maryhelena

The mythical portions are linked, in the gospel story, to a historical context. The spiritual context is timeless.

TedM

Mary, the greek doesn't include 'on earth' in 5:7. If only it were that simple. 8:4 does include 'on earth'.

maryhelena

Thanks, Ted, for pointing that out to me....:blush:

However, "in the days of his flesh" still indicates a non-heavenly context. And in contrast, 8.4, raises the question of If Jesus had been on earth. Hebrews is either setting up a contradiction or is referencing two different Jesus figures operating in two different contexts. Mind and matter. Flesh and spirit. Shape-shifting has no place here.

TedM

That's the historicist viewpoint. Earl's claim is that the 'flesh' referred to there is only similar to earthly flesh, and is taken on in a lower heavens area. So the flesh-spirit contrast still can occur even if Jesus' flesh wasn't human flesh on earth. That's why the early epistles, Hebrews excluded, didn't mention a lot of details where they could have: The authors didn't know the name of Jesus' mother or the place where he was crucified in that lower heaven. Or many other details found in the Gospels. There was no OT source providing that(family names, John the Baptist, Pilate, Herod, Joseph of Arimetha(sp), locations - Galilee, Nazareth, Capernaum, Jordan, Judas, 12 disciples, healing miracles, teachings, etc..) information in any kind of detail, so that's why they aren't mentioned. The silences to Earl and others are so deafening as to call out for a different interpretation of the kinds of references that DO exist.

EarlDoherty

I apparently passed over this posting of a few days ago, which Ted later called my attention to, but I think it makes a good spot to bring this whole exchange with him to an end.

Ted, we’ve been over and over and over this stuff. It was not true in the present too, because 8:4 is a reference to Jesus being a priest in regard to performing his sacrifice, and there was not even a theoretical possibility that he would re-perform that sacrifice in the present time. It is over and done with—in the past! The concept of him doing so in the present is not only utterly irrelevant, it is gibberish in the entire Hebrews context.

One of the reasons we know that 8:4 is talking about sacrifices, is because 8:3 focuses on that aspect and not on anything to do with ongoing intercession—which in any case is something that is defined as taking place with God in heaven, so here too there can be no thought of Jesus performing intercessory duties on earth in the present. And his intercessory duties are not associated with his sacrifice, the two are separate concepts.

As far as the tenses of 8:3 are concerned, I’ve been over and over and over that as well. “Every priest IS appointed” uses the present tense because it is speaking of a generality. And the key tense in the second half of the verse is not “IS necessary” but the verb that is understood following that: “It is necessary that he too [HAD] something to offer (sacrifice), which must be understood in a past tense (there IS nothing grammatically wrong with combining a present tense generality with a past tense specific, and I GAVE examples of that in past postings), because in terms of his high priestly duties his “offering” is a term applied in regard to his sacrifice, which “sacrifice” IS THE PAST ACT OF OFFERING HIS BLOOD IN THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY WHICH CANNOT BE REPEATED IN THE PRESENT.

Over and over and over and over…….

Ted, I’m not even going to attempt to say anything further on the convoluted and forced readings you have offered yet again in the rest of your post. I can see there is nothing to be done here to get you to see anything. I accept your offer to simply abandon the whole thing. I will leave you to your beliefs and you can leave me to my interpretations.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Sorry, aa, I’m still alive and kicking. God spoke to previous generations through the prophets to be read in scripture. Otherwise, there would have been no “speaking in the past” beyond the lifetime of those prophets. Do you really think that is what the writer means???

In perfect parallel, God in these last days (the present) speaks to us by his Son also in scripture, namely a new reading of scripture in which the voice of the heavenly Son is perceived, examples of which are given all throughout the epistle to the Hebrews, while never offering the voice of the Son on earth.

Where do you hear the voice of the Gospel Jesus in Hebrews, aa? Can you give me even one example? (Even 5:7 offers the ‘voice’ of the Son from scripture, in case you didn’t notice.) Or does that lie outside your mandate to merely scream at those who disagree with you?

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

I don't buy Doherty's argument - never have...

The contrast between 'flesh' and 'spirit' does not require that the gospel JC is a historical figure. All the contrast is indicating is two very different contexts in which the two Jesus figures of Hebrews can function. A context in which 'flesh' is important. That context is one of matter, it is an earthly context. It is a historical context. That context is relevant whether or not the gospel JC is flesh and blood or whether that gospel JC figure is a mythological figure. It is the context that is relevant not what specific flesh or specific story is set within that context.

Paul goes on a similar tack. There is a natural 'body' and there is a 'spiritual' body. The first Adam and the last Adam. Two Adam figure. Two Jesus figures. Which simply means that within each specific context, the 'flesh' and the 'spirit', mind and matter, there is no shape-shifting, both contexts retain their differentiation. Jesus, as a 'salvation' figure operates within both contexts. The 'flesh', the historical, and the 'spirit', the intellectual, heavenly, context.

Yes, of course, matter and mind interact. What we think can be translated into 'flesh', into concrete reality. What we see and experience can spur our intellect on to new ideas etc. But this interaction does not, cannot, produce any shape-shifting. Matter remains 'flesh' and mind remains 'spirit'. But plenty of scope there for storytelling of gods coming down to earth and flesh being beamed heaven's way.

Ted, with Hebrews and the Pauline epistles it's necessary to put the theology aside and consider a more philosophical approach to the issues they present.

Bernard Muller

It is interesting to know that Doherty now thinks that when Jesus allegedly went to the lower heavens (to be crucified), he "offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears" (Heb 5:7): how could that be claimed if Jesus was in heaven? Who, on earth, would witness that?
Anyway Jesus then had spiritual blood (evidence: NEB faulty translation!) and spiritual flesh (and still managed to suffer and die!):
Cordially, Bernard

EarlDoherty

Please supply that "strong attestation" to the martyrdom of the disciples. I think it is not unreasonable to require such "evidence" to come from the period no later than the mid 2nd century. And I think it is not unreasonable to ask for some of that evidence to come from the first century epistolary writings, which are all about the struggle to spread the faith and to cope with opposition and adversity.

It is irrational for someone to accept the basic tenets of Christianity when they live in the 20th-21st century, when we can expect that modern science and rationality should be available to them. And it is certainly irrational for someone who has that science and rationality pointed out to them to continue to believe and defend the basic tenets of Christianity and all its trappings.

Earl Doherty

TedM

I don't think Doherty claims anyone on earth witnessed the prayers or the crucifixion. I think he claims the people on earth were witnesses of the MESSAGE that it occurred, since the truth was 'manifested' to them through the OT scriptures.