 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / July 2007Why should Qumran archaeology or Dr. Thiering be a dead letter on sci.arch?
IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the earliest Christians. Even the relevant Wikipedia articles just scratch the surface. If anybody is curious, I invite questions. My own first question - why should the average person care? My own answer - we must get the first century right. None of the foregoing is meant to take away from the purity of Jesus Christ. Whether he died for our sins, I leave to the reader. Yet, I believe history, recently uncovered, shows he did not die on the cross. > IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the > earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > history, recently > uncovered, shows he did not die on the cross. Piss off, trol > > IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the > > earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Piss off, trol- The simple answer to you is that I am far from baiting or trolling. If you open your mind to new information already given on sci.arch, ask some questions instead of being anti-intellectual etc. >>> IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the >>> earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> history, recently >>> uncovered, shows he did not die on the cross. >> Piss off, trol > The simple answer to you is that I am far from baiting or trolling. > > If you open your mind to new information already > given on sci.arch, Why then you keep comming back after 99 times with the samae bullshit? > ask some questions > instead of being anti-intellectual etc. I am not anti-interlectual, but anti-troll. Your mind is so open that your sawdust is fallen out. f.ck off, troll. Go preaching elsewhere. This is sci.archaeology, not the christian church for the veneration of Thiering. Nobody is interested in your sh.t.  Signaturep.a. > >>> IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the > >>> earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > -- > p.a. You speak only for yourself so far unless other critics soon come aclubbing. Recently, I read the 2006 version of JRDSS or Jesus the Man. It has an updated Foreword by Dr. Thiering. I recommend it. Especially for archaeologists interested in Qumran, I advise a thorough grounding in the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This discipline will teach you that the dating scheme for the composition of the scrolls is far from settled. If anything, those 10 or so scrolls that mention ToR or WP are currently placed by most academic specialists FIRMLY in the first century AD. No more nonsense that ToR was the founder of the (Essene) sect. Thus, I urge other sci.archers to ignore completely Peter Alaca on Qumran or Dr. Thiering. BTW, sci.arch has a very sorry record the past 6 months for discussing the Qumran Sundial BECAUSE no professional archaeologist could bestir himself to study Dr. Thiering's 2002 paper. This makes a very poor impression on a student of the subject like myself. Even BAR did a better job over-all the first few years after 1997 although some BAR articles were off-the-wall. If someone wants to break new ground, I suggest a study of the Book of Daniel (Chapter 9) in terms of the ESSENE SOLAR CALENDAR. I originally took Dr. Thiering's findings with extreme astonishment. One of her papers covers the subject in the Wikipedia bibliography on Thiering. >>>>> IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the >>>>> earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > You speak only for yourself so far unless other critics soon come > aclubbing. No, he speaks for many here. BTW, why have you bailed on the ogham thread now that it's gotten down to short strokes? <snip> "Tom McDonald" wrote... [...] >>> I am not anti-interlectual, but anti-troll. >>> Your mind is so open that your [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No, he speaks for many here. except those who reply to ingers and erics on principle? > "Tom McDonald" wrote... > [...] [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > except those who reply to ingers and erics on principle? Knowing your view on the Ingers, I suppose you mean the opposite of what you wrote. I tend to agree regarding the Carls and Marcs. This morning I almost kilfiled them both. Signaturep.a. >> "Tom McDonald" wrote... >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I tend to agree regarding the Carls and Marcs. > This morning I almost kilfiled them both. I think Marc has stopped reading the ng. At least, the way he is now posting only announcements with requests for follow-ups to be emailed instead of posted here suggests that. He apparently doesn't really want any feedback that would cause him to re-think his 'evidence' or his evidentiary method. Which, of course, is what one would expect of any racist or monomaniac. > >> "Tom McDonald" wrote... > >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Which, of course, is what one would expect of any racist or > monomaniac. Tom - let's knock off the unscholarly talk. I note you have absolutely nothing to say on substance. Why is that? You are smart enough to have a reasoned position on Qumran archaeology. BTW, you are 100% wrong about Locus 111. Archaeologists have almost never talked about it. >>>> "Tom McDonald" wrote... >>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > BTW, you are 100% wrong about Locus 111. Archaeologists have almost > never talked about it. I wrote many things on the substance of Marc's posts. He didn't like them, because had he listened to me (and others), he would have had to re-think his entire effort to rehabilitate Africans. Plus, of course, his methods resulted in vastly inflating the claims of African greatness. When I pointed out that this was precisely what racists of other stripes do to make their pet race seem more accomplished and valuable than it is, he started to pull the race victim card. In the past, I might have bought that, thinking it a necessary step in Blacks' reclaiming their rightful place in history. Now, however, ISTM that allowing Black racism to go unremarked is a tacit acceptance that Blacks *need* coddling. This seems outrageous to me, and I will not accept it. And told him so. He did not like to hear this. Thought you knew? Huh. In any case, I made an observation of what appears to be his new plan--to just post announcements here, and have people reply to him via email. IOW, he is not here any more in the spirit of Usenet to discuss things. He doesn't want his idee fixe challenged by facts. And, of course, your netcopping is of a piece with your desire to force people to discuss what you find interesting, whether or not anyone else does. Perhaps it comes from your days as a list moderator. If so, and really in any case, it is pointless and irritating. If you stopped doing it, I would think better of you. >>> "Tom McDonald" wrote... >>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > doesn't really want any feedback that would cause him to re-think > his 'evidence' or his evidentiary method. He posts the same sh.t elsewhere > Which, of course, is what one would expect of any racist or > monomaniac. A stupid racist. (Or is that a contradiction in terms?) Signaturep.a. >>> "Tom McDonald" wrote... >>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Which, of course, is what one would expect of any racist or >monomaniac. Agreed. And Carl is clearly a troll. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ On Jun 21, 3:47 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote: >... > Agreed. And Carl is clearly a troll. