GakuseiDon

No, Isaiah didn't ascend in the body. Isaiah was still "dwelling in the flesh", but his body was actually still on earth. It was his mind that ascended:

Chapter 6
10. And as he was speaking in the Holy Spirit in the hearing of all, he became silent and his mind was taken up from him and he saw not the men that stood before him.
11. Though his eyes indeed were open. Moreover his lips were silent and the mind in his body was taken up from him.
12. But his breath was in him; for he was seeing a vision.

Yes, this is something that I've been saying as well. Earl is using "heavens" and "spiritual realm" for things above the firmament as well as below the firmament. But this can be confusing.

We need to keep the differences clear. I think a good start would be to adopt the codes that Andrew Criddle used above:

EA: the earth, where people dwell.
LH: lower heaven, e.g. the air or the realm under the firmament, where the demons dwell.
HH: higher heaven, e.g. above the firmament, where the angels and God dwells.

Earl has Christ descending from HH and crucified in LH by demons.

Clivedurdle

Loads of confusion here!

Imagine a universe where everyone goes everywhere - god walked in the garden.

Remember the real is the heavenly and we on earth are the copies.

See holiness as an imported idea.

Work out the sedementary layers here.

The sacrifice of Jesus makes most sense in the highest heaven.

There has never been a problem with sin being in heaven - what are those stories in Job about God and satan discussing together?

Isn't sin another word for our shadow world?

These ideas are older than Plato and are to do with our psychologies of self and other, of good and evil.

TedM

Yes, it is occupied, but I think since the author is hypothesizing, that is irrelevant. I think he is simply saying that he wouldn't take the position if it was available to him.

Yes, this confuses me. It seems on the one hand that the author is saying that those who are called are already being forgiven through the acceptance of the offer by the High Priest (Jesus) in heaven, and his intercession for them. (see 7:25, 10:14, 10:22). Yet, on the other hand this verse refers to the old way as not yet gone. Since 10:11-12 seems to say that the old way is no longer necessary, I would guess that the author in 8:13 is saying that even though it still exists, it isn't necessary for those who are called. For them, it is obsolete.


Yet, verse 10 had already happened, since we know from 8:1 that he is seated at the right hand of God, and from 10:12 that the taking of that seat happened AFTER the offering referred to in verse 10 "but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD" I'm not sure how 9:28 implies that the old convenant is not obsolete. Is it the words "sin done away"?

The NASB translation of 9:28 is "so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him."

I'm not sure what 'salvation' refers to in 9:28. They have "recieved a kingdom that cannot be shaken" (12:28), and they "seek the city which is to come" (13:14). Might these refer to the salvation they await--eternal life in God's future kingdom, or some such idea?. It appears to me from the other references that the author believed that --at least for those who were already 'sanctified'-- the old covenant of yearly atonement had already been replaced. As such, had Jesus come back to earth from his heavenly reign he would not have been a priest under the old covenant, since his role made theirs unnecessary.

Please feel free to challenge these thoughts further, since it's not crystal clear to me that I have the right interpretaton--being pretty new to the book of Hebrews.

If the sacrifice of Jesus makes most sense in the highest heaven, are you saying there was no descent? I don't recall if God and Satan were in the highest heaven when discussing things... nor do I know of an example of hostile sinners residing there... but I welcome any other related examples that are out there.

ted

Clivedurdle

Descent implies a heirarchy, separation, higher lower.

We are looking at mixtures of ideas - priestly etc.

There are clear layers without this hierarchy - God and Satan talking together, God walking in the garden in the cool of the evening, god in the camp.

There are clear bits with it - clean unclean, cannot look on God (have to look at his bum), holiness.

But transfiguration, changed in a twinkling in an eye, new heaven and earth do not need this up down stuff.

We are looking at very mixed up ideas from different roots. Isn't holiness a Persian idea?

Darius invented the concept of holy war - before that no one had thought of the idea that my god is better than yours as a reason for war - it was simpler - I want what you have.

