stephan huller

It is interesting that I can't find any early witnesses to Hebrew 8:4 - at least with a quick search. There is certainly a concept of the 'heavenly high priest' - an angel, the Logos etc. I just don't get the absurd emphasis of him never appearing on earth when even Celsus makes reference to this part of the original Jesus myth. Was Celsus part of the 'cover up'? I don't know why this line needs to be drawn in the sand other than to make the thesis stand out - i.e. its polemical value.

aa5874

Doherty's claims about Hebrews 8.4 is no different to the author of gMatthew who used Isaiah 7.14 for the birth of his Jesus.

Doherty merely isolates passages and then takes them out of context to create his own story of his Jesus.

There is no Son of God born of a Virgin in Hebrew Scriptures and NO Celestial ONLY Jesus in Hebrews and the Canon of the Church.

And further, Doherty still cannot ever show that Hebrews was composed before the Jesus story was known because he has ZERO evidence and not even the author's name to make assumptions about the time the author may have lived.

Effectively, Doherty is attempting to date an "historically blank" copy of a piece of paper with no date, no author and no historical clue or data.

Bingo the Clown-O

I disagree. It looks to me like there are all kinds of little artifacts (of an earlier literary tradition) that snuck under the radar and did not get filtered out.

Imho we need to think more in terms of written literature – a huge rat's nest of boring and difficult to read text, and less in terms of a body of Believers who believed this or that. When you consider it from former perspective it becomes very possible that weird passages and absurd edits will sneak through.

I think we should also consider the possibility that the Church fathers were lazy and didn't proof-read everything.

Bingo the Clown-O

What 'sect'?

Why do we need a 'sect'?

All we need is a writer and earlier scripture.

Right?

Chili

Yes but bolting is bolting as a response to a cause that here was the Son who left the OT biting its dust, or you would not call it bolting into the new age that started back then.

These are thoughts inside the mind of the mythmaker who knew that the rewards in heaven are ten-fold, and so to him it meant that to increase the complexity of faith inside the mind of the believer, who seeks understanding of his own faith, will also be multiplied tenfold.

Based on this he wrote or compiled the NT with all it's attachments and letters to set out the playing field wherein this melodrama is meant to take place 'inside' the mind of the believer, to be sure. So really what he is doing is instead of telling us to catch partridges to offer as a sacrifice on the alter, he is saying: catch the cocky wild rooster you are so that it may happen to you in the same was as it happened to him = no more prophesy but we go by precedent henceforth, and baptism is the key to the communion with the saints already there.

You write this yourself when the baptized are baptizing more that JB himself, and also is what the feeding of 5000 was all about with more scraps as rubbish remaining when truth was set free as disciplines (disciples) to him, now in the consolation of faith by way of understanding to make them pilars of faith that he may push forward with the end clearly in sight wherein 'to be' is 'I Am.'

To wit: there is no such thing as 'humankind' but the genus is animal and therein is 'man' the image to which our human condition is attached; and or but, is also wherein we are outsider to the man that we are created to be.

And so then here 'the son' is the manifestation of the animal within, that is called man as distinct from the other animals with the promise to have dominion. To realize this the mythmaker perceived that the complexity of the myth must be its input as bait so that the glory of those to follow will be his 10 fold as shiner himself for generations to come, and is what the 'follow me' is all about, and 'do' the same thing.

Sheshbazzar

It becomes clearer to me every day why the old Hebrew writers were concerned with dibyown 'doves dung'.
Speaking in metaphors even the most unseemly of things has its value, nothing being written for nothing.

Chili

So Jake, with all respect and for 'uncovery' only, there is a disctinction made between shepherd and shepherd in chief in the manner of Jesus, let's say, or Melchisedech maybe as I am not familiar with him, who himself was not part of the act as Jew, and here Jesus was free from the law with only a duty as second Adam inside the mind of man, there called to undo the change of direction the first Adam made, and still made in each one of us as the 'now' rational animal man inside our own TOK.

It so is called 'Original sin' to make known the difference between good and bad to distinguish what was good and bad of us as the 'rational man' so we can cope and compete in a compettitive environment on our own. This is good and is very good, I would say, so we do not have taste shit every time and will know what an apple looks like because we will remember instead.

The flipside of this is that we also remember that we will die, and so God was right in telling us that we will die and consciously know that we will. Then the serpent said that your eyes will be opened so we can see for ourself and know the difference between what is good and what is bad, and so the serpent was right too, except now that we are talking about 2 different minds wherein we see. One is called woman who presides over the TOL and the other is called 'like god' who presides over the TOK that so makes two of us now, and that is made known by the shame complex of Gen 3:7 that was not yet in Gen.2:25.

Then consider that Adam was first made known by name when God said: "Adam where are you" that so identified our second nature on us, as also 'in' each one of us as rational animal with a mind of our in the TOK to which we as humans, in this manner are enslaved.

My point here is to identify Adam, not as first man but as the usurper of the volition of man as outsider to man so he could see for himself . . . but will remain an outsider unless we annihilate him again and that is what the Gospels are all about, and Jesus here now was the so called insurrectionist to get that done, which was and took place inside the mind of Joseph, to be sure.

So in this effort Jesus cannot be a Jew because they are the ones who attached the sin concept to good and bad that so became good and evil instead.

This change was done only to exhaust our faculty of reason and is what Romans 8:7-12 is all about, that now make sin the illusion we see and believe as believer only, wherefore the Jews shouted all the more: we have our own law and by that law he must die, while Pilate (as reason itself) looked at the man in confusion because he was a Roman and not a Jew, and finally consented that the Jew must die, but let's first set Bar-abbas free as the man that he saw.

So clearly there was no HJ for inasmuch as we all are the rational animal man so will the second Adam be needed to get us back home to Eden if that is where we want to be, and otherwise we just die cold.

Chili

I used to built houses Ches and soon learned that if you built a shit house and double your money you now have 2 shit house paid for, and if you built a house in fashion you might even get the equivalent of 3 nice houses sold, which is lesson number one in the market place that we know.

Chili

. . . and poetry is always loaded to the hilt. Painting with words, that's all is.

That makes English analytic with more prybars to wiggle for worms and much better in many ways. Science loves it but maybe is less romantic than some.

andrewcriddle

The earliest relevant reference I can find is Theodoret Interpretation of Hebrews

Andrew Criddle