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk > Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/- To the contrary I am clearly no troll. I stand ready to answer questions about Christian Origins and Qumran Archaeology on sci.arch. I will even give serious consideration to private email addressed to myself. The technical area that threatens to open up new interpretation of 4 gospels, Acts, and Revelation is Thiering pesher including Essene solar calendar. BTW, as the months have flown by, I notice no great knowledge on the part of yourself or other archaeologists concerning the CONTENTS of the DSS. Doug - do you suppose it could possibly be important? I phrase it so because I already have done the work to understand the Dead Sea Scrolls. > On Jun 21, 3:47 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > To the contrary I am clearly no troll. Then why would everyone "mistake" you for one? > I stand ready to answer questions about Christian Origins and Qumran > Archaeology You know nothing about either of these unrelated subjects. on > sci.arch. I will even give serious consideration to private email > addressed to myself. > > The technical area that threatens to open up new interpretation of 4 > gospels, Acts, and > Revelation is Thiering pesher including Essene solar calendar. Thering is a nutcase. > BTW, as the months have flown by, I notice no great knowledge on the > part of yourself > or other archaeologists concerning the CONTENTS of the DSS. This is not archaeology. > Doug - do you suppose it could possibly be important? I phrase it so > because I already > have done the work to understand the Dead Sea Scrolls. Bullshit. >>>> "Tom McDonald" wrote... >>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Agreed. And Carl is clearly a troll. He started posting under the name 'David Christainsen' in sh ancient. Or are there two of them? Signaturep.a. <snip> >> Agreed. And Carl is clearly a troll. > > He started posting under the name > 'David Christainsen' in sh ancient. > Or are there two of them? IIRC, his name is David Carl Christianson. He has used Carl here, but I think has used David in the past. A rose by any other name would smell. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > A rose by any other name would smell. I don't take any of your stuff here seriously; here's a rose for when you are blue. It is a pity, with your talents, that you do not sense something wrong with the way most archaeologists have long treated Locus 111. >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It is a pity, with your talents, that you do not sense something wrong > with the way most archaeologists have long treated Locus 111. It is also a pity that you do not sense something wrong with your attempts to proselytize for your Babs on this ng. I guess we just have to accommodate ourselves to disappointment. > >> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I guess we just have to accommodate ourselves to disappointment. All I ever asked over the years on the newsgroups was for people to examine the evidence; nothing ventured, nothing gained. Since Dr. Barbara Thiering is the only source, why not find out what all the excitement is about? If you are concerned about archaeology per se, I recommend you examine my initial post on Locus 111 in the archives. Then, note just how sci.archers fail to come to grips with new information. On Jun 21, 3:47 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote: > >>> "Tom McDonald" wrote... > >>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Doug, I believe you made a mistake. Please think it over. Regards, David Christainsen Newton, Mass USA > On Jun 21, 3:47 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > I believe you made a mistake. Please think it over. It is mostly trolls who want to pretend they are not trolls who respond more than once to the same post. As you have done here. Please think it over. > > On Jun 21, 3:47 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Please think it over. I recently wrote Doug Weller to ask him to think the opposite over. Why not forget I ever existed but ask your friend Doug to study at leisure the "Pesher of Christ" website to make of it whatever he will? In the meantime I leave you a tip that there are OUTSTANDING PICTURES of archaeological sites in Section 6 (Crucifixion) on the Thiering website. Believe the pictures if nothing else. Wow! >>> On Jun 21, 3:47 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Why not forget I ever existed but ask your friend Doug to study at > leisure the "Pesher of Christ" website to make of it whatever he will? I won't *because* he is my friend. I don't think he has any interest in Babs' Pesher. BTW, interesting side note. When I wrote "Pesher", Thunderbird did not think that was a word, or at least not a correctly spelled word. It suggested "pusher". And they say there is no A.I.! > In the meantime I leave you a tip that there are OUTSTANDING PICTURES > of archaeological sites in Section 6 (Crucifixion) on the Thiering > website. > Believe the pictures if nothing else. Wow! Pictures are not evidence to be believed absent context. Since I do not trust Babs to provide a trustworthy context for the pictures, and since there are loads of other OUTSTANDING PICTURES (why shout that, btw?), I will pass on looking at them. > >>> On Jun 21, 3:47 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> > >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > pictures, and since there are loads of other OUTSTANDING PICTURES > (why shout that, btw?), I will pass on looking at them. I will save my choice words for later but I enjoy our disagreement; it keeps me from sleeping in the afternoons. >... > > In the meantime I leave you a tip that there are OUTSTANDING PICTURES [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > pictures, and since there are loads of other OUTSTANDING PICTURES > (why shout that, btw?), I will pass on looking at them. I believe you should know what you are missing but first importance goes to - Figure 1. The Qumran buildings (De Vaux) On to the Catalogue of Pictures - Photo N. Mird-Hyrcania. Photo UU. Tiber Island. Photo H. The shallow pools on the north side of the Ain Feshkha building. Photo E. The gap where caves 7Q and 8Q stood,now collapsed. Photo W. The Mar Saba monastery. From Picturesque Palestine, 1880. Photo X. Corner where the wady Kidron turns from north-south to east. Now that you get the picture, would you change your mind? > "Tom McDonald" wrote... > [...] [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > except those who reply to ingers and erics on principle?- I detect an open mind. > "Tom McDonald" wrote... > [...] [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > except those who reply to ingers and erics on principle? Nice one ;-) How many bl.wj.bs did Carl get from Barbara T., btw ? Cheers, Michael Kuettner > >>>>> IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the > >>>>> earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > <snip>- Eric is going forward quite well. He does not need me. >>>>>>> IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the >>>>>>> earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Eric is going forward quite well. He does not need me. He has stopped. Right at the point where I introduced archaeological evidence. Evidence that would tend to support the capacity and desire of Native Americans in the region of Crack Cave to notice solstices and equinoxes, and to make features that would identify them. You do not appear interested in opening your mind to take in new information. I also note that you have not asked any questions. And, of course, this is a discussion group, not a one-on-one debating society. You can jump in at any point you like. You could have defended the use of epigraphical methods in the Crack Cave case, a case, by the way, that is seen by many epigraphers as a dramatic proof of their methods. So your reticence smacks of something other than an interest in the truth, or even in the rehabilitation of Fell. Which is something you have trumpeted as an interest of yours. So are you really so narrow-minded as to not open your mind to the possibility that there actually is another side to the discussions of Fell's brain child--epigraphy? Surely not! > >>>>>>> IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the > >>>>>>> earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > the possibility that there actually is another side to the > discussions of Fell's brain child--epigraphy? Surely not!