I was brought up on the New English Bible, which has loads of odd comments on these lines - and as said earlier translates key verses in this way! I probably have been "softened up" to think in these terms - but it does add up in terms of a Platonic spin on Judaic traditions with strong alchemic memes. A wonderful soup with many different ingredients.

rlogan

I think it worth pointing out that sacrifice for atonement was a key feature of religious doctrine - one that was basically a necessity for Christianity to incorporate somehow. But that of the messiah himself is the "atomic bomb" of all sacrifices and is a key strategic innovation in the Christian mystical theory.

The problem faced by these seminal thinkers in Christianity is how to introduce this Christ-sacrfice innovation into the mileau. The sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

Are they going to come out with a historical gospel Jesus with near-contemporaneous details regarding Pilate and other falsifiable details? It probably didn't even occur to them to try. Rather, this is born in the arena of mystical gobbledygook.

As you put it, they utilized the existing "intellectual baggage of the time". We may not have that understood precisely. But it is mystical, not historical.

I'm afraid it is useles with some true believers here.

Rapunzel had golden hair. Not a likeness of golden hair. Not "according to the hair".

The fixation on this phrase Kata Sarka as evidence of historicity is actually one level sillier than asserting Rapunzel is real because she had golden hair.

At least Rapunzel had no mystical disqualifier in there to alert us to her being a fiction. It seems to me they've picked exactly the phrase demonstrative of mystical gibberish to claim the opposite.

youngalexander

Hebrews Ch 11: “And what is faith?� Here we have a rapid precis of the OT featuring various men & women of faith. Heaps of ‘historical’ references, especially from [11:20] on.
[11:20-22] Isaac, Jacob, Esau, staff, Israel, Egypt, bones
[11:23-29] Moses, born, hid, three months, Pharaoh, daughter, Egypt, Israel, Red Sea, dry land, Egyptians drowned
[11:30-31] Walls, Jericho, fell down, Rahab, prostitute, etc.
[11:32] “Need I say more?� and so on until [11:40] in some considerable earthly ‘supposedly’ historical detail – given it is a precis. Of course, all this took place on earth, so we would expect that.

However, tis but a mere preliminary. Then with eyes fixed on Jesus…
Ch 12: “on whom faith depends from start to finish�
[12:2]Yet it does not ‘sound earthly’, does it? In fact, given the earthly build-up, it ‘sounds’ a trifle understated. Sinners, cross, death – that’s it. Where is Herod, Pilate, the Sanhedrin, crown of thorns, etc. Where is the tomb, empty, angels, appearances and so forth. Rather sparse compared to “the other references� cited above. This is the main event, why no details?
Doherty has answered this many times, most recently in the OP.
Thus your sinners, cross and death.

GakuseiDon

youngalexander, where do YOU think that Earl places other pieces of ancient savior-god mythology occuring in?

jakejonesiv

This is a good point, up through the sixth heaven. After that the rules change. Apparently the seventh heaven cannot acommodate flesh in any way.

Jake Jones IV

krosero

I think it's an excellent suggestion to have some codes. However, LH has the disadvantage, to me, of using the word "heaven," which I think should be reserved for the seven heavens (or whatever number a given thinker used) above the firmament. I think FI would be better, for the firmament -- particularly since that word is very much a part of Earl's vocabularly and scheme of things.

Let me suggest this:

HE = the heaven(s) above the dome (we can speak of the 1st HE, 2nd HE, etc.)
FI = the firmament
EA = Earth's surface
SH = Sheol

TedM

Good questions. He does refer to the suffering outside the city gate (and it implies the city of Jerusalem), and being descended from Judah, and the 'days of his flesh', and being like man in every respect, so there is more than what you mentioned. But, I agree that the detail you list would be helpful.


I'm not sure that OP applies to Hebrews. Doherty, in his post about Hebrews seems to says that the sacrifice itself happens in the heaven in which it is presented to God--ie the highest heaven. He points out that there is no mention of an ascension after death, implying that the life and death of Jesus was in the same place. That is different than saying it happened in a lower heaven, as shown in this post:

Ya, Re your post yesterday. After reading my response, do you still think my reconstruction is inconsistent with the context?

ted