Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 06-23-2004, 02:29 PM

Another way to approach this is to look at Hebrews as a whole. I understood it is not written by Paul but it is not a forgery either.

My experience is probably very coloured by my Church upbringing - pentecostal Assemblies of God where Hebrews is seen as a key text - in some ways more important than the Gospels!

The sacrifice of Christ was to me a very mystical thing, directly linked to communion and the concept that the High Priest has torn down the veil of the Temple.

The Gnostic position of a mythical Christ fits with my memories of Church - a literal Jesus is something not quite right!

TJM and sophia et al felt real to me because they were hitting my experience of xianity.

diana · 06-23-2004, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathetes

I had the impression that this question was settled by Peter Kirby some time ago. Doherty tries to use this sentence to advance his Mythical Christ position, but I think that (in this case) he is wrong.

The Greek:

Conditional sentence, imperfect in the protasis, imperfect with ἂν in the apodosis. Classical present contrafactual condition, hypothetical condition that denies the result of the apodosis in the present. Approximate translation: "If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, as there are (others) that offer...". The only thing that this sentence denies is that Christ is on earth at the moment when the sentence was written.

I have read some speculation that defends that this sentence could instead be a past contrafactual condition (this would deny that Christ was ever on earth), because in some obscure cases these sentences may use imperfect-imperfect instead of aorist-aorist, which is the norm. This line of thought does not convince me, though.

Bottom line: I do not think this verse can be used to advance either the Mythic or the Historical Jesus position.

Mathetes,

Thanks. I wasn't aware Peter Kirby had already been there, done that. That meshes with my understanding of the verse exactly. It can't reasonably be construed to argue either Mythic or HJ.

I 'preciate your post.

d

diana · 06-23-2004, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Diana, I am having a hard time understanding you. I do not see why you have trouble interpreting symbols.

The ankh, the djed of Egypt, are actual symbols for words, with understood meanings of life and stability, respectively.

The pomegranate and grain are ancient and well understood symbols of fertility.

The vine, wine, the grape are used again and again as symbols of truth and tribal unity in countries where grape growing is a big cash crop.

Blue is a symbolic color of the sea and sky for obvious reasons.

The sun= life and fatherhood, power.

Etc.

I just take these and many others for granted b/c their use is so widespread.

Where is the disconnect?

Hey, Magdlyn!

I noted in another thread that you and I have similar reading interests/tastes. I, too, have read again and again that X "symbolized" Y in ancient culture Z.

What I'm wondering is how we know that. It doesn't strike me that symbols' understood uses are so widespread so much as their repeated appearance in the books we read (along with the assumptions you note) is common. Whichever it is, it's beside the point to me. The point is, how do we know what the ancient cultures meant by these symbols?

A "symbol" can mean whatever the interpreter sees in it. I don't see any of the things you listed when I see these "symbols," me. And I don't accept "because everybody knows it's so" as support, because my opponents wouldn't.

There has to be some reason historians/archeologists/whatever said, "Ah! Obviously, the ram's head symbolized the sacred nature of the first born to these people!"

I'm wondering what that reason is.

d

diana · 06-23-2004, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Another way to approach this is to look at Hebrews as a whole. I understood it is not written by Paul but it is not a forgery either.

My experience is probably very coloured by my Church upbringing - pentecostal Assemblies of God where Hebrews is seen as a key text - in some ways more important than the Gospels!

The sacrifice of Christ was to me a very mystical thing, directly linked to communion and the concept that the High Priest has torn down the veil of the Temple.

The Gnostic position of a mythical Christ fits with my memories of Church - a literal Jesus is something not quite right!

TJM and sophia et al felt real to me because they were hitting my experience of xianity.

Fascinating! We don't get many Christians who believe in the spiritual, not literal, Jesus here. Thanks for sharing!

d

Toto · 06-24-2004, 12:14 AM

Visionary7's derailment, which had nothing to do with the grammar of Heb 8, has been split off to here.

Magdlyn · 06-24-2004, 04:11 AM

Thanks toto, that was kind of weird.

BTW, I didn't mean this to be only a deconstruction of Heb 8, but a discussion of the pitfalls of TJM in general, but oh well.

ichabod crane · 06-24-2004, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathetes

Conditional sentence, imperfect in the protasis, imperfect with ἂν in the apodosis. Classical present contrafactual condition, hypothetical condition that denies the result of the apodosis in the present. Approximate translation: "If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, as there are (others) that offer...". The only thing that this sentence denies is that Christ is on earth at the moment when the sentence was written.

Nice handle, mathetes - of whom are you a disciple?

I concur with your reading of the Greek. The translation "if he had been on earth" is just wrong.

Mathetes · 06-24-2004, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ichabod crane

Nice handle, mathetes - of whom are you a disciple?

Of truth, I guess... I was thinking more of the Attic sense of "learner" than the New Testament "disciple". If I understood something quickly when I first came here, is that I have a lot to learn...

χά�?ις σοι καὶ �?ι�?ήνη

ichabod crane · 06-25-2004, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathetes

χά�?ις σοι καὶ �?ι�?ήνη

And to you also!

Clivedurdle · 06-25-2004, 09:34 AM

diana

I wasn't clear enough!

I spoke about memories! I was arguing about when I was a xian, I went to a church that thinking about it was strongly gnostic and mythical, but I would now be excommunicated for pointing it out!

There are probably lots of xians out there who are reasonably happy with mystical positions but feel funny about attempts to make a physical Jesus.

The snag is fundies now speak the loudest. Pentecostals and calvinists used to hate each other. They have probably both been too infected by the other's ideas. As a pente I was taken to Billy Graham, but really they are antithetical to each other!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2004, 02:29 PM	#11
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Another way to approach this is to look at Hebrews as a whole. I understood it is not written by Paul but it is not a forgery either. My experience is probably very coloured by my Church upbringing - pentecostal Assemblies of God where Hebrews is seen as a key text - in some ways more important than the Gospels! The sacrifice of Christ was to me a very mystical thing, directly linked to communion and the concept that the High Priest has torn down the veil of the Temple. The Gnostic position of a mythical Christ fits with my memories of Church - a literal Jesus is something not quite right! TJM and sophia et al felt real to me because they were hitting my experience of xianity.

06-24-2004, 12:14 AM	#15
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Visionary7's derailment, which had nothing to do with the grammar of Heb 8, has been split off to here.

06-24-2004, 04:11 AM	#16
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Thanks toto, that was kind of weird. BTW, I didn't mean this to be only a deconstruction of Heb 8, but a discussion of the pitfalls of TJM in general, but oh well.

06-25-2004, 09:34 AM	#20
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	diana I wasn't clear enough! I spoke about memories! I was arguing about when I was a xian, I went to a church that thinking about it was strongly gnostic and mythical, but I would now be excommunicated for pointing it out! There are probably lots of xians out there who are reasonably happy with mystical positions but feel funny about attempts to make a physical Jesus. The snag is fundies now speak the loudest. Pentecostals and calvinists used to hate each other. They have probably both been too infected by the other's ideas. As a pente I was taken to Billy Graham, but really they are antithetical to each other!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.