- Actually, in this thread I stick to the subject. For now I will make an exception. I am prepared to open MY mind to your explanation of Crack Cave (in another thread). I am aware that yours is an informed opinion. >>>>>>>> IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the >>>>>>>> earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >Cave to notice solstices and equinoxes, and to make features that >would identify them. I haven't stopped. I merely acknowledged that I could not find the statement that I thought I had seen a few days previously. >You do not appear interested in opening your mind to take in new >information. I also note that you have not asked any questions. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >the possibility that there actually is another side to the >discussions of Fell's brain child--epigraphy? Surely not! It wouldn't be surprising if he had a closed mind on the subject. There is plenty of precedent for that in this news group. Eric Stevens > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:41:22 -0500, Tom McDonald > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > Eric Stevens- Eric - I admire your honesty; it is a rare commodity. Regards, David Carl Christainsen Newton, Mass USA >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:41:22 -0500, Tom McDonald >> [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > Eric - I admire your honesty; it is a rare commodity. Not at all. A lot of people told you very honestly to piss off. Signaturep.a. >... > Not at all. A lot of people told you very honestly to piss off. >... Here's a rose for when you are feeling blue! > >>>>>>> IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the > >>>>>>> earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'm reading here, but not really understanding. Any society of any size that had to grow crops had a way of figuring the solstices and equinoxes, or they wouldn't be growing crops for long. What is that fuss about? As for the Christ thing, I sure hope to hell he died for my sins, I'm going to need it. Carl, as everyone thinks you are a troll, is there a reason? They think I'm a S.O.B., but a picture if you have one would be good. I've never actually seen a troll. Don't ask for one of a S.O.B., cause it seems you have talked with a few here. So you must have seen some as well. The Essnes were a bunch of fanatics that nobody wanted around. They were WAY out there. A Jim Jones branch. We just happened onto some their writings. They were not important, except maybe John the B. had been with them a while. But as he and Jesus were the last of the apocalyptical preachers (notice it's been 2,000 years and nothing. Little melting ice, good music, dead Muslims, nothing much has happened.) Just for your information apocalypse comes from the Greek word APOKALYPTEIN, which means "to uncover". So when someone uses the word apocalypse in the correct form, it simply means to uncover, not complete destruction as everyone uses it as. As for Qumran archaeology, that should be about as important as the study of the people in California who killed themselves to go to the spaceship behind the comet. K.W. P.S. I am interested in how many BJ's the woman will give. That sounds like a topic. Maybe under a new post. >> >>> IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the >> >>> earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > You speak only for yourself so far unless other critics soon come > aclubbing. You are a liar. Pretty much everyone who still reads any of the crap you presist in posting here asks you to piss off. > >> >>> IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the > >> >>> earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Pretty much everyone who still reads any of the crap you presist in posting > here asks you to piss off.- Hide quoted text - Facts are stubborn things. For example, you yourself have never shown good knowledge of Essene solar calendar. Start with the Mishmarot. > [...] > Facts are stubborn things. > [...] >> >> >>> IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the >> >> >>> earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Facts are stubborn things. For example, you yourself have never shown > good knowledge of Essene solar calendar. Start with the Mishmarot. I have read Therings delusions. I see why no scholars accept any of her "theories" She is mentally ill. >>>>> IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the >>>>> earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>>> believe history, recently >>>>> uncovered, shows he did not die on the cross. >>>> Piss off, trol >>> The simple answer to you is that I am far from baiting or trolling. >>> >>> If you open your mind to new information already >>> given on sci.arch, >> Why then you keep comming back after 99 times >> with the same bullshit? >>> ask some questions >>> instead of being anti-intellectual etc. >> I am not anti-interlectual, but anti-troll. >> Your mind is so open that your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> church for the veneration of Thiering. >> Nobody is interested in your sh.t. > You speak only for yourself so far unless other critics soon come > aclubbing. > > Recently, I read the 2006 version of JRDSS or Jesus the Man. > It has an updated Foreword by Dr. Thiering. I recommend it. What recommendation is that? > Especially for archaeologists interested in Qumran, I advise a > thorough grounding in the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thus, I urge other sci.archers to ignore completely Peter Alaca on > Qumran or Dr. Thiering. Like they ignore you. > BTW, sci.arch has a very sorry record the past 6 months for discussing > the Qumran Sundial No, the sorry record is yours. > BECAUSE no professional archaeologist could bestir himself to study > Dr. Thiering's 2002 paper. > This makes a very poor impression on a student of the subject like > myself. Who cares about the impression made on a w.nker like you? > Even BAR did a > better job over-all the first few years after 1997 although some BAR [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > One of her papers covers the subject in the Wikipedia bibliography on > Thiering. If /you/ want to break new ground, piss off, find some and stick your empty head in it. Signaturep.a. > >>>>> IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the > >>>>> earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > -- > p.a. As a scholar you strike out. (That an American saying.) > IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the > earliest Christians. > Even the relevant Wikipedia articles just scratch the surface. > If anybody is curious, I invite questions. > My own first question - why should the average person care? > My own answer - we must get the first century right. > None of the foregoing