"Mary Hogan" <hoogy@zoominternet.net> wrote in message
news:3fd62a73$1_3@corp.newsgroups.com...

You have to forgive me...I've only been on the internet since 1993....

thanks for the link. Forgive you for what?

"Mary Hogan" <hoogy@zoominternet.net> wrote in message
news:3fd53c16$1_3@corp.newsgroups.com...

You should listen to a Rabbi Irons Shiur....
http://www.613.org/irons.html This is not a link so cut and paste

"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:kzNAb.4777$rP6.4006@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a3d5a019c03f0939896c8@news-server.wi.rr.com...

In article

me@privacy.net says...
:
:"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
:news:MPG.1a30a5cbe27c344598968e@news-server.wi.rr.com...

<snip>

:> The Hasmonean (Maccabean) king John Hyrcanus conquered Idumea,

small

:> country south of Jerusalem in (I believe, but don't have a

reference

:> handy) about 125 BCE. He compelled the Idumeans to convert,

first

:> and thankfully last instance of forced conversion in the

of

:> Judaism.
:>
:> Through almost Shakespearian sycophancy, Machiavellian

manipulation,

and

:> (crap, I can't come up with an appropriate alliteration!)

intrigue,

:> Herod, whose grandparents were among the forcibly converted

Idumeans,

:> managed to have the Roman Senate appoint him king of Judea, and

yes,

:> married Mariamne, a Hasmonean princess.
:>
:Sounds right to me. Is there a direct source for this outside of

Josephus?

That I couldn't tell you. I read it laid out like that fairly
frequently, but it's likely that they're just quoting people who

quoting Josephus.

That is all I have been able to track down, and I have looked. The

longer

I

much about in the intertestamental period, the fewer primary sources

find.

That is maddening for someone who spent most of his time in the

modern

era where the sources are, if anything, too plentiful. Frustrating

.

.

:> Now, who is this Barbara Thiering, and what is that guy talking

about?

I

:> am familiar with pesher as it's used in Hebrew, but apparently

not

in

the

:> way he uses it.
:>
:Thiering's theories of the function of pesharim are on the fringe

of

:speculation concerning an Essene-Christian synthesis, and as far

I

can

:discern, unprovable. If you do a google search of Barbara

you

will

:get lots and lots of links (somthing in the area of 2,000) and

even

:have useful information.

Thank you.

Welcome . . .

regards,

Abby

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

...
Now, who is this Barbara Thiering, and what is that guy talking about? I
am familiar with pesher as it's used in Hebrew, but apparently not in the
way he uses it.

[SNIPALOT]
Now, who is this Barbara Thiering, and what is that guy talking about? I
am familiar with pesher as it's used in Hebrew, but apparently not in the
way he uses it.

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB901CF.D7126798@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

David Christainsen wrote:

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB69F24.85813525@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

David Christainsen wrote:

...
All of the historical parables in the Synoptic gospels recount the
actual history of the community from which Xianity emerged, the Qumran
community. John's gospel, written first, has no parables, relying on
the 'miracles' to tell the real history of what Jesus did. Mark,
written next, begins the genre with the Sower and the Vineyard. Then
Luke's gospel expands into a full history, told through 12 parables in
historical form. They are arranged in such a way as to give a
consecutive history of two different parties. Matthew, written last,
improves on Luke by adding parables that give further explanations.

===>That is totally ridiculous.
In fact the Johannine Gospel is the LATEST of the four, and shows
the most developed Pauline Christology.
"Mark" refers to Jesus as the "son" adopted at his baptism.
"Luke", in his earliest versions, still has the same idea, by
using the declaration: "Today I have begotten you."
This was changed to match the more advanced "Matthew",
which puts the sonship of Jesus at the point where his mother
is impregnated by the "Holy Ghost".
"John" traces Jesus all the way back to "heaven", describing him as
the incarnates divine LOGOS, saying nothing about any "virgin
birth" or the union of Mary with the Holy Ghost.

The theory you present is completely BACKWARD.

Libertarius
==========

===>It will be extremely difficult to resolve quickly our difference on the
correct order of the gospels and how early they were composed.

Therefore, for the time being, I ask you to consult the following as
background for potential future productive conversation between us ---

From: "Barbara Thiering"
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003
Subject: Dates of the Gospels - a few facts

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2787

===>I completely agree with the first part of that article.
There is no evidence of anything even related to "John" until
the mid second century.
I think Thiering's "pesher" theory is pure nonsense.
She carries the old idea of allegorical interpretation
to its ultimate, ridiculous extreme.
As one commentator wrote, referring to the book
WHO WAS JESUS by N. T. Wright:
" the pesher method "was a way of hooking in to the past,
not of writing quite new works for the
future."" This style of interpretation was
"a way of saying 'we are the people spoken of by the prophets,'
not 'we are the people who can set new crossword puzzles for
others to solve."" If this code was employed to interpret
the Gospels and Acts, we would expect to discover some ancient
writings to back up this point. Thiering provides
no such evidence. She simply asserts her pesher interpretations.
Neither does she attempt to explain why this
pesher understanding of the Gospels and Acts was supposedly lost.'
Therefore, there is no reason to believe that
the Gospels and Acts are written in some secret code language."
("GOOD QUESTION"
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/iceman.html)
Another reviewer of Wright's book (which I have not
read), says re. Wright's critique of Thiering:
"both a proper historical
understanding of Judaism at the time and archeological
discoveries of the period refute her concept
of a coded pesher language in the New Testament.
Once Wright is finished, her theories are
exposed as little more than figments of a fertile imagination."

Of course the way I see it, so is the depiction of Jesus
in the Gospels, especially in "John".

OK, fair enough.

Please consult ---

Subject: Meaning of pesher
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/193

Also, there is George Duggan's article on "The dates of the Gospels" ---

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May97/gospels.html

===>This can be easily dismissed as a work of an apologist who
misrepresents well known facts.
E.g., he states:
"Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, [true -- should be HierOpolis]
who died about 130 A.D., [true]
tells us that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, [FALSE].

In fact it is just a REFERENCE to Papias by Eusebius, who says
that, according to Papias, Matthew composed a COLLECTION
OF SAYINGS ("LOGIA") by Jesus, not "his Gospel".
It is by such subtle falsifications that so-called "scholars" mislead
the public to soothe the anxieties of fundamentalist Christians.

Regards,

Libertarius
==========

OK, Duggan made mistakes; don't we all?

First, let's work backwards by taking up the specialized meaning
of the given term "Jews". When the gospels say "Jews", as always
in the pesher, it means Herod Antipas and his following.
Dr. Thiering
says they were called "Jews" because the Herods had become Jews by
conversion, being originally Idumeans.

The tensions of Jesus's times had produced two distinct kinds of Jews.
There were those like Josephus and Philo, who had benefited from
exposure to hellenism, and were able to recognise that the highest
kind of Judaism, its ethical monotheism, was superior to anything that
paganism could offer. Josephus, who at the end of his career was
welcomed in Rome, deplored the other kind of Jew, the militants,
saying that these were the cause of all the troubles that befell the
Jewish people (Ant.18, 3-10).

The militant zealots were a quite separate organisation, developed
from the sect of solarists who kept a different calendar. It was they
who were instrumental in the death of Jesus.

===>In this way the true history of the crucifixion exonerates mainstream Jews.

For starters, isn't this explanation intuitively appealing?