Ben C Smith

I agree! In pagan thought the pagan gods regularly took on some form of flesh, even if not real flesh, in order to interact with humans. This was also the position of the docetics concerning Jesus.

But do you not see that this, if it is indeed our best analogy, tends to cancel out any non-earthly yet fleshly realm? The gods took on some kind of flesh in order to interact with humans on earth. The pharoah ruled on earth; Semele lived on earth (in or near Thebes, IIRC). Unless you can show me otherwise.

Ben.

gstafleu

Sure. I was giving possible examples of beings that do not consist of normal human flesh taking on (an approximation of) such flesh, regardless of where this took place. As I said, if you narrow the concept down far enough it will automatically become sui generis to whatever tradition you are narrowing it down to. Does the taking on of "flesh" have to be in a non earthly location in order to count as an example? I can't see why, tho.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

First of all let me say that I personally don't have a stake in the "non-earthly yet fleshly realm" idea. I know Earl really likes it, and he may well be right. We do know that at the time there was an idea of these spheres around the earth, Cicero's Dream of Scipio e.g. Perhaps the epistolians (new word?) placed Christ's sacrifice there. But if it turns out they didn't and Christ turns out to have the same kind of "historicity" as e.g. Dionysus, fine.

Now, does the fact that my examples took place on earth cancel out the idea that Christ's sacrifice in Hebrews took place somewhere else? It doesn't lend support for the "somewhere else" part, just for the "taking on flesh" part (which, regarding the flesh phrase, was of course what we initially were talking about). But "cancel out" is a bit too much, I think. As I said, cultures added sui generis shapings to common ideas, and perhaps the idea of Christ doing his bit in one of the spheres (no doubt accompanied by suitable music thereof ) may have been an idea unique to Hebrews (or the epistolians in general).

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

Ah yes, these details, little devils they are. The problem here is in the all isn't it? If Jesus is "like" humans in all respects, he must have been on earth, like humans. Of course in that case he actually was a 100% human and could never have resurrected, as humans don't do that. A little problem. The solution is probably in the "like" idea. You find that in the famous phrase "as above, thus below," an idea that seems to pervade mythology. In this case I think that the "like" indicates that the "all" is not quite as absolute as it could be. In other words, he became very human-like while staying "up there."

Having said this, as I pointed out as far as I'm concerned he could have done his taking on flesh bit on terra firma as well, just as Dionysus did. In both cases Christ remains mythical in the same way as Dionysos is mythical. And yes, an actual descent to earth would make his identification with humanity stronger and thus his sacrifice more efficient. You may remember from another thread my idea that the whole thing developed in order to get this super-transcendent god back to earth. Really back to earth would of course work the best, but the "wholly other" idea may have prevented that.

Gerard Stafleu

Clivedurdle

In what sphere did Hercules take the earth from Atlas's shoulders? In the heavens, on earth? Was Hercules a human at the time?

EarlDoherty

Having checked in to see what’s going on a little sooner than I intended, I can see that any resolve on my part to ignore Jeffrey Gibson in future is simply not going to work.

The most egregious statement is the final one. <edit>...Jeffrey is clearly implying that he has read the article, and is making his statements based on that reading. If he has not read it, he is equally culpable of making a statement that is totally unfounded and deceiving the board. Anyone else who has read it will know without a shadow of a doubt that I have quoted several commentators on Hebrews directly from their own texts, some of them quite extensively, including Attridge (I quote hundreds of Attridge’s words and paraphrase others), Wilson, Ellingworth, Buchanan, and Moffatt (all read from cover to cover), to a lesser extent a few others (see the Bibliography), most of whom I have also read completely. All of them discuss, in varying degrees, the various background concepts to Hebrews, Attridge in particular.

In none of these have I quoted through excerpts of their work that I found in Price (who mentions almost none of them), and that was clear<edit>. There were three or four minor quotes in which I did so, and that, too, was made clear.

Jeffrey also asks for “concrete evidence” that scholars I quote have suppressed the Platonic background of Hebrews in favor of the Jewish. What does he expect me to supply? Signed confessions from them? I assert it on the basis of their own statements vs. what the text actually says, showing how they have twisted that text and read their own preconceptions into it. By that demonstration I legitimately make a judgment about what they have done. And if he read the article, he will also know that I am not saying that scholars like Attridge, Wilson or Williamson have failed to engage with arguments for a Platonic background. I deal with that engagement and demonstrate that it is largely special pleading, often fallacious and not based on a proper analysis of the text.

But my purpose in this post is not to announce that I will continue to engage Jeffrey Gibson. He has shown that he is unwilling or unable to answer any of the objections and exposure of his tactics that I have continually offered, including most recently those surrounding his extensive “excerpts” posting. I note that he has also failed to provide any actual examples of the Greek “days of his flesh” phrase he claimed were present in the non-Christian writings he listed even when reasonably requested to supply them, just as he did in his earlier presentation of the Greek of 5:7. <edit> He is here for one purpose only, to poison the mythicist well (me in particular), and not through legitimate argumentation. No holds are barred. He does not care what anyone thinks of him, or of his actual knowledge or integrity. He hasn’t been able to neutralize me through honest and meaningful argument <edit>.

When the determined bully is given free rein, he will always win, to the detriment of everyone around him. I am proposing that there is ample reason for Jeffrey Gibson to be once again barred from the IIDB, this time permanently. I do not understand why he was allowed to return after his first disbarment for disreputable conduct, something of which he has a long history. The hyena cannot change his spots, and that has been amply demonstrated.

I am not willing to frequent this board as long as Jeffrey Gibson is present. Either he goes or I go, for good.

This is not a matter for a private forum for the moderators. If this posting is censored, transferred or removed, I will send it to every member whose e-mail address I have or can find.

Enough is enough.

Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

I agree that the all does not have to be pressed in absurd directions such as hair color, average height, and so forth. But, in a passage where Jesus is said to have taken on the same stuff as humans (flesh) and to have been kin (brother) with the descendants of Abraham, like them in all ways, I do wonder whether we are even permitted to assume that all this took place in a realm not native to descendants of Abraham and flesh-and-blood human beings. At the very least, I think we should demand actual evidence for such a placement, not just the presumption that it might have been so.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Who said a 100% human couldn't be resurrected? That Pharisees accepted it and it is my understanding that only the Sadducees rejected the notion.

Yes but I'm not sure how it works with Earl's thesis since he has a sacrifice above but none below. :huh:

Solitary Man

On earth, and he was always a demigod, being born of a mortal woman and a divine father.

Jeffrey Gibson

Not a lie, surely. Just "unfounded hyperbole".

But you did say:

.

And I note that in the list of people you say you've read "cover to cover" you omit Williamson, as well others that you list in your works cited page such as F. F. Bruce, Donald Guthrie, Graham Hughes, William Manson, Hugh Montefiore, E.F. Scott, C. H. Talbert, and B. F. Westcott . And it's certainly clear that you haven't read Barret or Hurst or Lane.
<edit>

Well if so, you should definitely let Attridge know. He invites critiques of his work. So now that it's "this week", will you send him your demontration of how and why he is wrong?

Are you willing or not to enter into dialogue with him about this matter? If not, why not?


Jeffrey