Layman

I devoted an entire section to aguing that Hebrews clearly refers to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. In fact, it is the very last section before the conclusion. Perhaps you did not read the second page of the article?

I reviewed the article again. Doherty is quite clear that he equates Jesus being "lower than the angels" with is coming into the lower heavenly realm:

Bede

Actually, the first sentence of Hebrews clearly states that Jesus was a recent contemporary of the writer. So Layman's case is complete: to Hebrew's author, Jesus was a human and he lived recently.

B

Layman

Absolutely correct. The whole point of the letter is that Jesus appeared during an exact point in histoy. This is clasic Jewish eschatology.

As you note, the first verse does this:

Not only is God speaking though Jesus in the same way he spoke through the ancient, very human, prophets, but he is doing so "in these last days," which places him in the same period of history as the author.

Also, Hebrews places himself and his readers in the categry of second generation Christians. Meaning that they have learned about Jesus from those who knew him. "[H]ow will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it as confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs an wonders an by various miracles..." Heb. 2:3-4a.

Finally, by decribing Jesus' crucifixion he's placing the death of Jesus unde Roman rule, which further narrows the time frame.

That's just off the top of my head. So, if the author of Hebrews is referring to a human Jesus, he describes him as having recently been on earth. And he is at most one generation removed from those who knew Jesus and heard him personally.

Amaleq13

Why do you keep changing the actual word used in Hebrews to "Jesus"? As I pointed out earlier, this gives the appearance of a deliberately misleading attempt to make your argument seem more convincing.

Your conclusion assumes what you are trying to prove (i.e. an historical Jesus). The author does not tell us that a living "Jesus" has taught anything. Instead, the author tells us that God has spoken to them in His Son. I do not deny that it is possible he was using some convoluted language to describe a living ministry of Jesus but it is not logically valid to assume this to be true in order to support your interpretation. That is circular reasoning.

What requires us to assume that the idea of God speaking in His Son can only refer to a living, preaching Jesus? Why should we not take our cue from Paul and assume, instead, that the author is referring to divinely revealed information?

The author doesn't appear to leave room for resurrection experiences but, OTOH, he also doesn't tell us where or how the information about the Sacrificed/Raised Messiah was obtained.

Layman

Early Christians used many titles to refer to Jesus. Do you think that verse 1 is NOT referring to Jesus? Jesus is not "His Son"?

If you are denying that Jesus is the Son, then who do you think the Son is? If you recognize that Jesus is also the Son, what is your point?

Talk about being shifty. We were obviously responding to YOUR statement that ASSUMING Hebrews refers to a human Jesus he does not give any time frame for that human Jesus.

I don't think you can have an honest discussion if you are going to use tactics like this.

And, ONCE AGAIN, the author is using the same language to refer to Jesus ("His Son") that he is while refering to the "living ministry" of the ancient prophets. The SAME language. So it's not convoluted at all, it's pretty clear actually.

Or were the ancient prophets myths too?

Toto

[mod mode]

Let's nip this in the bud. Avoid words like shifty or implications of dishonesty.

I cannot devote the time to participate in this, but there is a tradition of a son of God that is not part of Christianity. I may get the time later to look it up, but not all references to the son of God refer to Jesus. So let the discussion develop, assume that your opponent is writing in good faith and any errors are a mistake that can be corrected without browbeating.

Layman

Perhaps this will help:


Heb. 4:14.

So. Ameleq. Please tell me how I am misleading anyone by equating the Son of God in 1:1 with Jesus.

I do not think I have ever used Jesus in "quotes" for that verse. I've always quoted it correctly and discussed it as a reference to Jesus in my commentary. I believe this is completely accurate and should not confuse anyone.

