Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-16-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Baseless?

Jeffrey

Jesus H Christ, Dr. Gibson. You act like a hostile witness on the stand.

Are you saying that there is an inaccuracy in what Earl says? If so, exactly what does he get wrong? Please provide your own translation.

Earl's claim is based in the assumption that διʼοὗ asserts not only activity on the part of the Son with respect to the action denoted by the main verb of the sentence of which the phrase is a part, but direct (and conscious) activity. But is διʼοὗ "activity" language? I would very much like to see other instances from other Greek texts of διὰ + the genitive used with a finite verb the subject of which is someone other than the referent of the genitive noun/pronoun to express (conscious) activity on the part of the second element of the διὰ clause.

Can you produce any?

When Jewish texts speak of the Torah as that through which the world was created (see S-B 2.356; 3.671), do they envisage the Torah as having a direct, conscious, and active role in creation?

Even Wisdom is not given such a role. Cf. Pr. 8:22–30.

Quote:

22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fieldse, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compassf upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

Jeffrey

Spanky · 12-16-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

In any case, what are your thoughts on what διά + the genitive can mean?

My thought is that there are already an innumerable amount of translations of the bible available to not only you (who speaks Greek) but to me also (who could care less about Greek). I believe these translations are most likely sufficient enough to make my own call on it, without having someone like you telling me that these translations are somehow erroneous and yours is better. Are you really that arrogant?

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-16-2007, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spanky

Quote:

In any case, what are your thoughts on what διά + the genitive can mean?

My thought is that there are already an innumerable amount of translations of the bible available to not only you (who speaks Greek) but to me also (who could care less about Greek). I believe these translations are most likely sufficient enough to make my own call on it, without having someone like you telling me that these translations are somehow erroneous and yours is better. Are you really that arrogant?

Leaving aside the matter that spiteful remarks from someone who calls him/herself "Spanky" take on an air of ridiculousness, I'd be grateful if you'd tell me where I ever said my translation of anything is better than anyone else's.

I am asking what it is that , given the rules of Greek grammar, διʼοὗ used with a finite verb whose subject is other than the one referred to in the genitive clause can and cannot mean.

So if you are intent on excoriating me, would you kindly do so on the basis of something I actually said rather than something you are falsely attributing to me.

Jeffrey

Toto · 12-16-2007, 09:16 PM

Some unproductive comments were split off here

Toto · 12-16-2007, 09:44 PM

Thank you for posting in complete sentences and paragraphs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...
Earl's claim is based in the assumption that διʼοὗ asserts not only activity on the part of the Son with respect to the action denoted by the main verb of the sentence of which the phrase is a part, but direct (and conscious) activity. ...

How do you read Earl as claiming this when he says

Quote:

God ... created the world through the agency of the Son,

Granted he goes on to say

Quote:

since if the Son is the agency through which creation was performed (this is pure Logos philosophy), then he has a direct role in that creation, regardless of the grammatical organization of the thought.

But this still seems to leave the active person as God, both grammatically and logically.

All this came out of Clivedurdle's claim that

Quote:

But Hebrews explicitly puts [Jesus] in heaven as the creator of the worlds!

which he asserted in opposition to the claim that

Quote:

The part I wanted to highlighted was the idea that Christ entered heaven, with the implication that previously he wasn't in heaven.

So that Clivedurdle's claim was not that Jesus created the world (as opposed to being a mere agent of creation), but that the author of Hebrews placed him in heaven at the beginning of the world, which Earl supported.

Is there any disagreement here at all? What is this all about?

Spanky · 12-17-2007, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Leaving aside the matter that spiteful remarks from someone who calls him/herself "Spanky" take on an air of ridiculousness, I'd be grateful if you'd tell me where I ever said my translation of anything is better than anyone else's.

