DCHindley

Jake,

At the turn of the 20th century Albert Kalthof (a proto-Unitarian) and Karl Kautsky (a Marxist theorist) proposed that Plato did inspire early Christian organization and discipline as it organized in Rome.

Kalthoff, Albert. Rise of Christianity (E.T. 1907 from 1904 German ed)

Kautsky, Karl. Foundations of Christianity (E.T. 1953 from 1923 German ed, first published 1908)

FWIW, both of these authors believed that the figure of Christ was basically a myth which was later projected back into the era of Pilate in Judea. I wonder how many Mythicists have read any of these?

DCH

sotto voce

That's supposed to read

'Plato did inspire later anti-christian organization and discipline as it organized in Rome.'

What must be supposed is that the imperial fake church must have included the letter to Hebrews in its belated canon only because the true church would have identified exclusion as the action of false teachers. It makes clear that the concept of dispensing salvation in small doses, that have very temporary effect, is deeply erroneous. Yet this was the very principle upon which Roman Empire held itself together; and the author of this letter, presumably without consciousness of this external issue, in effect made a flagrant assault on that principle. The political interest that drove the involvement of the empire in Christian matters is still around as control-freakery, and attempts to relegate this letter are certainly in sympathy with that motivation.

outhouse

You only supplied opinion without a link or any other source.

Ill stick with those scholars that are more knowledgeable on the subject, unless you can provide something to show me, that opposes current dating methods used within unbiased scholarships.


And I am aware of what is posted within here.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/hebrews.html


Here is a guide to where scholarships stand.

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating-Hebrews.htm


They state not to copy. So you will have to view it yourself.

stephan huller

The reason Plato is inevitably cited is because it is almost impossible not to find an early source who wasn't influenced by him. Even Irenaeus's allusion to the Gospel according to Mark in Book III sounds vaguely Platonic.

sotto voce

Even Irenaeus.

Good 'ere!

EarlDoherty

Very strange, Jake. When you challenged me on my case for Hebrews 8:4 on Jesus Mysteries, I took you to task and demolished your counter-argument. Your response was to ask me to disregard that posting and not another word was forthcoming from you. Now you are here strutting about as though that never happened and you are claiming that my analysis should only be presented as a possibility. But you have yet to offer another counter to that analysis. My claim is not dogmatism. Dogmatism is imposed doctrine regardless of counter-evidence. My stance is an opinion based on the deductive analysis I have put forward and to which no one has supplied an effective rebuttal.

Tomorrow I will do my best to get around to answering TedM's attempted rebuttal. It doesn't work and I will demonstrate that.

And it is very naive to suggest that if Hebrews 8:4 demonstrates what I claim it does, someone in antiquity would have pointed that out. Who? Celsus, who undoubtedly never encountered Hebrews? The Jewish rabbis? The writer of the Ignatians who called anyone who disagreed with him mad dogs? Christians who were able to live with all sorts of contradictions and ridiculous statements in their own writings? No one subjected it to the kind of careful analysis it needed. One parallel lies in Minucius Felix, whose condemnation of any thought that Christians ought to worship a crucified man lies even more clearly on the page, yet no one in almost two millennia opened their minds wide enough to see that and the consequences of letting the words be saying what they seem to say.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Your post is just rhetoric--nothing of substance.

1. You cannot ever establish that Epistle Hebrews was composed in the 1st century with any actual corroborative evidence from antiquity.

2. You cannot show that Epistle Hebrews was composed before the Jesus story was known.

3. You cannot show that Epistle Hebrews was known as Heresy by any Apologetic writer that made reference to Hebrews.

4. Apologetic sources that mentioned Epistle Hebrews also claimed Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a Virgin and a Ghost, and was crucified on earth.

Origen mentioned the Epistle Hebrews and simultaneously argued that Jesus, the Son of God became a man although a God.

Preface to De Principiis

jakejonesiv

Earl, you response to me on JM was filled with ad homenien attacks and personal invective. I merely deleted it. You are not going to insult me into agreeing with you.

You explanation for why (in red above) no one in antquity ever noticed your so called smoking gun is entirely inadequate. If fact, it is not a response it is an evasion. If, by Greek grammer alone, the only possible reading is that Jesus had never been on earth, no careful anaylsis would have been needed.


AA is eating your lunch for you every day.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

Bingo the Clown-O

Earl,

I just googled this “jakejonesiv” guy.

You’d better be careful.

He’s a real trickster.

- Bingo

Robert Tulip

Doherty is just looking at the text as it stands, something that Christians have been intimidated against doing by bully arguments such as 2 John 1:7. Dating of Hebrews is not about manuscripts but about conceptual dependence. If Hebrews relied on the Gospel stories it would reference them. It does not. Hebrews sets out the conceptual framework of the heavenly Christ that was subsequently enfleshed in the Gospels.

The logic of mythic development goes from simple (heavenly Christ) to complex (Jesus of Nazareth).