Amaleq13

Not in the sense of the living, teaching Jesus of the Gospels and that is how it seems to me you are trying to use the name. The author of Hebrews uses "Jesus", "Jesus Christ", "Christ" and "Son" to describe the same figure. This figure, again ignoring Doherty's thesis, originally existed in Heaven, was incarnated and sacrificed, then raised up into Heaven to wait for The End. Your preference for changing the author's actual term to "Jesus" gives the appearance of an illegitimate attempt to make it seem to be a reference to the Gospel Jesus. This may not accurately reflect your intent but it seems a simple thing to avoid by retaining the words the author actually uses when interpreting a particular passage.

My point is that you misrepresent the actual words used by the author of Hebrews as you attempt to interpret what that author said. Surely you can make your argument without changing the words the author actually used.

I wrote:
Your conclusion assumes what you are trying to prove (i.e. an historical Jesus). The author does not tell us that a living "Jesus" has taught anything. Instead, the author tells us that God has spoken to them in His Son. I do not deny that it is possible he was using some convoluted language to describe a living ministry of Jesus but it is not logically valid to assume this to be true in order to support your interpretation. That is circular reasoning.

Layman replied:
You have apparently missed the distinction between a "human Jesus" and a "historical Jesus". I acknowledged earlier that, assuming Doherty's heavenly spheres cannot be supported, you have established a human Jesus in Hebrews but I clearly denied that you had shown that the author of Hebrews placed him in any specific place or time in history. The human Jesus in Hebrews is not depicted as conducting a ministry or teaching anything but you are assuming this to be true of him so that you can interpret the first verse as confirming your assumption. That is circular reasoning.

Now, let's return to your original post:
Establishing that Hebrews' Jesus was literally incarnated doesn't mean you can also assume he preached, taught, or performed miracles. You have to establish those claims on their own merits. Your conclusion above assumes Jesus to have conducted a ministry or otherwise taught something (i.e. it assumes an historical Jesus) which is ultimately what you are trying to prove is contained in Hebrews. You are circularly assuming the conclusion you are trying to prove.

I'm not trying to be "shifty". I'm trying to eliminate unsubstantiated assumptions in your interpretation. I "give" you a human Jesus in Hebrews and you "take" a Gospel Jesus preaching and teaching.

As I already mentioned, where you see a comparison or continuation, I see a contrast. Where you see the author stating that God speaking in His Son is the same as God speaking in the prophets, I see the author differentiating between the way God chose to communicate in the past with the way God chooses to communicate during these last days. Given that the author never additionally describes how he or his audience learned about the Sacrificed/Raised Christ, I don't see why your interpretation must be accepted as the only legitimate reading.

Layman

Bull. You admit they all refer to the same personage. There is no confusion.

Seriously. Only an idiot would be confused.

I did not change his words. I quote him accurately and make my comments. He is talking about Jesus in his first verse. We all agree on this.

This is why I have little desire to try and discuss these issues with you. You make mountains out of ant hills. Made by little ants.

You apparently have forgotten what you just said. IF Hebrews is referring to a human, you claim he was not placed in history. I took you up on this assumption and you completely reversed gears.

Again, FYI, this is why I do not find much value in discussing these issues with you.

I know, and I showed that once you admit or assume Jesus is human in Hebrews then the author is clearly seen as placing him in history.

Then you whined I had assumed Jesus was human.

Again, FYI, this is an example of wasted time and effort.

If you are not going to respond to my arguments, why are you here? I gave at least three reasons showing that the author placed Jesus in a specific historical time frame. You've ignored them all.

Now, let's return to your original post:


I do not care what you see unless you can back it up with reasons. The author uses the same terms to describe how God used the prophets and how God used Jesus. The only contrast is with the timing. The prophets lived long ago and Jesus lived recently.

But he does. I quoted him. He refers to learning the Gospel from those who heard Jesus. If we assume-which was YOUR idea--that Jesus was human, this clearly places Jesus within a geneartion of Jesus. At most.

Seriously Ameleq. Step back for a minute and realize you ignored my points and got upset because I took your assumption and showed that if Jesus was human in Hebrews he is placed in a specifical historical time period.

mike_decock

[ModHat]
I can understand that it's out of frustration, but please avoid implying that someone is an "idiot".
[/ModHat]

Thanks,

-Mike...