Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bernard Muller · 01-26-2013, 02:42 PM

Emphasis mine
Doherty wrote:

Quote:

“He has said
(somewhat indirectly—consider the NEB translation) that the blood of Christ's sacrifice is "unblemished, spiritual and eternal" (9:14), and that this kind of superior sacrifice (to those in the earthly temple) is "required to cleanse heavenly things" (9:23). Yet this "shedding of blood," according to the Gospel picture, had taken place on earth. It was a blood that in Christ's human incarnation was the blood of matter. In that respect it was not spiritual, and the writer would merely be comparing a material thing with another material thing.”

But verse 9:14 never says that (ref: the bolded words):
Heb 9:14 “how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”
There is no “blood of Christ's sacrifice is "unblemished, spiritual and eternal”” in the verse.
However Doherty uses that as one of his main arguments to demonstrate the Sacrifice occurred in heaven (because human blood shedded on earth would not be spiritual).

In the Jesus Puzzle, Doherty had the same argument (but with no blood, only Christ's sacrifice). I objected: “Where is the spiritual & eternal sacrifice? The Spirit is eternal, not the sacrifice. And the later is not qualified as spiritual. And no correct translation can possibly have the sacrifice as "spiritual, eternal, ...", according to the Greek.”
Richard Carrier commented (diplomatically): "I agree. This is not the only place where D. [Doherty] is a little muddled."

Doherty also wrote “The New Covenant began with Jesus' sacrifice in Heaven where his blood was offered in the heavenly sanctuary.”
But in order to offer that blood in heaven, Jesus has to go through the heavens: "Having therefore a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, now to be manifested in the presence of God for us;" (Heb 4:14 Darby).
I also noted from "for not into holy places made with hands did the Christ enter -- figures of the true -- but into the heaven itself, ..." (Heb 9:24 YLT)
in order to enter heaven, one has to be outside of it first!

Cordially, Bernard

stephan huller · 01-26-2013, 03:06 PM

there is a formulation among the Valentinians reported by Irenaeus in Book One that might help Doherty's cause. I've been at Nordstrom's (it seems) all day. I will bring it up when I get a chance It isn't exactly what Doherty wants. The Logos is exclusively in heaven never setting foot on the earth but Jesus is something related but ultimately different (the pleroma of the aeons). More to follow

stephan huller · 01-26-2013, 03:14 PM

This is what Irenaeus writes:

Quote:

But that the apostle did not speak concerning their conjunctions, but concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he also acknowledges as the Word of God, he himself has made evident. For, summing up his statements respecting the Word previously mentioned by him, he further declares, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." But, according to their hypothesis, the Word did not become flesh at all, inasmuch as He never went outside of the Pleroma, but that Saviour [became flesh] who was formed by a special dispensation [out of all the AEons], and was of later date than the Word. [AH 1.9.2]

But as I noted in my other thread the Valentinian reading of John 1:14 was:

Quote:

Word made flesh, whose glory, we beheld; and His glory was as that of the Only-begotten given to Him by the Father, full of grace and truth.

καὶ λόγον σάρκα γενόμενον· οὗ τὴν δόξαν ἐθεασάμεθά καὶ ἦν ἡ δόξα αὐτοῦ, οἵα ἦν ἡ τοῦ μονογενοῦς, ἡ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς δοθεῖσα αὐτῷ, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

The passage just cited - i.e. that the Logos was in heaven, while Jesus came down to earth as a special dispensation - appears side by side with Irenaeus's reference to the variant reading of John 1:14 so we may assume that the two ideas go together. That is, the Word who remained in heaven 'became flesh' by the glory of the Only-begotten given by the Father. This is the context of the statement of the 'special dispensation' of Jesus.

Vorkosigan · 01-26-2013, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

I also noted from "for not into holy places made with hands did the Christ enter -- figures of the true -- but into the heaven itself, ..." (Heb 9:24 YLT)
in order to enter heaven, one has to be outside of it first!