It's a nickname I've had since I was a little kid. If you can't take me serious because of my (user)name that is fine. I guess there are reasons I don't take you serious, either.
You never said your translation was better than anyone else. However, you accuse others of having bad "grammar" and understanding of Greek, and thus a bad understanding of what is in the bible. That to me, is the height of arrogance. To me, that comment, in a round about way, is saying that ALL of the translations we have of the bible are wrong. Is it not saying this? Why do I need to know Greek when there are countless translations of the bible already?
You know Greek. Who cares, Jeffrey. You are not special. I know Italian. Do I go parading around on the internet saying that every libretto for Le Nozze Di Figaro is wrong (although I do question some translations!)? Do people who like that opera have to learn Italian to understand it like I do? Nope. And the sooner you realize that just because you speak Greek this does not put you in a special position high above the rest of us. I have over 10 translations at my disposal at any time. I am sure these can give us the picture without having to rely on grammatical minutia.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-17-2007, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spanky

Quote:

Leaving aside the matter that spiteful remarks from someone who calls him/herself "Spanky" take on an air of ridiculousness, I'd be grateful if you'd tell me where I ever said my translation of anything is better than anyone else's.

It's a nickname I've had since I was a little kid. If you can't take me serious because of my (user)name that is fine. I guess there are reasons I don't take you serious, either.
You never said your translation was better than anyone else.

Then why did you say I did?

Quote:

However, you accuse others of having bad "grammar" and understanding of Greek, and thus a bad understanding of what is in the bible.

Please show me whewre I ever said that people had bad grammar.

Quote:

That to me, is the height of arrogance.

What if a person's understanding of Greek is bad, and the issue in question is their understanding of Greek?

Quote:

To me, that comment, in a round about way, is saying that ALL of the translations we have of the bible are wrong. Is it not saying this?

No. I've not been talking about the adequacy of given published translations of the Bible. I've been talking about the import of διὰ + the genitive constructions and whether Clive's (and Earl's) understanding of that construction as it is used in Heb. 1.2 is correct. There's quite a difference.

Quote:

Why do I need to know Greek when there are countless translations of the bible already?

It might help you to understand why these translations differ at the points they do.

Quote:

You know Greek. Who cares, Jeffrey. You are not special.

Never said I was.

Quote:

Now, can you tell me whether a I know Italian. Do I go parading around on the internet saying that every libretto for Le Nozze Di Figaro is wrong (although I do question some translations!)?

Good for you! But since I'm not dealing with the adequacy of given published translations, but of the meaning of the use of διὰ + the genitive in Hebrews 1:2, this is relevant how?

Quote:

Do people who like that opera have to learn Italian to understand it like I do? Nope.

But what if the opera was sung in Italian and the question is not only what is Figaro saying at point X in the opera, but how do I determine which of two people, one of whom is apparently only minimally acquainted with Italian, who disagree about what Figaro is saying, is correct?

Quote:

And the sooner you realize that just because you speak Greek this does not put you in a special position high above the rest of us.

Never said it did. But I wonder, do you say the same thing to your doctor when you have an illness and when the issue in question is what your symptoms/condition indicate is wrong with you? If he's not in a special position, why go to him, rather than your costermonger?

Quote:

I have over 10 translations at my disposal at any time. I am sure these can give us the picture without having to rely on grammatical minutia.

Would you say the same thing to someone who, looking at an English translation of Dante, claims that he's sure he knows what Dante was saying?

In any case, the issue is what it is that, given the rules of Greek grammar with respect to διὰ + the genitive, διʼοὗ means in Heb. 1:2. Would you care to give us your considered opinion on this matter?

Jeffrey

James Madison · 12-17-2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

I think you are saying that it is invalid to use data that led to the original formulation of the hypothesis as evidence for that hypothesis, as that would be circular.

No. Your mistake is interpreting the evidence with the assumption that your conclusion is correct. That is circular reasoning that is unlikely to ever inform you that you are incorrect.

Do you think it is wise to base your hypothesis on such a limited consideration of the evidence? I don't. Sounds like a great way to skew your interpretation of the rest of the evidence to match your hypothesis.

No, it would be a terrible way to try to understand the evidence. Why not read the entire letter without preconceptions?

