aa5874

Again, it is your interpretation that is forced. You argue that Chrysostom was forced to come up with interpretation to reconcile the passage with the Gospels which is exactly what we would expect of a Canonised writing where it is claimed Jesus the Son of God was on earth.

It is not expected at all that Hebrews 8.4 would be about a never on earth Jesus and was always known to be so and was left without manipulation.

It is just not logical at all that when the supposed redaction and interpolations were introduced and Jesus was supposedly Fleshed out in the Gospels that Hebrews was NOT also manipulated.

Why does the Church need to Canonise a Celestial only Jesus while arguinng that Jesus was on earth in FIVE Canonised Gospels??

It is clear that your theory makes very littlke sense.

EarlDoherty

Ted, I have to admire your dogged determination. But if you think that this one phrase "according to the Law" is going to mean or convey all of this convoluted interpretation, well, I can only throw up my hands. And if it took you three or more desperate efforts to come up with this explanation, imagine what it would have taken the ancient reader to arrive at it. And there is no sign that the writer even attempted to include any clarification to help the reader along. In fact, 8:4 does not even come close to fitting your claim. He does not say, as he could easily have, that the problem with the priests' activities on earth is because they are operating under an inferior system. No, it is because they are simply here, offering gifts. The fact that those gifts are according to the Law does not in any way contain an implication that this is the reason why Jesus doesn't or didn't operate alongside them. You cannot contort the actual text to make it mean something you want it to. If it is that subtly and obscurely hidden a meaning, we can safely rule it out.

This is definitely gibberish. As I said in regard to Chrysostom, if the full definition of Jesus as High Priest is in terms of activities in heaven, some of which (if we include the intercessory role) are ongoing, then who would ask such a pointless question? It would be like asking, why isn't the king of France the king of England? The fellow is defined as the king of France (without, by the way, even a reference to ever having set foot in England). Who would ask such a question?

This 'explanation' works no better than it did above.

Ted, IIRC, the "location" question was in application to the "sacrifice", not the crucifixion. You are muddying the waters here. You are illustrating one of my points. Why was the "crucifixion" not made a part of the "sacrifice"? The latter is clearly located in heaven and is spoken of in those terms contained in the very quote from Hebrews you have just supplied, the usage of the blood, not the shedding itself of the blood, whether on a cross or of a slaughtered animal.

You cannot label the crucifixion as "the actual sacrifice." That is not how the writer presents it. "The actual sacrifice" is not the cross, it is the action in the heavenly sanctuary. You are doing what generations of scholars have done: attempting to force the crucifixion to be part of the "sacrifice" as presented by the writer of Hebrews. It is not, even though given the Gospels that would have made complete sense. The trouble is, of course, that it would have screwed up the writer's Platonic parallels and he would have had to style his entire scenario differently.

The slaughter of the animals by the high priests on earth is NOT part of the "sacrifice" they offer to God. That is the act of placing and burning that blood on the altar. This is in perfect harmony and parallel with Hebrews' own presentation of the "sacrifice", Jesus' offering of his own blood on the altar of the heavenly sanctuary. My point has always been, how could the writer construct such a picture in harmony with the earthly counterpart, if in disharmony with the earthly picture, part of the sacrifice, let alone the "actual sacrifice" itself, was NOT in parallel with the earthly sacrifice? IOW, if Calvary had happened and Jesus' sacrifice constituted his death on the cross, this does not fit in parallel with the earthly sacrifice, which was not the slaughter of the animals, but the offering of their blood.

Listen, fellas, there is a limit to the amount of time and effort I am going to put into this. I have got four or five people all throwing things at me at once, and I can't be expected to keep responding to all. It might be another matter if they weren't mostly tediously repetitious, or (like Ted) more and more bizarre counter-interpretations which clearly do not work. So I make no guarantees as to how much more I am going to contribute here. But I will finish off this posting of Ted's.

