Ted Hoffman

They help us understand the possible cosmological orientation of the early Christians like Paul.
These ones
I think logic is secondary if you cant even agree on a simple matter regarding whether or not a statement is ambiguous.
This pretence of inability to understand and a lack of awareness of issues raised and a dogged demand for specifics is an example. One exposes your abstruse obfuscation and you lose them in expansive ambiguity or microscopic details.
Because you argue in English and I can see that they are baseless arguments behind the Greek advertisements.
What do you mean by "know Greek?" I do know some Greek for example, I know that Eschatos means “last” in Greek I also know that the appellation Nazarhnos in Mark 10:47, which is translated as “Nazarene”, cannot be derived from the word Nazareth or Nazaret. Yes, and how to spell the word for "princes of this world" in Greek.
Or do I have to be cited by scholars and in respectable commentaries?
What do you mean by "well after"? A year? A decade? A century? Expansive ambiguity again, dear Gibson?

James Madison

Yeah, first assuming Paul is the author of Hebrews, and second, assuming Paul was familiar with the Platonic philosophy. Next, we need to assume Paul was incorporating elements of what he knew about platonic philosophy into the book of Hebrews. Those are a lot of assumptions, some of which NO EVIDENCE or a logically compelling argument has ever been espoused to support any of them.

Similar to the argument the words "due process" in the 5th and 14th amendment mean what Sir Edward Coke said they meant in his writings in the 1600's. This claim has as many assumptions as the position you allude to above. So many, they need to be supported by evidence or some sound logical argument as opposed to merely making them, assuming them as true, for the purpose of making a claim.

Logical reasoning is first and foremost at play in every dialogue of a like or similar manner as this one, and it is certainly an important consideration now, and is in operation about the ambiguity, rather the lack thereof, in terms of the verses discussing Jesus' tenure in the "flesh." While the author can certainly be criticized for not telling us where this event transpired, it does not make the verses ambiguous and is not terribly fatal to Gerard's or Doherty's position under and in certain circumstances. But the verses themselves are not "ambiguous" in regards to the issue being discussed by myself and Gerard and logical reasoning absolutely has an important role to play in resolution of this issue and Doherty/Gerards position.

Jeffrey Gibson

Right. I asked for specifics, and you give me this undocumented generality!

Please point out, with reference to the rules of Greek grammar and syntax, which of my arguments about matters Greek were baseless.

Are you actually saying that knowing something about a few Greek words is "knowing" Koine Greek? If I said I knew the meanings and derivations of a few Swahili words, could I then claim I know Swahili (was fluent in it and familiar with its rules of grammar and syntax). Would a speaker of Swahili say so?

False dichotomy.

The texts in question are from Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus, all of which were written roughly a century after Hebrews.

Moreover, it's important to note that it is highly doubtful that the theology of these texts is that of the author of Hebrews. In the first place, these texts are all explications of the prologue of John, not Heb. 1:2. In the second place, not a single one of these authors uses the term the author of Hebrews uses in Heb 1:2 for the one through whom God made τοὺς αἰῶνας -- i.e., anarthrous υἱός. Rather, they speak of "the λόγος". Nor do they employ the dia + the genitve construction in their assertions about the Logos and creation. And other bits of their language is very "un Hebrews". Where in Hebrews do we find ἀντεγέννησε used, let alone applied to υἱός?

I note too that none of these texts actually says that the λόγος is active as an agent in creating/making the world (nor do they use the expression τοὺς αἰῶνας in reference to what is "generated by" the λόγος ). Theophilus doesn't. Nor does Athenagoras, whom Earl has quoted only in English and, notably, selectively. In book 7 of his Address to the Greeks (not Apology), Tatian describes the Logos as the "generator" of angels, not the world. And contrary to what Earl asserts -- and notably, not on the basis of the actual Greek text of book 5 of Tatian's Address, but on an old English translation of it, Tatian -- who is here clearly exegeting the prologue of John -- speaks of the λόγος "begetting" (not making or creating) us (ἡμᾶς), not the world!

So even if it were legitimate to use texts written a century later than Hebrews to explicate Hebrews, these texts don't provide any help for understanding what Hebrews 1:2 is saying -- since not only do they not deal with that verse; they do not say what they are alleged to say.

But I suppose you'll dismiss this as baseless and gratuitous.

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Hebrews

Glass darkly?

And where is Paul thought to be from? And how large a library and philosophy schools did that town have?

Clivedurdle

Jeffrey, surely your argument means that the prophets and Jesus speaking to us were also not acting as agents?

Are you a predeterminist or something? What is all this puppet on a string stuff about?

And your quote above has exceptional use against world including spirit world. Who says it is exceptional? If it exists, it exists! It is a use!



People do realise that "spoken to us by his Son" (?no capitals in Greek) is also not evidence of an earthly Christ - it might mean by the scriptures or as Paul relates in visions.

And have people understood that the real place are the heavens and God and Christ and that the sacrifice in the heavens and Christ becoming the High Priest in the heavens is how it should be, and this stuff was duplicated, copied on earth through signs and wonders like the veil of the temple being rent?

This is all classic magical thinking. The veil might have been rent by an earthquake but that with the Romans smashing up the Temple this may have been taken as a sign that the visions Paul had were true - and the gospels were then written to backfill all this stuff - because the pure heavenly God and Christ are mythically unstable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

The coming of the Christ was synchronised with the fall of the Temple - evidence of the end of the world - but it wasn't!

James Madison

A rather weak attempt to assert Paul was familiar with the platonic philosophy, don't you think? Think about the argument you are espousing above. A parallel argument would be the following.

1. Person Y, non-lawyer, argues for a particular type of interpretation.
2. It just so happens the argument Y has made is similar to Justice Scalia's notion of Originalism/Textualism.
3. Person Y lives in a town with two law schools and several libraries.
4. Therefore, person Y was familiar with Justice Scalia's notion of Originalism/Textualism and was relying upon it in his argument.

Does this conclusion necessarily follow? No, it does not and neither does the one you are suggesting. Both are non-sequiters.

James Madison

Does Doherty, at any time in his article, admit there is a deviation from the classic Platonic philosophy in the book of Hebrews? The answer is "yes."

Now, if this is true, then why assume the author of Hebrews is not doing the same in regards to the verses discussing Jesus tenure in the flesh?

Jeffrey Gibson

Please show me where in Plato we find either (a) the expression βλ�*πομεν γὰρ ἄρτι διʼ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι (which, by the way, does not say anything about "darkness". It says "For we see yet (at present) by means of a mirror in a riddle"), or (b) the equivalent thereof that is, as in 1 Cor 1:13, contextualized by the notion of it of a coming (ἔλθῃ) of an age which when it comes, does away with the present one. And while you are at it, perhaps you can tell me whether or not if found in Plato, such an idea is exclusive to him.

He himself does not say. But Acts which gives the place of his origin as Tarsus in Cilicia.

Would you do us all a favour and for once, please do some reading on this outside of Wikipedia and other internet sources. Turn, for instance, to Murphy O'Connor's Paul: A Critical Life (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

I am deliberately posting an extreme viewpoint because there does seem to be a general tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater!

http://www.theosophical.ca/PlatonicPhilosophy.htm

Clivedurdle

A modernist catholic priest with a penchant for reading existentialism into Paul who looks ripe for excommunication as an unbiased source on Plato?

http://www.ucc.ie/opa/honconfer/jerome.html