Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-27-2012, 11:18 AM

I find it very disturbing that Doherty, like other Scholars, have failed to establish when the Epistle to the Hebrews was composed.

If Doherty wants to argue that the Jesus character was NOT believed to have been on earth by early Christians and uses Hebrews as evidence then his Primary Obligation is to establish the Epistle is an Early composition.

It must be reasonable that if Hebrews was composed in the 2nd century or later that it may NOT reflect the Beliefs of the 1st century and may not even help to show that there were early Christians before c 68 CE.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that the Epistles to the Hebrews was composed in the 1st century--its author is unknown.

Incredibly, No Apologetic author acknowledged passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews up to the start of the 3rd century.

In "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus not one mention is made of Hebrews or the use of Hebrews by Christians or Heretics.

The Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline letters, the Epistle of Peter and the Apocalypse by John are mentioned but Nothing of the Epistle of Hebrews.

The same thing applies to EVERY SINGLE writing of Tertullian--Nothing is known of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Tertullian claimed there was an Epistle to the Hebrews UNDER the name of Barnabas but did NOT even quote a verse.

Over 32 writings are attributed to Tertullian and NOT once do they mention even a phrase from the Epistle to the Hebrews.

It is clear that even if the author of Hebrews did NOT know of or write about an earthly Jesus that the Epistle to the Hebrews does NOT represent or reflect the views of so-called early Christians.

It is the Complete Opposite.

The Epistle to the Hebrews appears to be very Late and represents the views of the author himself, not even those of late Christians.

Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under Claidius.

Tertullian claimed Jesus was crucified under Pilate.

Now, Writers that used or mentioned the Epistle to the Hebrews claimed Jesus was crucified under Tiberius.

In the Stromata Clement of Alexandria mentioned the Epistle to the Hebrews and still claimed Jesus was crucified under Tiberius.

Stromata 1

Quote:

Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus; so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered.

There is NO corroborative evidence whatsoever that the Epistle to the Hebrews was early and that it was Heretical with the claim that the Jesus character, the Son of God, was NOT ever on earth.

aa5874 · 09-27-2012, 04:03 PM

If any one does any proper eximanation of Apologetic writings it will become extremely clear that the Epistle to the Hebrews was virtually unknown and not mentioned in the 2nd century.

Even when the suppopsed Irenaeus and Tertullian argued against Marcion the Heretic--nothing is mentioned of the Epistle of Hebrews.

In effect, The Anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews is of very little use as an early source and hopeless as a source to determine the tradition of so-called early Christians.

aa5874 · 09-27-2012, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Hebrews was known to Clement of Rome. On the traditional dating of Clement this requires a date for Hebrews well before 100 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Your claim is erroneous. There is an Anonymous letter of no known date of authorship that has been PRESUMED to have been written by Clement of Rome.

The Anonymous letter has NOT been dated by Palaleography or C14 to the 1st century and No Recovered NT manuscript and Non-Apologetic Text show that there was any Jesus cult of Christians with Churches and Bishops at that time.

Not even the Church can say when Clement was Bishop of Rome.
Some say he was Bishop some time before the death of Peter or before c 64-68 CE, some say perhaps c 75 CE, others perhaps c 85 CE, and others c 95 CE.

If the Great Dissension of the Corinthian Church happened at around c 95 CE, then Clement did NOT write the letter if he was Bishop before c 64-68 CE, at c 64-68 CE, c 75 CE, and c 85 CE.

Clement of Rome is a Fabricated character.

And further, the Anonymous letter did NOT even acknowledge the Epistle to the Hebrews we only have two passages that appear to be from the Epistle.

An anonymous letter is the very worst way to date authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

aa5874 · 09-28-2012, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseDon,

Good question. I tend to think that Doherty is quite right when he recognizes that Hebrews is not talking about a Messiah who was recently on Earth, at least not in its original form...

Again, the only reason why the Epistle to the Hebrews is considered early is because it was FALSELY attributed to a character called Paul.