If you had read my series on Vridar, or my e-book version of same (The End of an Illusion), you would have seen my full explanation of this passage. And where does it say that the "gate" is the gate of a city? It does not. In fact, if it were the city of Jerusalem, then the writer could well have enjoined his brethren to join Jesus outside the gate of that city, a very apt parallel. Instead, he reverts to "outside the camp". Why? Because they can hardly join him outside the gate of heaven, which is the gate being referred to. And Jesus could not have been killed inside that gate, because such things could not happen in the incorruptible spheres of the heavens. It had to take place within the realm of corruptibility, in the sphere of the demon spirits. Furthermore, there is no thought of a heavenly "city" in the demon's firmament. And the 'location' motif serves his purposes in that passage to fit that scenario and to create a parallel between Jesus being "outside" and the believers also being "outside" the pale of their contemporary society.

What is meant by "heaven itself"? That "heaven" was monolithic? Hardly, since the writer elsewhere refers to "passing through the heavens" which implies multiple layers. The phrase here can be perhaps put down to semantic imprecision, although "heaven itself" with the reflexive word suggests a meaning of "the highest heaven" where God himself (or Himself, as Ted would write it) dwells. There is no problem here.

The writer is concerned with OT sources chiefly in regard to the parallel between Christ's heavenly sacrifice (which does not include the cross) and the earthly sacrifices in the tent/temple. No. 1 does not relate to that. Nor does No. 2. No. 4 does rely on an OT parallel (even if it doesn't work properly), namely the prescription of slaughtering the animals "outside" the sanctuary itself. No. 5 also lies outside the writer's concern regarding the counterpart sacrifices.

That's it. I'm done. (Another problem is that in a complex posting like this, it's damned hard to get all the tags properly matched, I must have spent an hour having to check through it multiple times to get them right. I almost gave up and trashed the whole thing.) It's going to have to take some really meaningful and perceptive rebuttal in future for me to bother making any answers which require any more than a few moments.

Earl Doherty

jakejonesiv

Hi Earl,

There is nothing tiresome here except you trying to control what other people post. :deadhorse: Earl, I am merely seeking information. My two questions were for all readers, not just you. But you have deigned to answer anyway, you must think you have something of importance to offer.

For question #1, aside from your claim of convenient ignorance, I understand your answer to be that the aorist would be less ambiguos for your "smoking gun" than the imperfect.

Now, please answer the second question. If the writer had wanted to say, that Jesus was not on earth now, but had been so in the past, what tense would he have written? This is not a trick or a trap. I really want to know what readers of this thread think.

Jake

EarlDoherty

You are repeating yourself again, Jake. I have already answered this and I refuse to do so again.

Earl Doherty

jakejonesiv

Dear Earl Doherty,

You could have answered the question in the amount of time it took you to refuse. It doesn't take 8 pages to answer. The question is quite simple: which tense would the write of Hebrews 8:4 have used if he meant to say that Jesus was not on earth now, but had been so in the past?

But if you feel it is not in your best interest to answer, I will read nothing into your silence. You have already shown the patience of Job, and I thank you for your time.

Best Wishes,
Jake Jones IV

EarlDoherty

I did not answer because the question doesn't make sense in this context. Such a statement could not have been made within the contrafactual structure of 8:4. The context is either he is not on earth now because of a now situation (which I reject on grounds beyond the grammatical), or he was not on earth then because of a past and ongoing situation. One could not get across the question you ask within that context. The statement would have to be entirely different, it would not involve a contrafactual, and thus the grammatical situations we have been arguing ad nauseum would not come into play.

The only "best interests" which are applicable here relate to the preservation of my sanity! Even Job was not subjected to the piling on, usually lacking in rational comprehension, that I have been. What this all shows me is not that there are legitimate rebuttals to my position, only that certain people are a priori determined that they are going to at all costs invent whatever they can come up with to disagree, to not give an inch. Ted's first interpretation of 8:4 (the "kind" of sacrifice) didn't work, so he went off and came up with an entirely different one, incompatible with the first one (not "according to the Law"), which equally didn't work. This is honest or reasonable debate? It's another form of apologetics, even if the motivations are different. Get Doherty, beat him down, no matter what the recourse. Even Stephan says he doesn't get on board with my interpretation, but does he offer an argumentative rebuttal to the case I've made?