is meant to take away from the purity of Jesus > Christ. > Whether he died for our sins, I leave to the reader. Yet, I believe > history, recently > uncovered, shows he did not die on the cross. It has been at least five years now and your crap still hasn't risen to the level more than casual inspection as the basis for dismissal. One would think it would dawn on you by now that no one gives a sh.t because you have shown nothing worth looking further. I can and have gotten discussions started by simply pointing out the total disconnect between Paul and the gospels. You haven't produced a single thing to interest anyone even if it were ironclad solid fact. What is of interest about Christianity is the fact that it evolved into something entirely different than we GUESS it started as because there is no mention of Christians before the last 2nd c. AD. So even if there were some merit to you fixation the interest it how Christianity changed from even an Essene beginning into something completely different is the focus of interest. So even if you should by some miracle start some interest it DOES NOT shed any light upon those "lost years" when everything changed. SignatureIf a Democrat were president the Republicans would be against the Iraq war. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3797 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1 On Jun 19, 11:28 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote: > > IOW, very powerful evidence exists for an Essene connection to the > > earliest Christians. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > nizkorhttp://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml > antisemitismhttp://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/a1 Matt, the trouble with you is you do not take in new information. Nobody can make you do it. I just say that I have already made it available but you never looked at it honestly. If you open your mind, don't hold back from asking some questions. > On Jun 19, 11:28 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> nizkorhttp://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml >> antisemitismhttp://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/a1 > Matt, the trouble with you is you do not take in new information. > Nobody can make you do it. > I just say that I have already made it available but you never looked at it > honestly. > If you open your mind, don't hold back from asking some questions. As I said, even if it were completely true it does not address the interesting question as to why it became something completely different from its origin, Paul, gospels or even Essene. Whatever the beginning might have been like has no bearing upon what it became. It is trivial to show what it is not related to including this Essene code which is a poor knock off of the DaVinci code. Even if all true it does not matter in the least. SignatureIf there are foreign insurgents in Iraq it is because Bush invited them when he played cowboy saying, "Bring 'em on!" -- The Iron Webmaster, 3788 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2 > > On Jun 19, 11:28 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > nizkorhttp://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml > flying saucershttp://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.htmla2 Matt, you are way off base. Dr. Thiering, unlike Dan Brown, has published in the academic literature. You would know the simple basics had you bothered to take in new information. I note you did not come up with any questions whatsoever. >>> On Jun 19, 11:28 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Matt, you are way off base. Dr. Thiering, unlike Dan Brown, has published > in the academic literature. That does not change a single thing I said. Acceptance of an idea is based upon other papers citing her publications and building upon them. Is there even one citation in another paper? How many citations are there in other papers? Citation is the only measure of acceptance. No citations means no acceptance, period. > You would know the simple basics had you bothered to take in new > information. > I note you did not come up with any questions whatsoever. I made observations. If you disagreed you could have shown how The Thiering Codes make a difference even if they are true. Please feel free to do so. As I said, you provide no reason for anyone to be interested. Notice I did ask questions this time regarding the citations of her publications. Please answer. SignatureIsrael declares it bombs are childproof. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3794 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6 >... > That does not change a single thing I said. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > nizkorhttp://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml > Old Testamenthttp://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtmla6- OK, I'll answer. Today, on soc.religion.quaker I have already explained that no other scholar supports Dr. Thiering on Christian Origins. I invite you to read my reply on SRQ to Engineer. As for the difference, it involves Christian Doctrine --- Jesus Christ can be upheld as using his life to defend justice. Historically, Jesus did not die on the cross. --- The above is not archaeology but it was best to get it out of the way... An excellent source for detailed explanation is Dr. Thiering book Jesus and The Riddle of The Dead Sea Scrolls (see amazon.com). >> ... >> That does not change a single thing I said. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Today, on soc.religion.quaker I have already explained that no other scholar > supports Dr. Thiering on Christian Origins. Then her work is not accepted by anyone. > I invite you to read myreply on SRQ to Engineer. As I have said many times, post it here so it can be discussed in public. > As for the difference, it involves Christian Doctrine --- That has nothing to do with professional journals. > Jesus Christ can be upheld as using his life to defend justice. Only by people who have never read the gospels. Of course the Thiering Cods reveal all that is secret in them. AS I SAID, no interest because Christianity has nothing to do with that. If you want to discuss how that character became a figurehead, a hood ornament for the unrelated Christian religion that would be interesting. But the mutterings of an otherwise forgettable person save for his hood ornament status is not of interest. > Historically, Jesus did not die on the cross. What difference would it make if he did? If he existed he has nothing to do with Christianity was it emerged in the 3rd c. AD. He could have been trampled by stampeding goats for all the difference it would make. You are trying to create an interest based upon something that is false to begin with by assuming there is other than the hood ornament connection between the two. > --- > The above is not archaeology but it was best to get it out of the > way... > An excellent source for detailed explanation is Dr. Thiering book > Jesus and The Riddle of The Dead Sea Scrolls (see amazon.com). Why would it interest anyone? The most it can possibly be about is a person and a cult who had no effect on the course of history and disappeared into a dead end. There have certainly been dozens of such events and other than mild curiosity in the phenomenon there is nothing to it. SignatureThe purpose of torturing prisoners is to torture prisoners. It has no other purpose. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3805 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12 >.. > What difference would it make if he did? If he existed he has nothing to do > with Christianity was it emerged in the 3rd c. AD. He could have been trampled > by stampeding goats for all the difference it would make. >... The point of interest is the historical relationship between Jesus and Paul; there is your lasting impact. Again, I recommend you study the "Pesher of Christ" website although it contains far less archaeology than pesher. >> .. >> What difference would it make if he did? If he existed he has nothing to do >> with Christianity was it emerged in the 3rd c. AD. He could have been trampled >> by stampeding goats for all the difference it would make. >> ... > The point of interest is the historical relationship between Jesus and Paul; there > is your lasting impact. Acts says there was no relationship between the two. Paul's epistles give no indication they were written by the Paul in Acts. The Paul of Acts had no impact on what emerged as Christianity. The Paul of the epistles does not promote the teachings of Jesus. He mostly rambles on about his Logos fixation. Paul of the epistles has only a trivial impact upon the Christianity that emerged in the 3rd c. So as Paul has only a trivial impact on Christianity and then only for things he wrote which are unrelated to Jesus, there is no impact of interest. > Again, I recommend you study the "Pesher of Christ" website although it contains > far less archaeology than pesher. I recommend you learn the real events and real writings and STOP repeating all the nonsense opinions you have been given about them. I know very well Paul is praised for spreading the GOOD NEWS of Jesus but that does not mean he spread the teachings of Jesus which reading his letters makes clear. The "good news" is the teaching Jesus was born not his teachings. Paul does not even promote the idea he was god rather only his Logos fixation which is marvelously undefined in the Zen sense to ensnare acolytes. At the bottom line there is nothing to his fixation. SignatureWhat is the US government coming to when I have never been wrong about Iraq and it has never been right? -- The Iron Webmaster, 3798 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11 > >> .. > >> What difference would it make if he did? If he existed he has nothing to do [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > nizkorhttp://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml > Lawful to bomb Israelishttp://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtmla11 I realize that you do not live in a ship of fools unlike certain other sci.archers. Were you to do some reading of an astounding and radical nature, you MIGHT change your evaluation of Paul in the mix of Christian Origins. BTW, I know very well that early Christianity rapidly became paganized; the (living) Jesus and Paul were unable to turn the Romans into Jews (early 60's)... This is the last of my departures from ARCHAEOLOGY in this thread. So far 2007, I've talked about Qumran Sundial (I always insisted the object was originally a sundial) and Locus 111 (De Vaux) - the SUBSTITUTE sanctuary. I am determined to make the pieces of the puzzle fall together archaeologically so that really good minds like Eric Stevens, Doug Weller, Tom McDonald and yourself dig into it. >>>> .. >>>> What difference would it make if he did? If he existed he has nothing to do [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> nizkorhttp://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml >> Lawful to bomb Israelishttp://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtmla11 > I realize that you do not live in a ship of fools unlike certain other sci.archers. There are many of them who are fixated on religious matters without the actual knowledge of them, such as yourself. > Were you to do some reading of an astounding and radical nature, you MIGHT change > your evaluation of Paul in the mix of Christian Origins. There are exactly two sources of information on Paul, Acts and the letters attributed to him. I have read both. There is nothing else to read. > BTW, I know very well that early Christianity rapidly became paganized; the (living) > Jesus and Paul were unable to turn the Romans into Jews (early 60's)... Of course it was a failure regardless of who tried it. Even the lowest Roman was too civilized to adopt genital mutilation and a ritual/taboo lifestyle. And as I said, Jesus was no more than a hood ornament for Christianity and that includes its "jewish" roots. They buried the knowledge of Astarte, Yahweh's consort almost completely. So they even invented a "triune" monotheism from a religion that was not monotheistic. It might be interesting if you could establish the Essenes were in fact monotheists unlike the rest of the Judeans. > This is the last of my departures from ARCHAEOLOGY in this thread. > So far 2007, I've talked about Qumran Sundial (I always insisted the > object was originally > a sundial) and Locus 111 (De Vaux) - the SUBSTITUTE sanctuary. As there is no reason for an interest beyond it relating to another dead end cult and as it has no conceivable bearing upon Christianity as it developed it is not clear why you are so fascinated with it. It is even less understandable why you think anyone else should be interested. > I am determined to make the pieces of the puzzle fall together > archaeologically > so that really good minds like Eric Stevens, Doug Weller, Tom McDonald > and yourself dig into it. To repeat IF everything you said is absolutely true and beyond question, it is still uninteresting. They were a dead end, period. SignatureWhen the Life of Brian has greater historical accuracy that Quo Vadis you have to ask who is the audience for these films. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3803 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9 >... > There are exactly two sources of information on Paul, Acts and the letters > attributed to him. I have read both. There is nothing else to read. >... As I recently implied to Ian on soc.history.ancient, you MIGHT pore over the "Pesher of Christ" website with a fine tooth comb (the Search Facility). This is the SOMETHING "else to read" for information on Paul. Then, report back to sci.arch or soc.history.ancient. I am a pointer; yet, if you concentrate too much on me, you will miss all the heavenly glory. This is crossposted to soc.history.ancient as this guy is posting as david there. The foolishness never changes. >> ... >> There are exactly two sources of information on Paul, Acts and the letters [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is the > SOMETHING "else to read" for information on Paul. > Then, report back to sci.arch or soc.history.ancient. > I am a pointer; yet, if you concentrate too much on me, you will miss > all the heavenly glory. As I said, Paul had no influence of interest on Christianity. Why would I be interested in anything about him? SignatureThe purpose of torturing prisoners is to torture prisoners. It has no other purpose. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3805 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10 > This is crossposted to soc.history.ancient as this guy is posting as david > there. The foolishness never changes. >... What foolishness? My name is David Carl Christainsen. > This is crossposted to soc.history.ancient as this guy is posting as david > there. The foolishness never changes. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > nizkorhttp://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml > Blame Israelhttp://www.ussliberty.orga10 Paul simply needed a way to make a living by talking, and ended up doing a fair job of it. He had an influence, I'm just not sure it was a positive one. K.W. The purpose of torturing prisoners is to get information out of them you could probably get by asking. It does have a purpose, it breaks the boredom of the guards. You never go deep enough, Matt. >> This is crossposted to soc.history.ancient as this guy is posting as david >> there. The foolishness never changes. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> nizkorhttp://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml >> Blame Israelhttp://www.ussliberty.orga10 > Paul simply needed a way to make a living by talking, and ended up > doing a fair job of it. He had an influence, I'm just not sure it was > a positive one. K.W. I have no idea what Paul was all about and it his existence can be questioned. I have correctly described him as having no effect but his name on the Christian Church and that he is clearly not the Paul of Acts. The writings attributed to him, beyond not making much sense, rave on about things that are at most curiosities to Christianity. "The end is nigh, at most two nighs, so get ready for the coming." Perhaps he can be credited with starting the end of world branch of Christianity. What do you think he influenced? Once you realize there is no connection between the two Pauls he does not get credit for taking it to the rest of the world. AND that story conflicts with the direct command from Jesus to teach all nations. Jesus commands it but Paul sells it? Something is wrong with this picture. > The purpose of torturing prisoners is to get information out of them > you could probably get by asking. It does have a purpose, it breaks > the boredom of the guards. You never go deep enough, Matt. I was referring to the 1984 discussion of torture. It is an end unto itself. As for getting information, it worked on witches. SignatureA rising American death toll in Iraq does not mean failure. A rising number of home runs by the opposition does not mean you are losing. More votes for Gore does not mean you lost the election. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3808 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml http://www.giwersworld.org > >> This is crossposted to soc.history.ancient as this guy is posting as david > >> there. The foolishness never changes. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Matt, Sorry, I missed the 1984 disscusion of witches and misread what you meant. Of course, you can get anyone to say anything by torture, except you. Lord knows I've tried! HA! If you go to my profile, and look at my webpage, I believe, after studying Paul (the letters of the NT) if that is what you are talking about, that he basically was a sociopath, and thought he had found an eaiser way to make a living than hunting the Christians. I argued this with theologists and most felt he went to a lot of trouble. The head shrinkers ideas were that if a sociopath's mind is made up he will carry through to the end. Paul was the real architict of the General (Catholic) Church. I have had some argue Peter, but his personality seemed to be more of a follower than leader. Paul seems to have influenced the Church more, but there also seems to be some doubt as to some of the things he wrote are actually forgeries. To me it seems that Paul would have created the church with or without Jesus raising from the dead. After all he did run off most of the Church of Jeruslasem after the rebellion, even the people who actually knew Jesus because they would not agree with his insistance that Jesus was the Christ. Jesus never called himself that, only the "son of the father", or as some will argue because it takes a microscope to tell the difference, "son of man". But never the "Christ". Paul has never been looked at the same after Dr. Albert Switzer tore him up in "The Historical Quest for Jesus" in 1906. As with most relious fanatics, they tend to be bullies if they are allowed. K.W. P.S. I have been glued to the Television all day watching them sing as all the ice melts, I was almost to tired to get on here tonight! >>>> This is crossposted to soc.history.ancient as this guy is posting as david >>>> there. The foolishness never changes. [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > sociopath, and thought he had found an eaiser way to make a living > than hunting the Christians. The problem is well known. Many years ago a linguistic analysis of the Orthodox Greek texts was conducted. Only the five longest letters were written by the same person but there was no way to determine who that person was. So if you looked at all of them them you would have found multiple personality disorder. > I argued this with theologists and most > felt he went to a lot of trouble. The head shrinkers ideas were that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but there also seems to be some doubt as to some of the things he > wrote are actually forgeries. The problem is you cannot connect any of the New Testament to the Christian Church that appeared in the third century without very contorted and self-serving theology. That is one of the things the fundamentalist Christian churches recognize and take a few steps towards dealing with. The real problem is that essentially none of the doctrine and dogma of Christianity is found in the New Testament. You have to read the companion text, "What it really means," to find much of anything. > To me it seems that Paul would have > created the church with or without Jesus raising from the dead. About the only thing Paul can be credited with founding is The End is Nigh school of Christianity. It is very difficult to find anything other than the imminent return of the Logos. So why would he make any effort at all to create any kind of institution much less an organized church? > After > all he did run off most of the Church of Jeruslasem after the > rebellion, even the people who actually knew Jesus because they would > not agree with his insistance that Jesus was the Christ. There you are saying they were the same person which all the evidence is against. The one in Acts studied and learned everything he could while the one in the Epistles gives no evidence of knowing anything but the vaguest generalities. He mentions no teachings nor makes any mention of a unique detail in his life. > Jesus never > called himself that, only the "son of the father", or as some will > argue because it takes a microscope to tell the difference, "son of > man". It hardly matters as Christ only means anointed. The only idea of interest is messiah if you want to move to the Christianity that did arise. > But never the "Christ". Paul has never been looked at the same > after Dr. Albert Switzer tore him up in "The Historical Quest for > Jesus" in 1906. As with most relious fanatics, they tend to be > bullies if they are allowed. K.W. > P.S. I have been glued to the > Television all day watching them sing as all the ice melts, I was > almost to tired to get on here tonight! http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml If it were as bad as they (if it were anything like what they say) what is there to sing about? SignatureParis Hilton in History: In other news today Allied forces landed on Omaha Beach. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3811 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2 > >>>> This is crossposted to soc.history.ancient as this guy is posting as david > >>>> there. The foolishness never changes. [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Good reply, what is there to sing about? And what DID Paris H do today? Now I will have to look it up before bedtime! K.W. P.S. Baptists were taught that "Christ" was the "Messiah" instead of "annointed". We're just Baptists. >>>> This is crossposted to soc.history.ancient as this guy is posting as david >>>> there. The foolishness never changes. [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > if a sociopath's mind is made up he will carry through to the end. > Paul was the real architict of the General (Catholic) Church. The real architects of the Catholic Church were not born when the Epistles were written SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > >>>> This is crossposted to soc.history.ancient as this guy is posting as david > >>>> there. The foolishness never changes. [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I would have to differ with you on the dates. John was thought to have been written around 90 C.E. which would give any blood sucker time to be born. Some of the other were written around 140 C.E. that's plenty of time, Paul's is actually the oldest, estimated to be 50-51 C.E. That was still plenty of time to do the "die for your sins" act. (Lord knows I could use some of it.) I'm using an anotated King's James verison, so there could be different dates on any of them. You would think they would be orally handed down until someone came up with some writing. Luke looks like he did a good job, but probably the oldest of the synoptic verisons. K.W. K.W. ... > I would have to differ with you on the dates. John was thought to > have been written around 90 C.E. which would give any blood sucker > time to be born. One of the most important things to keep in mind when reading anything about any religion is to set off an alarm whenever your read "thought to be" as a preface. Almost always that means there is a religious belief involved. In this case if we presume the youngest possible John then that is about the latest date he could still have been able to write. The only credible basis for dating is contemporary mention as internal chronology only indicates it was written after the last event mentioned. The chronology of John suggest that it could have been written any time after "33" AD. There have been many posts giving the dates of the first use of plural gospels in around 170 AD and the first mention of singular gospel in around 120 AD. If you want John to be the first the only reliable date is 120. As that is highly unlikely 170 is the earliest possible date that can be assigned to it. > Some of the other were written around 140 C.E. > that's plenty of time, Paul's is actually the oldest, estimated to be > 50-51 C.E. Except that Jesus is little more than a name to him. > That was still plenty of time to do the "die for your > sins" act. (Lord knows I could use some of it.) I'm using an anotated > King's James verison, so there could be different dates on any of > them. You would think they would be orally handed down until someone > came up with some writing. Luke looks like he did a good job, but > probably the oldest of the synoptic verisons. The idea of oldest is not intrinsic to any of them. It is based upon three being copies of each other and Mark being the simplest usually gets the honor of being the first. John, being such a huge embellishment with material such as about the Last Supper that there had to be a shorthand note taker or a tape recorder that it is assumed to be the last. ======== Speaking of the Last Supper, there is something very odd about it. Who did NOT have bread and wine with most big meals? If you would remember me, eat a normal meal? SignatureNow Israel knows why countries turned away Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. It is turning away African refugees for the same reasons. We are special reigns supreme. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3823 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3 On Jul 10, 10:02 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote: > ... > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > nizkorhttp://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml > Iraqi democracyhttp://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtmla3 It's really hard to argue about the dates of the gospels. We simply know when we have the first known copy. The only way to really spot something is by using a word that was not used in that particular time period. That is about the only way, like finding a newspaper that says Paris Hilton was sent to jail for DUI in 1974, but released because she had to much money. Now that would place her in a certain place and time. That is what I mean by known uses if words at a certain time. K.W. > On Jul 10, 10:02 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > place and time. That is what I mean by known uses if words at a > certain time. K.W. And by that the gospels could have been written yesterday but we know there were copies of them before yesterday. So we go back to the first known mention of its contents or oldest dateable copy to find the oldest. In this case I am simply dealing with the mention of gospel, singular and plural. We have no idea if that refers to the ones that were officially approved. SignatureNow Israel knows why countries turned away Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. It is turning away African refugees for the same reasons. We are special reigns supreme. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3823 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/willing-executioners.phtml a7 > ... > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Who did NOT have bread and wine with most big meals? If you would > remember me, eat a normal meal? Good stuff, Matt, what can I say? A pity about your little quirk. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >> ... >>> I would have to differ with you on the dates. John was thought to [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> Who did NOT have bread and wine with most big meals? If you would >> remember me, eat a normal meal? > Good stuff, Matt, what can I say? A pity about your little quirk. I use the same rules and the same methods on everything regardless of where it leads. The methods cannot work in every case _except_ those which are politically incorrect. For example I have in fact found the oldest mention of gas chambers which was by the Russians in Feb 1945 after the liberation of Auschwitz. All the talk you hear today about "everyone knew" is pure fantasy unsupported by physical evidence. That is exactly the same methodology as with the gospels. I have also actually read ALL SIX of the stories of the people who claimed to have seen gas chambers AFTER Russians announced their discovery. All of them contain something impossible. I always exclude reports of impossible things such as Noah's Flood. Of course stories are only stories without physical evidence so they can only be used as a guide to uncovering the physical evidence. However all the stories are mutually exclusive and are therefore worthless for that purpose. If folks want to get their act together and produce physical evidence and the proper forensic analysis and such they are free to do so. They have not done so in the last 62 years and I have reviewed everything they have on gas chambers. So tell me, why should I different methods for gas chambers and gospels? That is not reasonable. Why do you conclude the same methodology can lead to different conclusions based upon the subject matter? You have made a decision. Please tell me the basis for your decision. Maybe you are right and I will learn something. So please tell me what difference you see. SignatureParis Hilton in History: In other news today Allied forces landed on Omaha Beach. