ApostateAbe

It is an argument from silence, but a brief summary of the foundations of Christianity need not explicitly specify that Jesus was earthly, regardless of whether he was earthly or not. That's strike 1. Strike 2 is that it is an implausible interpretation, since the source (or conduit) of a "teaching" in the New Testament is always a human being. Strike 3 is that such an interpretation conflicts with another passage of Hebrews, a passage in chapter 2:

14 Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. 16 For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people.

You're out.

Toto

MM is not part of this thread.

Quote mining usually refers to taking a quote from a writer that is not only out of context, but artfully snipped to endorse a contrary point of view.

The New Testament is notoriously ambiguous, with numerous disagreements about what it means. I do not think that the term quote mining is appropriate here, since the question of what the unknown author meant is actually uncertain. It might be proof texting, except I don't think that fits either.

I see no reason to think that the OP is deceptive. It sounds like a reasonable question for discussion.

ApostateAbe

"So why not cut all this transparent crap and get down to business? I've given you plenty of material to work with in my long posting above. If you like you can even start with your so-called three strikes against Steven. I'd be glad to answer you on those."

Go to town.

EarlDoherty

Restate them, please. You're addressing me now, not Steven. That will give you an opportunity to do some reconsideration in case you were a little quick off the mark, without due cogitation. You might even want to survey some writings of mine on the subject, so that you can anticipate my objections.

Earl Doherty

Steven Carr

No, it wasn't deceptive.

My quote was from the first chapter of Hebrews. In modern parlance, if an author was writing a paper, the verses I quoted would be labelled 'abstract'....

The author of Hebrews was summarisng his message. He is adamant that his Jesus speaks.

His Jesus is not silent, contrary to historicist claims that Jesus is silent in the Epistles.

His Jesus speaks.

With the voice of the Old Testament.

This is why historicists declare Jesus to be silent in the Epistles.

Because the voice of Jesus in the Epistles is not the voice of the Jesus they want to hear.

It is the voice of Jesus speaking through the Old Testament, a voice which must be silenced by those claiming that Jesus was not a creation of Scripture.

How else could Jesus have spoken to early Christians?

Apart , of course, from the way Jesus spoke to Paul in 2 Corinthians 12.

Toto

Some posts that will lead to nothing good have been split here

ApostateAbe

I appreciate that, because "strike 2" is not such a strong argument, in my own reconsideration, so we can focus on strikes 1 and 3.

It is an argument from silence, but a brief summary of the foundations of Christianity need not explicitly specify that Jesus was earthly, regardless of whether he was earthly or not. That's strike 1. [...] Strike 3 is that such an interpretation conflicts with another passage of Hebrews, a passage in chapter 2:

14 Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. 16 For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people.

stephan huller

Really? You are an acknowledged authority on the Epistle to the Hebrews? Come on. I don't mean to continue this debate but if we are talking about the text of Hebrews, I do not have to reference you or your work. I will welcome having a civil discussion with you. But don't lump me together with anyone else who posts here and then belittle that poster and me by implication.

I would love to agree with you. I am of the opinion that Jesus was supernatural because the Marcionites held this to be true and have a deep interest and respect for that tradition. But I would prefer if you didn't belittle my caution about your claims. I do not think my reading of Hebrews chapter two is deficient. I always side with the plain meaning of the text. It comes with my cautious nature. But if you can demonstrate the correct reading of the material, I have no reason to resist you as I am not a 'historicist' (what a stupid term) per se. I really do go where the evidence leads me. So lead away. Give me your best shot.

aa5874

You seem now to be employing "tricks" of your own. All of a sudden because I point out the obvious flaws in your argument you attempt to use a little trickery by claiming I read everything in amateur and simplistic fashion.

What about the simplistic amateurs that you want to read your book??
You do indeed have reasons to not only sound frustrated but to be frustrated. You have made some grave errors.

You have utterly failed to establish that the Epistle to the Hebrews is an early source or was composed before the Jesus stories were known.

. Your reference to Hebrews to support the Foundation of Christianity is not logical at all.

1. The Epistle to the Hebrews is without any known authorship, without any known date of authorship, and was falsely attributed to Paul for hundreds of years.

2. Since the 2nd-3rd centuries the first authors to mention ALL the Epistles to the Churches in "Against Heresies" and Against Marcion" did NOT mention the Epistle to the Hebrews.

3. No NT manuscripts of Hebrews have been found and dated to the 1st century.

4. Apologetic sources that mention the Epistle to the Hebrews and stories of Jesus argue that Jesus was on earth, did miracles on earth, was crucified on earth, resurrected and commissioned the disciples to preach the Gospel on earth and then ascended.

5. In the Epistles to the Hebrews it is claimed Jesus came in the Flesh--Hebrews 5.

6. In the Epistle to the Hebrews it is claimed people will see Jesus a second time.

There is SIMPLY no corroborative evidence that the Epistle to the Hebrews is an early source, that it predates that the Gospels and that it represents the Foundation of Christianity.

The Gospels represent the Foundation of Christianity--Not the Epistles.

EarlDoherty

Stephan, why do you twist my words? I did not say that I am "an acknowledged authority on the epistle to the Hebrews," although I humbly regard my analysis of it as perceiving its true meaning, something that scholarship has failed to achieve because of its biased a priori imposition of orthodoxy upon it. (My lengthy chapter on Hebrews in JNGNM devotes some space, and even more in my website articles, to demonstrating scholarship's continuing and fallacious reading into it of meanings it wants to see, rather than what is there.)

I said I was a "leading writer on the topic" within the context of current mythicism and its proponents. And as someone who, by coming onto this forum, puts himself into the setting of a discussion of mythicism and how various texts support it, I do indeed regard it as recommendable that you investigate my writings on Hebrews before engaging in a promotion of your own views on the document.

And what some people regard as the "plain meaning" of a text can sometimes be inadvertently determined by received wisdom, something which might be compromised by attending to the views of someone who is not tied to that received wisdom. You speak of caution. Doesn't that apply to hesitating to accept what everyone else has "always believed"?

Hopefully, you will see fit to follow along my debate with Abe, and make whatever substantive contribution you wish to make.

Earl Doherty