EarlDoherty

Ted, you are enslaved by your preconceptions. Nowhere does the writer of Hebrews refer to or define the “sacrifice” as the death on the cross. It is actually amazing how little attention he gives that death and that cross throughout the entire epistle. You are begging the question above, because you say that nowhere in Hebrews is the sacrifice—which YOU (not the writer) define as the cross—is said to occur in heaven. It is true that it is not (though neither is it ever said to occur on earth), but that is because so little attention is given to it. Your “common sense” is governed by your Gospel-colored glasses, which affects all your interpretations.

And just because it is common sense to you that it is the death that would be considered the sacrifice, this is simply not how the writer is treating it. I don't know why the Hebrews community hit on this way of viewing Christ's salvific activity. But the text makes it undeniable that they did. I suspect it was because they focused on the method by which the old covenant was established (there was no crucified savior involved there) and its ongoing reflection in the temple cult. The central element of that cult was the sacrifice/offering of blood in the sanctuary, and whoever was responsible for this sect's outlook (some inspired crackpot channeling the Holy Spirit's revelation?) came up with a Platonic counterpart (the Alexandrian influence is unmistakeable) for Christ establishing a new covenant in heaven paralleling the cultic practice in the earthly temple.

And it is not the case that your reading is consistent with the priests on earth offering the blood of animals as the sacrificial offering. In fact, your own words demonstrate that. The priests on earth are not offering the “sacrifice” of the animal, its killing in the outer court of the Temple (or outer tent). They are offering its blood, the burning of it to ‘fill the Lord’s nostrils with a pleasing odor’. Moses established the new covenant which forgave sin not by slaughtering the animals, but by sprinkling their blood over the altar and the people. The act of offering the blood IS the act of sacrifice, for both the high priests on earth and for Jesus in heaven. That is how the writer presents it, whether it seems like common sense to you (with your Gospel preconceptions) or not. I don’t know how to make it any clearer.

My above comments show the invalidity of these claims. They DO happen on the altar. And as I said, you beg the question by defining the sacrifice as the death. This the writer does not do. His concept of “sacrifice” always relates to the act in the heavenly sanctuary.

A strange question. It would require inventing a Temple in the lower heavens. Why would he do that? He already has one on earth and one in God’s Heaven (the archetype and the copy, the one made by God and the one made by man). Another one would make the universe pretty crowded with temples.

And with animals, their killing does not take place in the inner temple or tent. That would be sacrilegious. Jesus has to suffer outside the gate because it would be impossible (not to mention sacrilegious) to have him suffer and die within the precincts of God’s Heaven.

The same scriptural support that Christians even today point to: passages like Isaiah 53 or Zechariah 12, etc. Just because the writer doesn’t spell them out, doesn’t mean his sect didn’t derive the idea of crucifixion from scripture.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Why I keep trying, I don’t know. The reason for saying it is NOT the actual sacrifice is because the writer never presents it in those terms, and he does present the “sacrifice” as the ACT in the heavenly sanctuary. And just where in Hebrews can one find the phrase “offered the sacrifice” in connection with Jesus? 7:27 and 9:26 have him offering “himself”, which drawing on other passages can be identified with his “blood”, not the act of his crucifixion, whether on Calvary or in a lower sphere of the heavens. The earthly high priests are said to “offer sacrifices” because those “sacrifices” are the smearing and burning of the animal blood on the altar, NOT the act of slaughtering the animals. The animals are slaughtered in order to provide the blood for the sacrifice. As bizarre as it is, that is how the writer of Hebrews presents the sacrifice of Christ. Your concept of common sense has nothing to do with it.

Yes, they are both bizarre concepts. But if it all takes place in the mythical heavenly realm, I think the mind of a sect which imagines scripture has revealed a truth from the upper world is much more able to accept it. And please stop misquoting the text, even in English. The writer has NOT said that Jesus’ blood and flesh is the same as that of humans in every respect. In fact he denied that. He used the word “paraplesios” which means only resembling, not identical. Even in 2:17 he “becomes like his brothers kata panta” in order to do what? All the writer specifies is things to do with becoming a priest in regard to God, and all of that falls into a heavenly venue. So why would he have to become a human man on earth in order to accomplish those things in heaven? The “kata panta” may be a bit obscure, but the verb it qualifies is another “likeness” motif: “homoiothenai” which means become like. Why can’t any epistle writer ever say that Jesus became an actual man?