You say "yes" but then ask for something completely different. :huh:

You and I both know there are no passages that explicitly describe Christ descending "to earth" so why try to play this game? I never said there were. You and I both also know that there are several passages the explicitly describe Christ as becoming like humans and explicitly state that this was necessary so that the sacrifice would be effective. And that is what I said.

1. Christ descended and took on the human form.

2. Hebrews describes two locations and they are Heaven and Earth.

The implied location is apparent to anyone lacking your preconceptions as is the absence of any suggestion of the location you would prefer.

Have you ever met anyone unfamiliar with Doherty who had such a question in mind after reading Hebrews? It is a fabricated question based solely on the conclusion you want to assume. It is certainly not a question someone has after reading the letter with no such presuppositions. There are two locations mentioned and a

I can show you what I said I could show you but not what you changed it to be.

You are aware that Doherty's thesis involves Christ descending, right?

Quote:

My guess: you can't do it because there ain't no such thing. But maybe I missed something.

Want me to guess why you can't address what I've actually written and feel compelled to change it to something else?

Quote:

Have you ever met anyone unfamiliar with Doherty who had such a question in mind after reading Hebrews? It is a fabricated question based solely on the conclusion you want to assume. It is certainly not a question someone has after reading the letter with no such presuppositions. There are two locations mentioned and a

I completely concur Amaleq. This is a point I have repeatedly made. Someone reading the book of Hebrews, for the first time, without any exposure to the platonic philosophy, or Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews, is not likely to arrive to the conclusion those verses discussing Jesus' tenure in the "flesh" transpired in a sublunar non-earth realm. It is an interpretation imposed upon the text itself rather than a plain reading of the text with a reliance upon common sense/common knowledge. Good luck getting this point across.

James Madison · 12-17-2007, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

According to Doherty, Christ was crucified by demons in a sublunar fleshly heaven.

I know he has said so in other context. Did he make that claim for Hebrews (I don't remember)? In any case, in Hebrews there seems to be nothing that says "sublunar." There may, as I pointed out above, be evidence for various (at least two) "layers" of heaven, but that is as far as it goes. I'm not arguing anything sublunar here, I'm just arguing heaven.

Quote:

What do you mean "will he do that in the flesh or a Paulinesque vision"? What would be the difference IYO to the author of Hebrews? You seem to be implying that "flesh" means "earth". If you aren't implying that, then what is the distinction?

I was being colloquial, and in current colloquial English "in the flesh" means a physical appearance. What we are discussing here is if that colloquialism can be transplanted to the thought world of Hebrews.

The question I was addressing is that if Jesus is supposed to reappear to his believers, than that presupposes a first appearance. If that first appearance was on terra firma then that second appearance can also be seen to be on terra firma. Conversely, if the second appearance is held to be on terra firma, that then can imply that the first appearance was on terra firma as well. What I meant to show with the "Paulinesque vision" is that in neither case such an appearance is necessarily a physical one. And given all this quoting from scripture that is going on (very little that is said about Christ does not seem to come from scripture), the first appearance may well be the bright idea the Hebrews got when studying scripture.

Finally, something I want to come back to. You have quite rightly pointed out that a number of passages "make sense" in an earthly setting. And so they do. But they only make sense, the earthly setting is never made as explicit as the heavenly one. That is a strange dichotomy that needs to be explained. My conclusion from this is that while the heavenly location is indeed firmly established, the earthly one is much more tentative. Here I want to make a suggestion as to why that could be the case.

In another thread I called the situation of a mythology that puts its god(s) purely in heaven without any appearances on earth "mythologically unstable." Such a rather esoteric mythology may be sustainable among the mystically and poetically inclined, perhaps also among an initial group of enthusiastic believers, but it doesn't work too well among th great unwashed. There one will inevitably see what we see in this very forum: a tendency to bring things down to earth. My suggestion now is that what we see in Hebrews may contain the first seeds of that process.

