stephan huller

Although the lack of information is displaced by the 'how many college students can you fit into a telephone booth'-like interest in how long can a 'hate Doherty' thread go on?

aa5874

What?? How utterly absurd. I never supposed such a thing. We have the writings of Apologetics of Antiquity who made references to Hebrews and none of them claimed Jesus in Hebrews was never on earth.

1. Clement of Alexandria made references to the Epistle Hebrews and also argued that Jesus was baptized by John and was crucified at the age of 30 years under Pilate. See Clement's Stromata.

2. Origen made references to the Epistle Hebrews and also argued that Jesus was born in a cave in Bethlehem, was baptized by John and was crucified under Pilate. See Origen's De Principiis, and "Against Celsus".

3. Eusebius' "Church History" made references to Epistle Hebrew and it is claimed Jesus born of a Virgin, baptised by John, was crucified under Pilate when Caiaphas was High Priest

4. Chrysostom wrote Homilies on Hebrews and argued that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, baptized by John and was crucified under Pilate.

It is you who have used an admitted grammatically ambiguous verse in Hebrews without a shred of supporting evidence from antiquity and SUPPOSED it referred to an heavenly Jesus and crucified in the sub-lunar.

Not a single writer of antiquity, heretic or not, support your never on earth Jesus crucified in the sub-lunar.

You have nothing from antiquity but your wild imagination to support you.

Effectively, your Hebrews 8.4 challenge is really worthless--just a grammatically ambiguous passage--just smoke.

Bernard Muller

to Doherty,
I addressed all of that here

Where did you read from the Greek "evident from scripture"?

For 2:14-17, you took "spiritual blood" from a wrong NEB translation. And where did you read spiritual blood and spiritual flesh in:

2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.
2:16 For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham.
2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. (RSV)

For 5:7, how do you know that "in the days of his flesh" is taken from scriptures? the author did not say that. Why "flesh", in that context, would have a different of meaning than in:

Ro 6:19 Darby "I speak humanly on account of the weakness of your flesh."
2 Cor 7:5 Darby "For indeed, when we came into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest ..."
Gal 4:14 Darby "and my temptation, which [was] in my flesh, you did not slight nor reject with contempt; ..."
Gal 6:8 Darby "For he that sows to his own flesh, shall reap corruption from the flesh ..."
Gal 6:13 Darby "... but they wish you to be circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh ..."
Heb 12:9 Darby "Moreover we have had the [real!] fathers of our flesh as chasteners, and we reverenced [them] ..."

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller

to Doherty,
Most likely, these Galatians knew already about that James as the brother of Jesus. Also, they knew Jesus had been human because Paul used that in Galatians 4:4 to clinch a long argument. As explained Here.
And "brother" (member of a sect) is not the same as "brother of the Lord".
Furthermore, Paul had to identify that "James", because, at the time, there was another prominent "James" among the Church of Jerusalem, the brother of John the fisherman (according to 'Acts').
BTW, Paul never called the members of the church of Jerusalem plain "brother(s)".
And Paul knew that "brothers" (members of the Christian sect => Christians) has not the same meaning than "brothers of the Lord" as I demonstrated for 1 Corinthians 9:5 Here.

Cordially, Bernard

TedM

You make a very interesting and compelling case for this Bernard. Of course few on this forum have any inclination to entertain such an analysis, but I have always found your approach and reasoning to be provocative, stimulating, and resonating as being very near to the truth. Thanks for sharing this. Some great points!

Bernard Muller

Actually he did just that on page 287, about Heb 5:7: Preview of the Epistle to the Hebrews by Paul Ellingworth
I could not check for 2:3 and 2:14-17 because these pages are not shown on the preview.

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874

The Pauline writer argued that Jesus was GOD INCARNATE--a Myth character.

The NT Canon is about GOD INCARNATE--A Myth character.

The Teachings of the Church is that Jesus is GOD INCARNATE--a Myth character.

Please, we have Hundreds of Apologetic writings and we know EXACTLY that the Christian Jesus of the Canon was GOD INCARNATE--not just a human being. See the Nicene Creed.

Origen argued Against Celsus when he claimed Jesus was a man whose father was Panthera. Origen argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

It is time this absurd Hebrews 8.4 challenge come to an end because there is NO way that Doherty can establish that an admitted grammatically ambiguous passage of an unprovenanced, anonymous and undated Epistle promoted that Jesus was never on earth since before the Jewish War.

We know Nothing of Epistle Hebrews until AFTER Marcion or after 150 CE.

Roo Bookaroo

Bernard:

You know the "Jesus Puzzle" book well, since you've published a thorough Critique of it in your site.
You also know very well Richard Carrier's review of the "Jesus Puzzle", online at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html (2002).

Carrier has a Ph.D. in ancient history, Columbia Un. He has a young, incisive, mathematically-inclined brain.
Now, in Appendix 1, Carrier lists all the "problems" he's spotted in Doherty's book, numbered 1 to 12.
In Problem #10, he lists many instances where Doherty's Greek is shaky, spotty or plain wrong.
The instance (x) refers to another instance of misinterpretation of the original Greek. And it is astonishing that you don't seem to have ever mentioned it here (to my recollection, correct me if I'm wrong), as it concerns the very meat of this Challenge, the translation of Hebrews 8:4.
Carrier says:

"(x) Appendix 5 (p. 310): Doherty intuitively mentions the correct reading, but is evidently unaware of the more esoteric details of Greek grammar that confirm this intuition: an ei...an phrase using the imperfect tense is always a present contrafactual (a past contrafactual would call for the aorist). In other words: "So, then, if he were on earth, he would not be a priest..." is the only correct translation. This is not an obscure point in Greek grammar. It is so fundamental to habits of oral discourse that this is simply the only way to read this passage. This takes away some of the force of his interpretation, but does not contradict it.

spin

Once again Roo Bookaroo wastes space on this forum simply slagging Doherty. Stop wasting everyone's time Roo Bookaroo. Get a life or post on the topic. Perhaps, if you had a book of your own, someone could slag you for it.

EarlDoherty

And yet Carrier's "young and incisive" brain is contradicted by Paul Ellingworth (and the grammarians Blass and Debrunner whom he references), who has made career of translating Greek texts of the NT, and if I've quoted Ellingworth once I've quoted him a dozen times in books and on this DB, and I'll do it again for the sake of your deficient memory:

That endnote 87 also gives two examples in Hebrews of an imperfect-tense contrafactual which clearly have a past meaning, and all translators so render them. I guess Carrier missed those. (And if you will check my website response to Carrier's review back in 2002, you'll find I called him on a couple of other mistakes and misconstruences he had made.) But if you think that Carrier is infallible, perhaps you should nominate him for Pope now that the present one is resigning.

So what is it, Roo? Either you have entirely forgotten the basic arguments surrounding this point and the scholarship and grammatical experts I have appealed to (I guess your deficient attention span for my writing style extends to your length of short term memory), or else you haven't and you are trying to deliberately mislead the readers, thus demonstrating that you are dishonorably engaged in a personal vendetta. Which one would you like to cop to? Neither one covers you in glory. Nor have your antics on Amazon.

You and the other two in your terrible trio, GDon and Bernard Muller (and I'll shortly have something to say about his recent postings), are all equally guilty of the same tactics, kept up with stubborn repetition over the years. Keep flogging a dead horse, ignore dissenting scholarship, counter-argument and later statements and clarifications by myself.

Spin's opinion notwithstanding, I urge you to keep posting. All you do is continue to illustrate your own lack of honesty and integrity. I am sure there is not a person left on this planet (other than your co-conspirators) who thinks that anything you say has any legitimacy.

Earl Doherty