Re: Barbara Thiering Refuted!


"Doug Weller" <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2ihru258ijv4dvc2uu7dbi8f9la0e0i3ir@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:37:44 +0000, in sci.archaeology, me@xxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:




Here, in a nutshell, is a refutation of everything that
Barbara Thiering teaches. Her followers take you down all
sorts of dead ends and send you on various wild goose chases,
but in the end, all her theories are variations of this one
small example.

Whiskers wrote:

| Engineer wrote:
|
|} Here we find some classic Barbara Thiering:
|}
|} Somehow (method not explained, we have to take her assertions
|} on faith), she starts with the following biblical passage:
|}
|} "And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and
|} John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves;
|} and he was transfigured before them, and his garments became
|} glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could
|} bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses;
|} and they were talking to Jesus. And Peter said to Jesus,
|} 'Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three
|} booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.'
|} For he did not know what to say, for they were exceedingly
|} afraid. And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out
|} of the cloud, 'This is my beloved Son; listen to him.' And
|} suddenly looking around they no longer saw anyone with
|} them but Jesus only." -Mark, Chapter 9, verses 2-8
|}
|} and through her magical mystery transmogrifying pesher
|} technique, somehow pulls the following "hidden pesher
|} meaning" for the above passage out of her ass:
|}
|} "On a Day of Atonement, the day when only the high priest
|} could enter into the Holy of Holies, Jesus, a mere layman,
|} seized the high priest's vestments, dressed himself in
|} them, and proceeded to carry out the atonement ritual as
|} if he were the high priest."
|}
|} Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1624
|}
|} There is only one way to get the latter out of the former.
|} Drugs. Lots and lots of hallucinogenic psychedelics drugs.
|
| When Thiering decides that a word means something different from
what
| everyone else thinks it means, and when she says that something is
'just
| so', then for the true believer that is proof enough. Apparently.
|
| I can't help having a nagging suspicion that if an itinerant teacher
from
| the sticks with a reputation for thumbing his nose at the temple
| authorities and with no priestly status, even tried to get near the
High
| Priest during an important ceremony in the inner courts of he
Temple, he'd
| find himself buried under a big heap of very angry guards and
servants.
|
| Or did his disciples have a battle with the Temple guards, right
there in
| the Temple, and capture and subdue the High Priest and disrobe him
so that
| Jesus could violate the inner sanctum? All that with not one word
of such
| infamy ever leaking out to be mentioned by the likes of Josephus,
and with
| Jesus and his disciples surviving and escaping and being allowed to
| continue their activities unmolested?

Science is based on the idea that one scientist can replicate and
confirm
the work of another scientist. I publicly challenge Barbara Thiering
or
any of her followers to explain her "pesher method" so that a
qualified
scholar can apply it the the transfiguration passage in Mark Chapter 9
and
independently come up with the "hidden pesher meaning" of Jesus
stripping
the Jewish High Priest naked and carrying out the atonement ritual in
his
place. Until this is done, I proclaim on the authority of the flying
spaghetti monster that Barbara Thiering's theories are hereby
officially
refuted.


You beat me to it. I was going to point out to Carl that his claim
about
'the highest standards of proof' was ridiculous because the highest
standards of proof require the ability for people to agree on the
methodology and the results. Not something that only the initiated can
understand.

Doug
--
Doug Weller --

That's always the problem with things that are non-physical. They have
no physical representation and hence are unverifiable by the techniques
of physics. Of course, language *is* physical and is a series of symbols
representing meaning and can be translated and interpreted according to
basic laws. If a person claims that a meaning is hidden in language or
writing, then the keys to translating and deciphering must be made
available and explained to have any credibility. Otherwise, one is left
with being able to induce the means of understanding within others
through mind or consciousness altering methods. Even then, a commonality
of experiences and understanding must be clearly present for
verification. The scientific method requires independent verification of
results, data and theory even when the human psyche is the only
instrument being used.

Searles O'Dubhain


.

Loading