TedM

I do not presume that the tabernacle in Hebrews was in heavenly Jerusalem, but admit to not having researched the thinking about a heavenly Jerusalem by Jews of the time. The passage I was referencing here was actually the one you had quoted from Galations where it is mentioned as part of an allegory but without saying anything about Jesus being there.

gotta turn in.

MCalavera

Steve, I don't assume that Hebrews is theologically consistent with Paul's Epistles or any of the Gospel accounts or any of the other Epistles.

You're not arguing with a Christian apologist.

Kapyong

Who's arguing theology?

The point is that Hebrews places Jesus in the Jerusalem above.
Something you cannot accept.


K.

Steven Carr

But, of course, we must start with the assumption that Paul's Epistles are consistent with the Gospels.....

Steven Carr

Yes, I had always wondered what John 20:17 meant - ' Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' - when he appeared to Mary.

I now learn that it means he had already ascended to heaven, and made atonement in this heavenly tabernacle, using blood that had been spilled on Earth. Blood he presumably collected up and took to heaven with him.

Hence his concern to tell people that he had not yet ascended. Because, of course, he had already ascended to Heaven before he appeared to anybody.

It all makes a certain kind of sense. Especially as you can't expect Jesus to be fully compos mentis after that traumatic week he had just had. Easy for him to forget that he had already ascended.

TedM

It is curious that none of the other gospels mention that 'original' ascension. In any case, I think I read somewhere that that it was believed that Jesus 'made intercession' before God -- offering the sins of the world up for God's approval/forgiveness. It's the same thing as animal sacrifice--except that, as having been resurrected he could directly request the desired result.

Since John then has Jesus come back to earth and then be touchable, we can only assume that since he didn't continue to make appearances indefinitely he must have made a 'final' ascension, although I have found it curious that GJohn is silent on that issue, though he was aware of the other traditions.

In any case, I think Hebrews may well be in agreement with orthodoxy on the idea of ascending to heaven after the actual sacrifice (crucifixion). I mean, Jesus had to go there anyway to sit on the right hand of God, so the issue for JMrs I think would be whether the sacrifice itself is presented as happening on earth or not. I think Doherty claims Hebrews implies that it is not on earth, others here say it implies it was on earth. I haven't looked into Hebrews closely enough to have an opinion.

archibald

This reminds me of spin's comment that there aren't currently any good MJ arguments.......but there might be in future.

Which strikes me as an excellent way to assess stuff. Have I ever told you about my patented anti-gravity sausages?

archibald

Which if true, is a fair point, but it means his books are often not taken all that seriously.

MCalavera

No, not really.

Your problem is you don't even understand what the minimal historicist's general position is.

It's not the same as debating a Christian.

MCalavera

How do you know what I do or do not accept if I don't even imply it?