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard, Doherty's argument is that Christ wasn't sacrificed in Heaven. So naturally, he'd have to re-enter heaven.

Congratulations, you've found a spot where Carrier said Doherty is a little muddled. Yay! Maybe someday you can come up with an actual refutation of Doherty's ideas. Not holding my breath, I noted years ago that your critiques of ED are shallow, rhetoric heavy, and dominated by historicist assumptions, especially when it comes to Hebrews:

Here:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesMuller3.htm

Other links to Muller's ideas are here:
http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/responses.html

stephan huller · 01-26-2013, 03:56 PM

In Book Three there is a corruption of the original understanding in Irenaeus's reporting where he says now:

Quote:

But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Aeons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma. Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible. But according to the opinion of no one of the heretics was the Word of God made flesh. For if any one carefully examines the systems of them all, he will find that the Word of God is brought in by all of them as not having become incarnate (sine carne) and impassible, as is also the Christ from above. Others consider Him to have been manifested as a transfigured man; but they maintain Him to have been neither born nor to have become incarnate; whilst others [hold] that He did not assume a human form at all, but that, as a dove, He did descend upon that Jesus who was born from Mary. Therefore the Lord's disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses, says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." [AH 3.11.3]

Still the underlying sense is - I think - that the Word never left heaven but Jesus was a 'special dispensation' which came for a brief period. Not exactly what Doherty is proposing but close enough I suspect to salvage some of his key interpretations. Remember what I said earlier in the other thread about paying attention to what the heretics and Church Fathers said and wrote?

stephan huller · 01-26-2013, 04:26 PM

So in Book Three again (a little earlier in the same section just cited) Irenaeus says that John wrote his gospel to confound Cerinthus and the Nicolatians with respect to the existence of two gods:

Quote:

John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that "knowledge" falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also continued impossible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew back again into His Pleroma; and that Monogenes was the beginning, but Logos was the true son of Monogenes; and that this creation to which we belong was not made by the primary God, but by some power lying far below Him, and shut off from communion with the things invisible and ineffable. The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WOrd was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.(5) What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not."(6) "All things," he says, "were made by Him;" therefore in "all things" this creation of ours is [included], for we cannot concede to these men that [the words] "all things" are spoken in reference to those within their Pleroma. For if their Pleroma do indeed contain these, this creation, as being such, is not outside, as I have demonstrated in the preceding book;(7) but if they are outside the Pleroma, which indeed appeared impossible, it follows, in that case, that their Pleroma cannot be "all things:" therefore this vast creation is not outside [the Pleroma].

According to this interpretation the Logos can be understood never to have left heaven. The creation referenced in the gospel references the aeons in the Pleroma not the world.

stephan huller · 01-26-2013, 04:42 PM

Irenaeus continues to note that the being who came into the world was someone other than the Word:

Quote:

John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, "He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not." But according to Marcion, and those like him, neither was the world made by Him; nor did He come to His own things, but to those of another. And, according to certain of the Gnostics, this world was made by angels, and not by the Word of God. But according to the followers of Valentinus, the world was not made by Him, but by the Demiurge. For he (Soter) caused such similitudes to be made, after the pattern of things above, as they allege; but the Demiurge accomplished the work of creation. For they say that he, the Lord and Creator of the plan of creation, by whom they hold that this world was made, was produced from the Mother; while the Gospel affirms plainly, that by the Word, which was in the beginning with God, all things were made, which Word, he says, "was made flesh, and dwelt among us." But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Aeons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma.

There would appear then to have been a heavenly Jesus and a dispensational Jesus (someone created or re-created by the heavenly name 'Jesus') and a Word who never leaves heaven.

TedM · 01-26-2013, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Bernard, Doherty's argument is that Christ wasn't sacrificed in Heaven. So naturally, he'd have to re-enter heaven.