As for “parallel universes” Ted, haven’t theoretical physicists advocated the existence of such bizarre things?

Earl Doherty

TedM

Earl, while I see no reason to agree with the equating of sacrifice and offering, I'm not sure how it matters. We both agree that the death occurred on a cross somewhere, and it is the location of that death/suffering that is the real issue.

You find it incredible to imagine that it occurred on earth because it would require Jesus somehow taking his earthly blood (perhaps converted in some way to spiritual blood) from earth to heaven for the sacrificial offering.

I don't find it any more incredible than the entire lower-heavens concept where Jesus' blood is the same or similar as earthly blood, and such blood is then taken into heaven for the sacrificial offering.

The concepts aren't much different.

As such I don't see that it helps us any for understanding 8:4
You see 8:4 as jibberish with respect to a present tense because Jesus has taken his role as high priest in heaven--ie there is no need to talk about being on earth now since the sacrifice had already occurred.

I see it as not jibberish because since there were still priests on earth in the present it would be natural to discuss Jesus as an earthly priest AFTER having made his offering because both the earthly priests AND Jesus as high priest were still actively fulfilling roles as priests. The idea of the new high priest Jesus coming to earth -- perhaps to replace earthly priests -- seems a reasonable possibility, especially since there was interest in Jesus' return to earth at any time (present or future). The author doesn't give a very satisfying reason in 8:4 other than to say 'hey he wouldn't be a priest because there are priest here according to Law--serving COPIES that are shadows of the real deal'. The implication is that Jesus wouldn't be doing that since he is the real deal. He's where he needs to be now. You are quite right in saying that 8:4 doesn't outright say that but, as you accused me of being atomistic, I might suggest you are doing the same here because I showed how the surrounding verses support the idea that the OLD was inferior to the already established NEW covenant and was therefore ALREADY becoming obsolete (8:13) so there is no need for Jesus to come down to become part of the OLD covenant priesthood.

You see 8:4 as consistent with a past tense because it would be natural for the author to discuss Jesus as an earthly priest in the context of the location of the sacrificial offering required to please God. And I agree with that, although I don't feel like it fits in with the supporting verses that compare the old and the new covenants in the present time.

In order to overcome temptation and sin, which would then enable him to overcome the penalty for sin--which was death, which no humans could do. ONLY by become an unblemished human-or 'like' human--could he enter heaven and offer the sacrificial blood for the salvation of souls.


You don't want to get me started on that one


Ted

aa5874

Your story is an invention because you have no corroborative evidence for your imagination based 'Hebrews community'.

There is no known 'Hebrews community' that worshiped a Celestial Jesus in any writings in or out the Canon.

The redactors and interpolators of non-Apologetic sources like Josephus and Tacitus did NOT write that the Christ or Christus was Celestial and crucified in the sub-lunar.

Doherty's argument appears to be a massive conspiracy theory where all Apologetics and the very Church conspired against the author of Epistle Hebrews.

Bernard Muller

First, the NEB should not interpret, just translate.
Second the NEB is wrong in its rendition of Heb 9:14 and you should know that. But you chose the NEB to make your point, regardless. This is not honest. And you use that "NEB spiritual blood" has one of your main evidence for a sacrifice in heaven producing spiritual blood.

No, I am not concealing anything. I think that was on Carrier's critique of my critique to your JP and therefore public. And that was the only comment he said on that item, as I can remember.

You said it. But you keep using that spiritual blood over and over again.

According to that, the sacrifice has nothing to do with a later offering of blood in the highest heaven:
Heb 7:27 Darby "[Jesus] who has not day by day need, as the high priests, first to offer up sacrifices [ritual killing of animals] for his own sins, then [for] those of the people; for this he did once for all [in] having offered up himself [not just presented his own blood!]."
Heb 9:26 Darby "... But now once in the consummation of the ages he has been manifested ['fanerow'/'phaneroo'] for [the] putting away of sin by his sacrifice [no mention of "offering" of blood here!]."
Heb 10:10 Darby "... we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

Very funny. But the blood is only symbolism for the bodily sacrifice having been performed. I do not see why the author should go into technical details.
But we would have some of the same problems is the crucifixion was in the sky: where did they find a cross? how did they planted it in the ground? what ground? How did they collect (spiritual) blood? How do you collect spiritual blood? Who would collect the blood? Why? Anyway you look, that does not make factual sense, so it is just symbolistic.
In 9:12, Jesus' blood is compared with animal blood. In 9:21, blood is sprinkled on the tabernacle and other sacred items.

