Foxy,

<<While I appreciate your giving me the link from Tony Payne's "Matthias Media," an Evangelical Christian Publisher. I find that the critique of Barbara Thiering's book is hardly an objective one.>>

You've committed a genetic logical fallacy (<https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/99/Genetic-Fallacy>). You did not deal with the content of Payne's article but blamed his lack of objectivity on being published by an 'evangelical'publisher. That's fallacious reasoning.

<<I believe that the views of innovative thinkers add value to every society. Only by questioning traditional beliefs can those beliefs be either reaffirmed or modified>>.

I agree. We need innovative thinkers in many disciplines. However, turning the Gospels into two levels of meaning, the surface meaning and the deeper meaning, does not get to what the author meant. It is a way for Thiering to impose her 'creative theology'. Try that approach with interpreting The Sydney Morning Herald.

Attempt that philosophy with questioning traditional beliefs about gravity, breathing oxygen and copulation.

<<That the connections between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospels have been either downplayed or totally rejected by some people does nothing to invalidate Thiering's reasoning>>

That's your assertion, but without evidence it is nothing more than your opinion. You seem to obtain this view from Thiering (pp. 7-12).

<<Anyway, I am sure that in the future young researchers, if they are not biased by religious faith will study her work.>>

I wish them luck as they try to obtain Thiering's conclusions from the text. They are not there.

No researcher is without bias - none! Objective research that is peer-reviewed is one way to overcome the bias. But what you've written here is your Thiering-influenced bias of theological liberalism.

<<what will remain unimpeachable is the quality of Thiering's scholarship>>

Quality scholarship? You must be trying to kid us!

It was Thiering who claimed that Jesus Christ was the 'son of Joseph, a descendant of King David through the Nathan line and of Mary. Jesus was conceived during his parents' betrothal period before their legal marriage' (p. 539).

(continued)

(continued)

Foxy,

Contrary to the exegesis of the biblical text, Thiering claims that 'in AD29 he [Jesus] joined with the Twelve Apostles to oppose John the Baptist' (p. 539). This is another Thiering contrivance, not based on quality research.

Why was he crucified? It was 'through a political stratagem' (p. 539) and he was 'given poison on the cross to end his sufferings, but merely lost consciousness and was helped to revive by his friends' (p. 540).

What happened after that? He joined 'with the pro-Gentile party' and led it to Rome in AD 61 and was alive in Rome in AD 64 and 'his death is not recorded' (p. 540).

One reviewer of her book wrote:

<<I felt distinctly uneasy as Dr Thiering breathlessly wrote off one Christian belief after another, having discovered the key to understanding with her pesher. It is all too easy, and as unsatisfying as being given a mathematical formula at school that enabled you to answer all the questions at the stroke of a pen.

<<While the introduction suggests that Dr Thiering's research will 'open up a whole new understanding of historical Christianity', in effect it attempts to pull down the shutters on Christian faith, the things we trust in but cannot prove, for ever>> (Peter Stanford, Independent, 5 October 1992 <https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/book-review-who-had-three-children-with-mary-magdalene-jesus-the-man-barbara-thiering-doubleday-1699-1555621.html>

It was Thiering who made the outrageous claim that Mary Magdalene conceived to Jesus in the 'trial marriage' period and had three children to him (p. 545). She arrived at this ingenuous conclusion through her "pesher" method of interpretation that enabled Thiering to read her message into the story. She created this fiction of the "deeper meaning" about Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene through Magdalene's anointing of Jesus' feet, which was central to the Qumran wedding ceremony.

And you have the audacity to call this radical extremism 'unimpeachable ... quality ... scholarship'. It reads more like a fairy tale, invented by Barbara after an hallucinogenic dream.

OzSpen,

Your total rejection of Thiering's book is understandable
and to be expected being an evangelist you are going to
find difficulty in in accepting her reasoning because what
is being examined is a matter of faith as much as a scholarly
hypothesis. However this does nothing to invalidate Thiering's
argument. To many Jesus emerges from Thiering's investigations
as greater than he appeared before. This is Thiering's approach.
She sees the fresh view of the origins of Christianity which
emerges from the integration of diverse material as an exciting
chapter in the history of Christian thought - it subsequently
forms an integral part of the necessary and ongoing reform of
the religion.

In Thiering's life of Jesus, his person is never allowed to
lose"full humanity." She admits that the "divinity" of Jesus
may have to be sacrificed to the humanity. In her judgement,
however, it does not follow that "because an illusory ideal of a
perfect human life fails, the Church has no more resources for
moral teaching."

Whatever religious conclusions are reached by individuals what
remains unimpeachable is the quality of Thiering's scholarship.

With the background to her research presented in her book in
fine detail, her hypothesis deserves the serious attention of
all those interested in the origins of Christianity.

However, I can see that we are so far apart in our views on
this subject that any further discussion with you would be
pointless. So lets leave it there.

Have a nice day.

Foxy,

<<Your total rejection of Thiering's book is understandable
and to be expected being an evangelist....>>

Let's get something very clear. I am not an evangelist.

OzSpen,

My mistake. I simply assumed you were, because of your
link to Matthias Media and Tony Payne, and the questions
you asked of myself and Belly, as well as your comments
on Prof. Thiering. I now understand that you find it
intellectually interesting to learn what people believe.
Thank You for clearing it up for me.

Foxy,

<<My mistake. I simply assumed you were, because of your
link to Matthias Media and Tony Payne, and the questions
you asked of myself and Belly, as well as your comments
on Prof. Thiering. I now understand that you find it
intellectually interesting to learn what people believe.
Thank You for clearing it up for me.>>

You don't seem to know the difference between an evangelist and an evangelical Christian.

By the way, I read and consider the enemy as well as supportive publications.

I do have a mind of my own that I use to think through the issues and know that Thiering's world view was to impose her destructive meaning on the text, all in the name of using a 'pesher' method.

Today, some scholars are doing the same kind of thing with postmodern deconstruction. It also destroys the intent of the original author.