Whenever Jesus is placed in Heaven this is done in a clear and unambiguous manner. But whenever something "makes sense" in an earthly location, the language is never explicit. We have to deduce it from the fact that Jesus "became like humans," "took on flesh." Even when a seemingly clear word for "world" is used, oikumene, it turns out that this word can also include the heavens, and this in a text not all that far removed in time and context from Hebrews (1 Clement). Further, the concept of a heavenly Jerusalem is introduced (12:22), and the question naturally arises: if Jerusalem can be placed (as a "copy" one presumes) in Heaven, what else can be placed there in a like fashion? The tribe of Juda? The gate outside which he suffered? We just don't know.

So my position is not that an earthly location for the pre-sacrifice is impossible. Rather, it is that given its ambiguity, and given the non-ambiguity of the heavenly location, the idea that the whole death and pre-sacrifice period also occurred in the heavens should be seriously considered. It is not a slam-dunk, but neither is the earth hypothesis. Possibly the "earthly" passages represent the first inevitable move towards an earthly environment, a move that we see completed in the gospels. But whether that is so or not, in Hebrews both scenarios should be seriously considered.

Gerard Stafleu

Quote:

Rather, it is that given its ambiguity, and given the non-ambiguity of the heavenly location, the idea that the whole death and pre-sacrifice period also occurred in the heavens should be seriously considered.

No, you are imposing ambiguity on those specific verses referencing Jesus' tenure in the "flesh," just as you sought to impose ambiguity on those sentences I presented. Not surprisingly, your modus operandi for imposing ambiguity has not at all changed. Those verses referencing Jesus' time spent in the flesh do not place into issue the location of this event.

Just because those verses discussing Jesus tenure in the "flesh" do not tell us where this occurred does not make them ambiguous. You make the location an issue by first assuming the platonic philosophy is present in the book of Hebrews and then by assuming it extends to those verses discussing Jesus' time in the flesh. Hence, your asserted "ambiguity" does not come until after the fact you have made these two assumptions, two assumptions you have not even bothered to provide any sound reasoning or compelling evidence to demonstrate as true, a flaw plaguing both you and Doherty's position. Hence, it is not ambiguous because of anything in the text of those verses, in fact those verses are not ambiguous at all, but rather because of what you seek to impose upon those verses, i.e. the location took place in heaven.

As I said before and reiterate, there has not been presented any compelling logic, evidence, or argument for abandoning a plain text common sense/common knowledge reading of those verses discussing Jesus' tenure in the flesh.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-17-2007, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Thank you for posting in complete sentences and paragraphs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...
Earl's claim is based in the assumption that διʼοὗ asserts not only activity on the part of the Son with respect to the action denoted by the main verb of the sentence of which the phrase is a part, but direct (and conscious) activity. ...

How do you read Earl as claiming this when he says

Granted he goes on to say

But this still seems to leave the active person as God, both grammatically and logically.

That's not what Earl asserts, is it.

Quote:

All this came out of Clivedurdle's claim that

which he asserted in opposition to the claim that

Quote:

The part I wanted to highlighted was the idea that Christ entered heaven, with the implication that previously he wasn't in heaven.

So that Clivedurdle's claim was not that Jesus created the world (as opposed to being a mere agent of creation), but that the author of Hebrews placed him in heaven at the beginning of the world, which Earl supported.

Umm, here's what Clive said:

Quote:

But Hebrews explicitly puts him in heaven as the creator of the worlds

How is this not a claim that "Jesus created the world"?

Quote:

Is there any disagreement here at all? What is this all about?

It's about reading into a text something it does not say. (Where is there anything in Heb 1:2 about Jesus being in heaven in Heb. 1:2?} It's about reading a statement about instrumentality as if it were a statement about someone acting.

It is about ignoring the fact that, as one of Earl's authorities, Jean Hering, notes, Heb 1:2 presents the Son as "the mediator (not the author) of creation" (The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 4).

And it's probably also about the fact that on matters of Greek, let alone on the legitimacy of Earl's claims about Greek and what is and is not "baseless", you, Toto, should probably not comment.

Jeffrey

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

12-16-2007, 09:16 PM	#224
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Some unproductive comments were split off here

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.