Amaleq13

This question is really only for those who are familiar with Barbara Thiering’s theory of interpretation. I'm counting on you, Offa.

I read Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls a LONG time ago but I recently came across a note to myself that I never resolved. Any assistance would be appreciated.

I found her theory interesting so I tried to apply it to portions of the Gospel not covered in the book to see if it remained consistent. It seems to me that John 1:34 is a problem. Keep in mind that I do not currently have as good an understanding of her theory as I did back then so I am relying on my notes.

As I understand it, the title “Son of God” is only applied by a person if they believe the titled person was the legitimate “David”. Right?

Simon Magus and Jonathan Annas, for example, considered this to be true of Jesus.

John the Baptist, on the other hand, did not. He considered James to be one who qualified.

But John 1:34 has JBap applying the title to Jesus which can only be true if he accepted him as the “David”.

Am I missing something or is there an explanation for this?


Thanks in advance.

offa

Yep, "ambushed"!

JOH 01:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

You are correct, amaleq13. Barbara Thiering does not mention JOH 01:34
anywhere in Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In my own private studies (they have to be private because I do
not agree with anybody else) I have concluded that Caiaphas was GOD.
He was the high priest. There were several other junior priests that
were called "chief" priests. To the congregation these chief priests
were "father" as in 'Our father who art in Heaven'. The GOD to
whom they answered to was their'father' thus making the chief
priest the son-in(by)-law to GOD. There was a contest to who would
take John-the-Baptist's position as if it were to be voted upon. John,
in order to keep his position must be in the position to prophesey.
Now, don't get caught up in vocabulary, this is a process of voting.
For instance, today's political leaders have to prophesey in order to
get re-elected. A promise of more jobs and a higher market if-you-
will-elect-me is prophesey. The orator must manipulate his promise
(write his own stuff) in order to make it come true. The question
is, "WHO WROTE JOH 01:34"? Barbara Thiering claims that Jesus
dictated (unable to write) JOHN. So, if Jesus dictated JOHN then he can say anything he wants to.

Just remember, these morons that wrote eons ago are still
religiously (as in vigorously) debated today. Conclusion: we are the
morons. Get evolution out of your head, from St. Luke to St. Paul,
bow your head in admiration!

P.S.
Oops, my apologies amaleq13. I confused you with Amlodhi (which person has taught me a great deal). Also, my apologies for being abrupt with you on another post. I have "hoof-in-mouth" and often do not say what I intend to. My cap says "instant asshole", just add alcohol.

Amaleq13

If Jesus put the words in his mouth, that would eliminate the problem.

Thank you very much! I don't remember her mentioning that in this book.

No apologies necessary. I'm certain your past experiences make your "paranoia" quite legitimate. I know she has taken a beating from her peers so I'm sure you have obtained a "warm" reception in this forum.

You've got to admit it is an incredibly convoluted and complex theory. I've got an ancient email where I try to summarize it for a friend and, reading it today, I have significant difficulty following it. It was like I had learned a foreign language. You would probably understand it, though. I recognized the "lingo" in your first post and it poked a memory about this problem.

I get the impression Amos is pro-Thiering as well.

Is there any evidence (i.e. explicit texts discovered, etc.) to support her view?

And thanks again for responding!

offa

I do not followyour logic. I am an atheist. Read my lips. "fuck GOD". Sorry for being so crude. How else can I get the message across? You are paranomic!
I am not begging. Always read my lips.


Oh, you are more than welcome in my household. We work hard and follow the laws of the heathen.Which laws are contrary. Peace on earth.

Amlodhi

Hello offa,

Since the Barbara Thiering and birth of James element has split into this new thread, I will respond to your post here. [I also was a bit confused as to who was responding to what in the other thread.]

No, offa, I certainly was not attempting to set you up for an ambush. I was and am seriously interested to hear your reasons for ascribing a 1 A.D. birthdate to James. As I think I mentioned in Amaleq13's earlier thread, I read some of Barbara Thiering's work many years ago dealing with her theories regarding the identification of the Teacher of Righteousness and the Lying [Priest? Spouter?] of the Qumran documents.

IIRC, in Amaleq13's thread I erroneously recalled that Ms. Thiering identified Jesus as the Teacher of Righteousness. If memory serves me better now, I think she did identify James as the TofR.

Personally, I don't think that Ms. Thiering's contentions can be reconciled with the various indications in the scrolls regarding the identity of these persons. IMO, Robert Eisenman makes a stronger case for 1st century A.D. references in the scrolls, however, the literary allusions and (for him) disappointingly early radio carbon dates leave him with a very unconvincing argument.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Amaleq13

I would be happy to explain, if I can. What, specifically, are you talking about?

My observation that Thiering's theory is very complex?

My assumption you have been "attacked" before in trying to defend a Thiering-based view?

My question about the existence of any evidence to support Thiering's theory?

Me too.

It would help if you used words contained in my dictionary. I have no idea what "paranomic" means. A quick google of the web reveals a game by that name and a couple websites where it appears "panoramic" has been spelled incorrectly.

spin

The copy of Pesher Habakkuk indeed is damning for both Eisenman and Thiering, as its principle C14 dating range is 111 BCE - 2 CE (1999). As Pesher Habakkuk talks of the righteous teacher, it places him before the era attributed to Jesus and James.

Both Thiering and Eisenman are left with speculation which has been shot down.

BTW, wasn't her teacher John the B?


spin

Amaleq13

Thanks for the specifics. I was going to ask for them if Amlodhi didn't elaborate.

Carbon dating sure puts a damper on happy funtime speculation (e.g. Shroud of Turin)!

That is what she says in Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Amlodhi

Hello spin and Amaleq13,

John the B! Thanks for setting my old memory to rights. As I said, it's been many long years since I have read any of Ms. Thiering's work and I, personally, found very little that I felt was worthy of retaining.

Since, Mr. Eisenman does identify James as the TofR, (and Paul as the Lying Spouter), I may have been retrojecting Eisenman's theories onto Ms. Thiering.

Anyway, thanks for the redirect.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

offa

offa I do not followyour logic. I am an atheist. Read my lips. "fuck GOD". Sorry for being so crude. How else can I get the message across? You are paranomic!
I am not begging. Always read my lips.


Oh, you are more than welcome in my household. We work hard and follow the laws of the heathen.Which laws are contrary. Peace on earth.



Offa, in his defense


I recall writing the italicized above a long time ago and not on this current thread. I have no idea how it appeared here. I did not place it here.

I do follow the logic on this thread and I do not know what paranomic means. Somebody must have called me that.


Now, in regards to Ms. Thiering, I do not defend her stand on carbon dating or what she says about the "Wicked Priest". Also, I do not disagree with her but I do disagree with Eisenman and his theme ... however, his bibliography is very important.

What Thiering did for me was unitentionally open my mind. For instance, I know that "soldiers" means "leader of the soldiers" so when I read Josephus I understand that the 800 men crucified by Alexander Janneus was probably just one person and that person would be the leader of 800. Also, that person would be his mysterious brother.

Now, getting back to ****God, well, I did write that at some other time. It shows that I have no fear of GOD. When I read [B]Jubilees[/I] I discovered I had no use for him nor do I want to be blessed by him. It is like bending over in front of a clergy with your pants down.

Also, I am not anti-semitic (an oxymoron term). I am anti religion.

Thank you very much and my apology to any person that is offended.

Offa