Richie, 10, wrote:
>>Could you please tell me how you reconcile John 19;34 with your belief as I have been led to believe that water seperates from blood after death. A medical person should be able to tell us.<<

Good question Richie, and only one spelling mistake.

All a medical person would be able to tell us is that if water came from the wound the stomach or bladder might have been pierced and he may or may not have been dead. But he would say that if blood came from the wound then the heart was still beating and he definitely was not dead.

That the writer was trying to emphasize this fact can be seen from the following verse, John 19:35.

Then you spoil it all with this:
>>Dear Symempelogy,
If you want to do anything with your life you will have to learn to use your imagination for positive posibilitys because if you only use your imagination to reinforce your unbelief you will always be an underachiever and never receive your full potential for without faith vou can not please God.<<

I thank you for what seems to be some concern for my welfare, but I can assure you that my interest is solely in getting the history right, and if I have not been able in the last eight decades to receive my full potential then I do not expect to change that now by trying to please some imaginary being.

The pesher technique is interesting and opens up a whole can of worms about the Bible. Using Dr. Thiering's methods anyone can claim anything and claim to have the key to the secret meanings of any text.

It is too open and quickly becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that cannot be disproved. In her book I found the great leaps too much to take seriously. In the case of 'pesher' anyone claim to have found the key. Nothing can be claimed to be true unless would be possible to show it to be false if it is false.

I am all for looking at different ways of reading of text and see if there are alternatives and presenting them as hypothesis, but to take an unproven hypothesis as truth is not acceptable.

The basis of an 'Historical romance' is to pick a series of historical facts and then write a story that weaves itself around those facts. But few people would try to assert that the story is true simply because it fits the facts.

Unfortunately in other areas there are too many people who would make up little stories and claim them to be true because they can be made to fit the facts. I have never liked Dr. Thiering's work because contain too many neat little stories to connect the unrelated.

There have been any number of people who have claimed the knowledge of secret meanings. You will find many of them at 'speaker corner' scattered around the world. Some have had a higher profile like the 'Moonies' or Jonestown.

If a lay person had come up with 'pesher' it would probably been labeled a conspiracy theory.

I don't think anyone has come anywhere near understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls. They seem so unrelated to any understanding of the times that they don't have a point of reference as a starting point. We need that reference point, an anchor, before understanding begins. Pesher is not that anchor.

I think all we can claim at this stage is that all is not as it seems.

to all,
The bible is much Loved much melined and much miss represented by people of the human race. To understand the spiritual you must first understand the natural.
I. In the natural everything reproduces after its own kind unless it is manipulated by a higher authority eg. plant breeders.
2. Babies drink milk and as they grow they are introduced to meat not vise versa.
3. Maturity does not depend on x number of birthdays there is no cutoff date. I have thrown tantrums at my present age because I am not perfect yet.
4. The bible is a many facited book and if you can get an understanding in a short study you are a genius or a freak for it has taken me 28 years of study to connect the dots and get a basic handle on it because everybody sees through diferent eyes that is why we have diference in the four gospels eg. in the account of Jesus linage
Matthew writes Solomon as David's son. Luke writes Nathan as David's son. Jesus mother is also reported to decendant from Judah and as the records where destroyed in the first centuary A.D. your guess is as good as mine and I have only the bible to place my asumptions on I would assume one traces Mary through one of David's sons and Joseph through the other But I stand to be corrected if anyone has irrifutable proof to the contrary.
Thank you

If our education system taught history well, every Muslim child in Australia would grow up as a Christian. Islam grew out of revelations to Mohammed that revealed failures in the interpretation of Christianity, adopted by the early Christians. When only an elite priesthood could read the Holy Bible and they were all men, the ground was fertile for a new belief structure. The tremendous success of Islam was based upon its discipline, and its roots in the Old Testament.

As education has spread, and the Holy Bible is freely available for all to read, especially the lately introduced copies with the words of Jesus Christ printed in red ink, comparisons can be made between the two great religions.

As Lord Erskine said in 1792, When He came in the flesh he might have come like the Mohammedan Prophet, as a powerful sovereign, and propagated His religion with an unconquerable sword, which even now after the lapse of ages, is but slowly advancing under the influence of reason, over the face of the earth; but such a process would have been inconsistent with his mission, which was to confound the pride and to establish the universal rights of men. He came therefore in that lowly state which is represented in the Gospel, and preached His consolations to the poor.

He goes on to say we find political power taking the Church into partnership; thus began the corruptions of both religious and civil power, and hand in hand together what havoc have they wreaked on the world! Ruling by ignorance and the persecution of truth, this very persecution only hastened the revival of letters and liberty.

Erskine would be aghast at Australia today. The Church and State are merged in one man, called a Judge or Magistrate. He goes on to say The Court of Star Chamber, the first restriction of the press in England, was erected previous to all the great changes to the Constitution.

Menzies restored the Star Chamber in 1952. The High Courts great sin was offering a jury trial to Sharkey, the Communist. The Star Chamber is Islamic.

Daviy wrote:
>>The pesher technique is interesting and opens up a whole can of worms about the Bible. Using Dr. Thiering's methods anyone can claim anything and claim to have the key to the secret meanings of any text.<<

Barbara Thiering wrote:
>>The essential methodological point is the rule of consistency. Every special meaning, every particular procedure, is applied in all occurrences throughout the six books. When it is found that there is perfect consistency, it becomes certain that the pesher is objectively there and has been placed there. No arbitrary interpretations will work, no guesses. There are tests of consistency from many different directions.<<
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index3.html

Daviy wrote:
>>I don't think anyone has come anywhere near understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls. They seem so unrelated to any understanding of the times that they don't have a point of reference as a starting point. We need that reference point, an anchor, before understanding begins. Pesher is not that anchor.<<

If anyone has come near to understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls I think Dr Thiering has come nearest. I suggest you have a look at the item "The History of Dr Thiering's Research" at this site:
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_Questions.html
and then go on to browse the rest of the site, it is most enlightening.

Peter the Believer wrote: The High Courts great sin was offering a jury trial to Sharkey, the Communist.

Dear Peter the Believer,

I don't understand. I thought anybody under our system of law is entitled to a jury trial regardless of their political connections and beliefs. Why shouldn't Sharkey have a jury trial?