I do not deny Jews believed in several heavens, but I do not see why "the heavens" should not include all these heavens, including the air above the earth. I do not see either why "heaven" would refer to only some of the highest heavens and not to all of them.

"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil"
That tells me Jesus became like the children, that is with the same flesh & blood. Are you saying the children would have physical blood and Jesus "spiritual" blood. Do you call that semblance? What about the bodies?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller

to Doherty:
They said it several times (minimum 8 times, for the seven Pauline & Hebrews), in different ways, but each time, because you find things to generate doubt against a normal reading of these occurrences, you conclude they never said it.

rlogan

If you are looking for the origins of Christianity in the writings that came long after it sprang forth as a secret, illegal society it is a fool's errand.

When Pliny writes to Trajan in 112 CE regarding his investigation of the Christians he uncovers no literature whatsoever. He finds no story of a founder initiating a cult who threatens the establishment and is executed.

What he finds is a widespread rejection of the incessant taxation through mandatory sacrifice/offerings at the temples and in its place a secret society that instead eats a communal meal together. They are paying no-one for passage to heaven or remission of sins.

The common people do not give a rats ass about the intricate theoretical argumentation of the literati. They care about what a religion can do for them as a practical matter. What the pre-Christian establishment temples require is endless obligation of the poor to give over to the rich these sacrificial animals/offerings.

The injustice of this take-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-rich scheme is self evident. It needs no intellectual backing. If there is a God of justice, it is a God that ends this injustice or a savior that rescues them from this injustice.

This concept will find universal appeal without a literature. From commoner to commoner the simple justice of meeting in homes and sharing the fruits of their own labor with one another in a communal meal will sound infinitely better than going hungry and giving it to those that do not deserve.

The literature is something that comes later, retroactively "finding" the Christ concept in the ancient Hebrew literature: the eternal sacrifice rendering all these official temple burdens obsolete.

Instead of the literati developing a new religion based upon careful scrutiny of the Hebrew literature and marketing that to the people, we have a runaway train of people revolting against the establishment temples - and a literati hitching onto that train by giving it a pedigree and intellectual gloss that it will need upon coming out of the shadows of a secret society.

This focus on the precise theoretical underpinning for Christianity misses the boat altogether on why it had mass appeal and why it sprang into existence in the first place. The hungry poor do not care what plane or level of mythical heaven something is happening. They care that they get to put bread in their belly to extinguish their hunger instead of breaking their back for the man.


The Eucharist is food in their belly: the body of Christ. The Eucharist is wine in their belly: the blood of Christ. They get to nourish themselves because of this eternal sacrifice. That is what Christ Crucified means at a practical level to the common poor. The Eucharist was a full meal, not a wafer and sip of grape juice.

Thousands of years later we have people on welfare eating better than the richest King could eat at that time. So of course people have no idea how important removing this obligation was, what a burden it represented, and what a turn-around it meant in standard of living to feed themselves instead of the temple parasites.

When you have gone without food for a few days then you will start to understand what kind of craving initial Christianity was based upon: hungry people wanting to feed themselves. You don't need to know any of the details. Your belly is going to do all the thinking for you.

EarlDoherty

Generating doubt is a quite legitimate methodology in the interpretation of documents, Bernard.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

In the earliest Jesus story there was no command to carry out the ritual of the Eucharist.

There is no indication that there were a 1st century Jesus cult in any non-apologetic sources and there is no indication that all persons called Christians were of the Jesus cult.

It is mere fantasy to assume that all persons called Christians in antiquity believed the Jesus stories when we have writings that show that Christians had many diverse beliefs.

Theophilus and Athenagoras called themselves Christians and wrote NOTHING about Jesus or the Ritual of the Eucharist.

jakejonesiv

Dear AA,
Good point. There is not a shred of evidence for a 'Hebrews community'.
I am not aware of any known sect that believed as Earl says. If the Church of the Sub Lunar Christ (Crucified) is the root of all Christianty, how did it disappear without a trace of external confirmation?

For All,
I would like to hear the best candidates, if any. Some esoteric gnostic sect?