And further, Before the False attribution at around the 3rd century we know Nothing of the Epistle.

Tertullian claimed there was an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas--no such Epistle can be found.

It is time Scholars, whether MJ or HJ, understand that it is NO longer acceptable to introduce the Epistle to the Hebrews as an early source when its Provenance is wholly insecure.

Using the Epistle to the Hebrews as an early source for Christian tradition is like using Genesis for the history of the origin of mankind.

1. Hebrews has NO known author.

2. Hebrews has No date of authorship.

3. Hebrews is NOT acknowledged up to the end on the 2nd century.

4. Hebrews was falsely attributed to Paul for hundreds of years.

5. The actual author of Hebrews was NOT ever known.

6. The variants per page of the Epistle to the Hebrews matche those of Late writings. Hebrews --2.9 per page. 1 Timothy-- 2.9 per page gMark --10.8 per page

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

7. The earliest Recovered DATED Text of the Epistle to the Hebrews is from the mid 3rd century.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Scholars MUST begin to understand that the Epistle to the Hebrews does NOT represent early Christian tradition.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is from an unknown person of unknown time who represented those not known.

aa5874 · 09-28-2012, 09:24 PM

The Epistle to the Hebrews is NOT known to be an early source and does NOT represent early christian tradition.

The Christology in Hebrews is far advanced of the Synoptics' Christology.

In the short gMark, the very Jesus character did NOT even claim he would be Sacrificied or that he would be Sacrificied for the Atonement of Sins.

In the Short gMark, Jesus Spoke in parables so that the Jews would NOT be converted and Remain in Sin.

Yes, Jesus in gMark wanted the Jews to REMAIN in SIN.

The Markan Jesus story MUST or Most likely predate the Hebrews

gMark's Jesus was NOT a Sacrificial Lamb or a High Priest.

Mark 4

Quote:

10And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:12That seeing they may see , and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear , and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted , and their sins should be forgiven them.

Now, Apologetic sources that used the Epistle to the Hebrews claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and was crucified under Pilate AFTER a trial.

Origen mentioned the Epistle to the Hebrews and also claimed Jesus was Born of a Ghost.

De Principiis 1.2.5

Quote:

The Apostle Paul says, that the only-begotten Son is the “image of the invisible God,” and “the first-born of every creature.” And when writing to the Hebrews, he says of Him that He is “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person.”

Hebrews 1:3 KJV

Quote:

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.....

The Preface of De Principiis

Quote:

Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— “For by Him were all things made” — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit, that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up (into heaven)...

Origen used the Epistle to the Hebrews and also clearly Claimed Jesus who came into the WORLD was really Born of a Ghost, that he really did Resurrect, then Conversed with his disciples and Ascended.

There is no known Apologetic source that used the Epistle to the Hebrews who claimed Jesus was a human being with a human father and that he did NOT come into the world when he was crucified.

aa5874 · 09-28-2012, 10:05 PM

Clement of Alexandria made reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews and also claimed it was prophecied Jesus, the Son of God, would come into the world and be born.

The Stromata 6

Quote:

..For Paul too....... Wherefore also, writing to the Hebrews, who were declining again from faith to the law, he says, “Have you not need again of one to teach you which are the first principles of the oracles of God, and have become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat?”

See Hebrew 5.12.

Examine the very same book, The Stromata 6.

The Stromata 6.15

Quote:

The discovery, then, of what is sought respecting God, is the teaching through the Son; and the proof of our Saviour being the very Son of God is the prophecies which preceded His coming, announcing Him; and the testimonies regarding Him which attended His birth in the world; in addition, His powers proclaimed and openly shown after His ascension...

Again, we see that sources that made references to the Epistle of Hebrews did NOT state Jesus was a human being with a human father and that he did NOT come into the world when he was born.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Hebrews was regarded as heretical Text.

aa5874 · 09-29-2012, 10:17 AM

Chrysostom wrote Homilies of the Epistle to the Hebrews and did NOT ever claim that Jesus was NOT on earth and also did NOT ever claim Jesus was human with a human father.