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3811 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1 > >> ... > >>> I would have to differ with you on the dates. John was thought to [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Matt, All I can tell you is when Eienhower's staff asked why he went to visit all the camps, he answered: Because twenty years from now, people will say this couldn't have happened. I can look them in the eye and say it damn sure did, because I saw it." I'll take Eienhower's word for it. K.W. > > >> ... > > >>> I would have to differ with you on the dates. John was thought to [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Do the homework with Thiering and find out that John's Gospel was written just before 37 AD. If you don't know how to get started, swallow your pride and ask me. >>>>> ... >>>>>> I would have to differ with you on the dates. John was thought to [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > If you don't know how to get started, swallow your pride and ask me. Just another "thought to be". Evidence? SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > >>>>> ... > >>>>>> I would have to differ with you on the dates. John was thought to [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Ordinarily, I would direct you to my former yahoo forum to use its search engine yourself with appropriate keywords/phrases including "thieringau" to get her articles. But, today the search engine does not work for some reason. Therefore, I give a re-post from many years ago. Also, you can contact Dr. Thiering directly and pose your question to her. email - <thiering@ozemail.com.au> THE RADICAL DATING OF THE GOSPELS EXTREMELY EARLY The gospels redated via the Scrolls Date: 23 Feb 2001 From: Dr. Barbara Thiering ************************** David Christainsen wrote 2/23/2001 on DSS Forum --- http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk//kking/ntdocs4.html So, John dates first among the 4 Gospels written before Fall of Jerusalem etc. If we accept NT converges datewise with DSS, identification of major figures follow logically. While we are waiting for Bob's ink to be scientifically dated, does my suggestion have plausibility? --- The link with Kevin King's website was interesting, in that he accepts the pre-70 dating of the gospels while upholding a fairly orthodox Christian view about Jesus. As he said, the redating of the gospels was first argued by J.A.T. Robinson in the 60's. Robinson's insight was that the very late date came from a desire to justify the incredible content of the gospels, chiefly the miracles and the apparent contradictions. Time was needed for the growth of legend. The dating simply ignored much of the historical evidence because of this theological motive. Now there is a huge quantity of new information, which Christian biblical scholars are only slowly digesting, much gored by papal bulls. The Scrolls are capable of making an even bigger difference to the NT than the 19th century discoveries of Creation and Flood stories made to the OT. The Scrolls' information leading to a redating of John (for a start) includes the fact of the zealot activities of the Qumran community in its 1st cent CE phase, taken with the many evidences of an institutional connection of Qumran with the early Christians. Further, the enemies of the Teacher are said to be Samaritans in 1QpMic. From this and a great deal more (Clementina, Acts 8, Eusebius, the stone found in the Tiber etc etc), the pesher technique identifies Simon Magus the Samaritan as a leading figure in the history. He was an associate of Jesus, who is called a Samaritan in Jn 8:48, and he was the zealot leader, being also Simon the Zealot of the disciples (Lk 6:15), also Simon the leper of Bethany, and Lazarus of Bethany (numerous pseudonyms used for political cover, as was also the case in the Scrolls' treatment of their opponent). Simon was the leader of the 'Seekers-after-Smooth-Things', Diaspora Essenes, and was the main person crucified for zealotry by Pilate, 'the Young Lion of Wrath' (pNah). Jesus was only a subordinate who was crucified as an act of treachery instigated by the zealots themselves. Since Lazarus is treated sympathetically in John's gospel, (his 'raising from the dead' in Jn 11 being the lifting of his ban of excommunication), this means that this gospel was written before Peter and Paul denounced him (Acts 8, also Acts 13: 8-12 re Bar-Jesus). Acts 8 may be dated, internally from the pesher, in 37-39 CE. A split occurred in 44 CE, in the tolerant reign of Claudius, when pro-Roman Christians separated with a new name, and the zealots remained in the Damascus party that produced CD. The composition of John's gospel may, on these grounds, be placed very early indeed, before 37 CE, only a few years after the crucifixion. Its dualistic philosophy of light- darkness, once taken to be a sign of very late Hellenistic influence, is now known to be thoroughly at home in the Scrolls, as Albright saw at once. Other gospels follow. The pesher indicates that Mark was written in c. 45 CE, Luke at about the same time, and Matthew completed (after an earlier version, the Hebrew Logia) by 49 CE. For further on this, see my 'Jesus of the Apocalypse' (1995) and 'The Book that Jesus Wrote - John's Gospel' (1998). Questions, comments and criticisms that show an understanding of what is being argued would be welcomed. B.T. > > >>>>> ... > > >>>>>> I would have to differ with you on the dates. John was thought to [quoted text clipped - 230 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I have a question. Do you guys have a "code" you use on your names and dates that nobody else knows? How can you accept any of these writings when they could mean anything and speculations is all we have. I'm not understanding where the early dating or the bibical meanings are coming from other than someone's imagination. I've seen no dating from the dates mentioned above, nor that codes were used except in Revelations. K.W. ... > I have a question. Do you guys have a "code" you use on your names > and dates that nobody else knows? How can you accept any of these [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > no dating from the dates mentioned above, nor that codes were used > except in Revelations. K.W. I made that point back when he first started spamming. It is all a code but there is no sign of a code book from way back when or even one created by his wet dream. It is all great to have secret meanings but when there is no consistency, when they are all ad hoc, there is no point to the exercise other than to worship the revelations of Thiering. SignatureParis Hilton in History: In other news today Allied forces landed on Omaha Beach. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3811 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11 > ... > > I have a question. Do you guys have a "code" you use on your names [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > nizkorhttp://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml > Lawful to bomb Israelishttp://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtmla11 What did Thiering come up with? I guess I can look it up myself and not make you repeat it. The Essenes from all I can gather from all the sources I have seen is that they were a small extra strict sect who chose to seperate themselves from the rest of the Jewish community because of their beliefs. I have seen nothing (and I keep an eye out) to believe that not to be true. Do you disagree with that? You confused me a little when you said something about a spammer and then there was no point to the exercise that to worship the revelations of Thiering. Wondering here. K.W. P.S. The Jews can have New Jersey, but I think Oklahoma would not suit them at all. K.W. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message