Earl Doherty

Bernard Muller

I think this is part of that thread because Heb 7:14 would prove or disprove what is meant by Heb 8:4.

Doherty wrote, regarding Heb 7:14 (without providing any evidence):
“Melchizedek was traditionally seen as part of pre-Abrahamic (thus Canaanite) dynasty of priest kings, a line that continued through David when he conquered Jerusalem, and thus Melchizedek's line became associated with the tribe of Judah.”
I object: this Melchizedek (Melch), not even an Israelite, could not be associated with the tribe of Judah. And in the OT, he is never associated with any tribe, and never said part of the same line as the one of David.
Then Doherty followed through this unevidenced (and illogical) assumption later:
“The scriptural Melchizedek has provided this new High Priest [Jesus] with a tribe, that of Judah”

Then Doherty wrote about some Qumran scrolls, 2 Enoch, other little known Jewish texts (not in the OT) and associated scholarly speculations who would have Melch as a messianic, possibly angelic figure and a priest in Heaven.
He wrote next: “Beside, if a Melchizedek in Heaven could be identified with the tribe of Judah, there seems little reason to deny that convenience to the High Priest Jesus”
The problem here is that the author of 'Hebrews' never described Melch (beside not identified with the tribe of Judah) as operating as a priest in heaven. Instead, in 7:1-10 (except for priest forever), he kept very close to the OT description, with Melch being always a human (even if described as a priest forever, because, I think, his death is not stated in the OT). That would render null most of Doherty's argumentation.

The point that the author was making is that Melch, just like Jesus (7:13, 14), was not from the Levite tribe (7:6, 10) and therefore both were rather unique (not associated with those who made Jewish animal sacrifices for centuries) “you are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (7:17)

And that Jesus from the tribe of Judah was evident (according to 'Hebrews'). But Doherty wrote "it is evident" (prodelon) of 7:14 needs to be seen as a reference to the clarity bestowed by scripture.”
What scriptures? Sectarian ones (that is later not classified as canonical) that the author cannot be proven to know or follow?
And no OT scripture has Melch associated with the tribe of Judah, which did not exist yet.

So what is left is that Jesus was known to have been a human being on earth (as any member of a Jewish tribe), and also as believed for Melch.

Cordially, Bernard

TedM

I"m sorry you see it that way. You offered a challenge. I am still challenging, and if I happen to change my mind about certain aspects along the way because you have made a persuasive argument, that doesn't mean I'm suddenly inclined to agree with your entire position. I know when we strongly believe in something it is hard to imagine why someone might disagree but that honestly is where I'm at at this point in the discussion.

aa5874

No, No, No!!! The NT is about Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God that came to earth and was Incarnated by a Virgin.

Effectively, Jesus of the NT was a Mythological character WITHOUT a human father and was from the beginning.

A single ambiguous verse in Hebrews 8 cannot ever overturn the NT CANON, the hundreds of Apologetic writings of antiquity and those of the Church of Rome.

Hebrews 4:14 KJVHebrews 7:3 KJV
Jesus, Son of God and High Priest in Hebrews was WITHOUT father, mother and without END of Life.

The Hebrews Jesus was Pure Myth.

EarlDoherty

My remark wasn't meant as an insult, Ted. But when you can offer one explanation, and then when that doesn't work come up with a completely different explanation, it is like you are floundering in the dark, desperate to find something that will stick. It means that each individual explanation or rebuttal, since they are so different, is not the product of dispassionate scholarship and interpretation, let alone reliable as a counter-argument, but comes from an apologetic need to discredit my case no matter what. But I guess it's already obvious where you are coming from. Even so, you have a right to be here and do your thing, but we won't pretend it is something it is not. Your "inclination" not to agree is not scholarship based.

The reason I put forward this objection at all is not to denigrate you. It is because these repeated attempts to come up with something, no matter how off the mark and unworkable, require me to answer them, to point out the obvious flaws and fallacies. And that takes time and energy.

Earl Doherty