) sources that mention Jesus were written after his death.

Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified on the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

That being the case, Prof. Thiering”s book must have shrunken like a woollen pullover washed in boiling water.

Not much left to write about I guess – once she had separated the wheat from the chaff and invited her readers to the table and help themselves – wheat or chaff ? ... or why not a little of both ?

.

Dear Banjo,

«You have my definition of “truth”, Yuyutsu. It has everything to do with information – only information – in all its forms and manifestations.

I look forward to reading yours.»

Truth is that which stands/remains at all times: past, present and future.

While Truth is absolute, information, even when correct, can only be referred to as "relative truth", conditional on circumstances and perspective. English has no word for "relative truth" - the Sanskrit word is "mythyA".
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/satyam.htm

OzSpen,

I did not reject Matthias Media or their monthly
news resource magazine "The Briefing" for
Evangelical Christians. I merely questioned the
objectivity of such a review on Thiering's
Book given that the organisation is totally
committed to the Christian Gospel message that
Jesus is the saviour of humanity.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I found Prof. Thiering's book interesting. It gave
me a different perspective. However it did not affect
my deeply held personal beliefs or my chosen faith
which personally gives me so much peace and calm.
It may seem strange that I can look at things from
different levels and perspectives and yet still
retain my own faith. But there it is.

I like your reference to wheat of chaff -
why not a little of both.
Why indeed.

I love reading your posts.