My impression is that Earl doesn't view the crucifixion as a 'sacrifice' in the author's mind. When I referred to his crucifixion as the 'actual sacrifice' having occurred somewhere other than heaven, he objected:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl

You cannot label the crucifixion as "the actual sacrifice." That is not how the writer presents it. "The actual sacrifice" is not the cross, it is the action in the heavenly sanctuary. You are doing what generations of scholars have done: attempting to force the crucifixion to be part of the "sacrifice" as presented by the writer of Hebrews. It is not, even though given the Gospels that would have made complete sense. The trouble is, of course, that it would have screwed up the writer's Platonic parallels and he would have had to style his entire scenario differently.

The slaughter of the animals by the high priests on earth is NOT part of the "sacrifice" they offer to God. That is the act of placing and burning that blood on the altar. This is in perfect harmony and parallel with Hebrews' own presentation of the "sacrifice", Jesus' offering of his own blood on the altar of the heavenly sanctuary. My point has always been, how could the writer construct such a picture in harmony with the earthly counterpart, if in disharmony with the earthly picture, part of the sacrifice, let alone the "actual sacrifice" itself, was NOT in parallel with the earthly sacrifice? IOW, if Calvary had happened and Jesus' sacrifice constituted his death on the cross, this does not fit in parallel with the earthly sacrifice, which was not the slaughter of the animals, but the offering of their blood.

I don't follow this reasoning. I don't see any passage in Hebrews that says that the SACRIFICE (of himself, by way of the cross) occurs in heaven, or in 'the heavens'. Earl has argued that 'sacrifice' and 'offering' are one and the same. I don't see support for that. What I see happening in heaven is Jesus OFFERING his sacrifice, that is - his own blood in the heavenly tabernacle. This is consistent with the priests on earth offering the blood of animals as a sacrificial offering. The parallel works.

The 'actual sacrifice' however, is the death. This isn't reading the gospels into Hebrews. It's common sense. How would a death for others not be considered a sacrifice?

Sacrifices don't happen in the tabernacle or on the alter. Rather, they are OFFERED (in the form of BLOOD) in the tabernacle, but they actually HAPPEN prior to. The question is WHERE did the sacrifice -- the death occur? The parallel breaks down here because with animals it happens in the Temple. With Jesus his 'suffering' occurred 'outside the gate'.

Why does it break down? Why couldn't Jesus be killed in a Temple, like the animals were, if it happened in the lower heavens?

In fact, why was he crucified at all? Where is the scriptural support for that?

stephan huller · 01-26-2013, 04:45 PM

When we go back to Hebrews chapter 8 it does not appear to me at least - with a quick review - that the heretical idea presented with respect to the gospel is incompatible with what is written in Hebrews if we assume with Philo of Alexandria that the Logos is the heavenly high priest. Notice that the heavenly high priest is never explicitly identified as 'Jesus':

Quote:

Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”[a] 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises

Bernard Muller · 01-26-2013, 04:51 PM

Thank you Stephan, but I and Doherty think that Christianity started well before Christian Gnosticism. And Valentinus, Marcion, Basilides (and probably many other Gnostics) had a Jesus, is some human form, on earth, and conforming partly with the "orthodox" gospels.
Cordially, Bernard

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

01-26-2013, 03:06 PM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	there is a formulation among the Valentinians reported by Irenaeus in Book One that might help Doherty's cause. I've been at Nordstrom's (it seems) all day. I will bring it up when I get a chance It isn't exactly what Doherty wants. The Logos is exclusively in heaven never setting foot on the earth but Jesus is something related but ultimately different (the pleroma of the aeons). More to follow

01-26-2013, 04:51 PM	#10
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Thank you Stephan, but I and Doherty think that Christianity started well before Christian Gnosticism. And Valentinus, Marcion, Basilides (and probably many other Gnostics) had a Jesus, is some human form, on earth, and conforming partly with the "orthodox" gospels. Cordially, Bernard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.