Chrysostom did also make reference to Hebrews 8.4. See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240214.htm

Chrysostom's Homily on Hebrews 8.

Quote:

“For if” (he says) “He had been on earth, He would not be a Priest, seeing that there are priests who offer the gifts according to the Law.” If then He is a Priest (as He really is), we must seek some other place for Him.

For if He were” indeed “on earth, He should not be a priest.” For how [could He be]? He offered no sacrifice, He ministered not in the Priest's office. And with good reason, for there were the priests.

Moreover he shows, that it was impossible that [He] should be a priest upon earth. For how [could He be]? There was no rising up against [the appointed Priests], he means.

aa5874 · 01-21-2013, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted

A heavenly man who is perfect on earth, and sacrifices himself here on earth but doesn't complete the offering until he is in heaven seems to work pretty well too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Well, it might work for Ted, but it doesn’t work for the text itself, which never even hints at such a thing and contains incompatibilities with it. That’s forcing the Gospels onto the epistles.

The Gospels do actually state that Jesus was crucified AFTER a trial with the Sanhedrin and then was Delivered up by the Jews to Pilate.

There is absolutely no need to force the Gospels onto the Epistles because that is the Jesus story.

We have FIVE Canonised Gospel stories of Jesus and they all say Jesus was crucified on earth in Jerusalem

The story of Jesus in the Canon is extremely simple and easy to understand.

Jesus, the Son of God, came to earth and was Delivered up to be killed by the very Jews, the supposed children of God, after the very son of God healed and Fed them.

You are the one forcing a conspiracy theory based on cherry-picking isolated verses from Hebrews.

aa5874 · 01-22-2013, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

A simple question: If modern Christians do not see Jesus Christ as a mythical being, why would ancient Christians think he was?

Ancient Christians claimed Jesus was a God born of a Ghost and a Virgin. Jesus was PURE unadulterated Mythology like that of the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

1. Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians.

Quote:

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

2. Aristides' Apology

Quote:

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man...

3. Tertullian' On the Flesh of Christ

Quote:

He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

4. Origen's De Principiis[/u]

Quote:

....it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit..

aa5874 · 01-22-2013, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

A simple question: If modern Christians do not see Jesus Christ as a mythical being, why would ancient Christians think he was?

Actually, modern Christians' relation to Jesus Christ is much the same as ancient Christians would have been if we accept the mythicist position. Just as now, Jesus was a heavenly intercessor for humankind. But you make a mistake in thinking that ancient Christians would think of Jesus as a mythical being. That isn't the point of mythicists. Ancient Christians would think Jesus was a real being albeit in heaven, which is exactly what modern Christians think.

Christians in the Jesus cult claimed Jesus came to earth.

We have the writings of supposed Christians.

This is Aristides to Hadrian c 117-138 CE

Aristides' "Apology"

Quote:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High.

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished.

But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven.

Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

There is absolutely no need to invent any Celestial Jesus that was never on earth.

The Jesus story is extremely easy to understand.

The Son of God came to earth and was Killed by Jews and after three days he resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Those who BELIEVE the story are called Christians.

After the Jews pierced the Son of God their land was made desolate and their cities burned with fire.

Trypho's Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

..... you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem............. Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One.....

The earliest Christians of the Jesus cult wrote that Jesus the Son of God came to earth and was killed by the Jews after which he resurrected and ascended.

Doherty's Celestial Jesus story is back-to-front and without any support from Apologetic sources.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-27-2012, 04:03 PM	#2
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	If any one does any proper eximanation of Apologetic writings it will become extremely clear that the Epistle to the Hebrews was virtually unknown and not mentioned in the 2nd century. Even when the suppopsed Irenaeus and Tertullian argued against Marcion the Heretic--nothing is mentioned of the Epistle of Hebrews. In effect, The Anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews is of very little use as an early source and hopeless as a source to determine the tradition of so-called early Christians.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.