Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 01-11-2013, 11:47 PM

Hebrews 6 is clear about what the foundations of Christianity are

'Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.'

The foundations of Christianity don't seem to include an earthly Jesus teaching these things.

stephan huller · 01-12-2013, 12:17 AM

You recognize that the apostle introduces this statement by saying "let us move beyond the elementary teachings" (Hebrews 6.1) about Christ. In other words, what you are citing is explicitly identified as something more than the commonly held knowledge about Jesus. If I can use the analogy of Secret Mark to the commonly held Mark - "to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils."

In short, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

aa5874 · 01-12-2013, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Hebrews 6 is clear about what the foundations of Christianity are

'Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.'

The foundations of Christianity don't seem to include an earthly Jesus teaching these things.

The anonymous author of Hebrews does NOT deny that Jesus was accepted as the Son of God and that he was seen and heard on earth.

Hebrews 2

Quote:

3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him

In Hebrews, Jesus came in the Flesh.

Hebrews 5

Quote:

6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death...

Hebrews 9

Quote:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The author of Hebrews knew of a story about the 2nd coming of Jesus.

In Hebrews Jesus spoke ON Earth.

Hebrews 12

Quote:

25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven.

26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.

Jesus was crucified outside the Gate in Hebrews.

Hebrews 13

Quote:

12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Hebrews is about God's Son who came to earth and manifested himself like the Son of man, was crucified for remission of sins and was resurrected and ascended.

Vorkosigan · 01-12-2013, 12:57 AM

Steven, it says "the elementary teachings ABOUT christ", not by him. Is there any sense in Hebrews that its author knows the tale and proverb telling jesus?

stephan huller · 01-12-2013, 01:15 AM

The full quote in Hebrews 2 (cited above)

Quote:

This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Sounds to me like the familiar gospel narrative with earthly signs, wonders and various miracles. Why force the issue? The Marcionite formula is probably the oldest (unless something else comes along).

sotto voce · 01-12-2013, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Hebrews 6 is clear about what the foundations of Christianity are

'Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.'

The foundations of Christianity don't seem to include an earthly Jesus teaching these things.

It was not so much Jesus' words as his actions that induced the author to write about these matters:

'But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people.' Heb 9:26-28 NIV

This comment does admittedly need a bit of interpretation, though Jesus did indeed mention most of the 'elementary' teachings. Repentance from dead works and faith toward God is the consequence of Jesus' teaching in the gospels. When Jesus told those who wanted to know what were the works that God wanted, he said that God wanted faith 'in the one he has sent'. Resurrection of the dead with concomitant eternal judgment was very much the focus of Jesus in the gospels, arguably his raison d'être, in fact. These are themes basic to biblical revelation or record, that are implied if not explicit from Abraham onwards. They are integral to the Bible message; what some people call 'foundational'.

Water baptism was not integral, was not a Mosaic introduction, and indeed there was neither precedent nor command for John, who baptised for repentance, to follow; there was requirement, though rarely precedent, for repentance, however, as the bulk of the later Scriptures abundantly attests. John seems to have made use of a practice that developed in the 'inter-testamental' period when there were no recognised prophets, yet when there was consciousness of need for following a virtuous life. 'Instruction about baptisms' is therefore probably reference to instruction about the difference between water baptism and baptism in the Spirit, 'with fire', a very elementary matter, that Jesus and John the baptiser both alluded to and contrasted.

The practice of laying on of hands otoh was much more ancient, and indicated intention of blessing in patriarchal times. But while Jesus laid hands on people, he never made any comment about it, so why the author of the letter to the Hebrews mentioned it may be thought a matter of conjecture; unless it is remembered that those baptised by John, who had not heard the news about his crucifixion and resurrection, had had hands laid upon them, and they then received the Holy Spirit, as alleged. So all of these matters, that may seem aleatory, are actually related, and are indeed all elementary, being immediately consequent on the ministry of Jesus, even if Jesus did not mention them all explicitly.

The argument that this author developed after this introductory comment was a long one, specially relevant to Jewish Christians, that reached a very practical climax, if not a put-down, in chapter 10:

'Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing.' Heb 10:25 NIV

In the early days, Jesus' followers in Jerusalem had met 'every day'. There had then been an enthusiasm that evidently later waned (as indeed Jesus' parable of the sower predicted; so there is not much that seems to have escaped his attention, one way or another). The motive for 'going on toward perfection' was provided between Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10. So when reading Paul's longer letters, when reading Hebrews, one needs a comfy chair, and to settle therein for a long (and perhaps interesting) read.

outhouse · 01-12-2013, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Hebrews 6 is clear about what the foundations of Christianity are

'Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.'

The foundations of Christianity don't seem to include an earthly Jesus teaching these things.

And what would a hellenistic follower who wasnt even strict about Judaism even know about this Jew who lived in a different geographic location and lived within a different culture?

The author was not witness to anything to be able to reprt on, so he doesnt.

Adam · 01-12-2013, 10:16 AM

You're refuting yourself, outhouse,
Implying that the gospels in contrast would have been written by people in Jesus's location, reporting on what they have seen. Exactly what I've been saying. Thank you.

outhouse · 01-12-2013, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

You're refuting yourself, outhouse,
Implying that the gospels in contrast would have been written by people in Jesus's location, reporting on what they have seen. Exactly what I've been saying. Thank you.

No i'm not

Paul admits the foundation of christianity is the God-Fearers and Gate Proselytes. Not Jewish eyewitnesses as you have been erroneously claiming.

Legends from a passover event evolved into a hellenitic movement.

EarlDoherty · 01-12-2013, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The full quote in Hebrews 2 (cited above)

Quote:

This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Sounds to me like the familiar gospel narrative with earthly signs, wonders and various miracles. Why force the issue? The Marcionite formula is probably the oldest (unless something else comes along).

Stephan, if you and aa (who reads everything in amateur and simplistic fashion), and countless others here, would simply READ what I have to say, especially in JNGNM, you would see that you are uncritically plugging the same old perennially imposed interpretations on passages like this. I will never understand why people come onto this forum and pontificate on the texts in opposition to mythicism while failing to investigate what the leading exponent of mythicism has to say on these matters before they do so. (Oh, sorry, according to GDon Richard Carrier occupies that role, even though he hasn't published his book on the subject yet. But he has written the only thing that matters to Don and Abe, I guess: the letters after his name.)

OK, I can see that I have no alternative but to stick what I have said on this matter under your noses and force you to take it into account. Note, too, that the passage below also addresses the topic of this thread, Hebrews 6. (And if I have been sounding frustrated and very peeved lately, I apologize, though I think I have good reasons for being so.)

Earl Doherty

Quote:

A Salvation Revealed

At the start of chapter 2, the writer presents an account of how his sectarian group began, through an event of revelation. We can envision this sort of thing happening all over the landscape of early Christ belief throughout the eastern Mediterranean in the 1st century CE, impelled by the fevered spirit of the times, with its apocalyptic fantasies and obsession with salvation. Little independent groups, each anticipating a communication from God while perusing the sacred writings, imagined that these things were forthcoming. The first four verses of chapter 2 are consistently forced into a reference to a “beginning” in the preaching of an earthly Jesus, but a less preconceived reading shows otherwise:

1Therefore, we must pay close attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away.
2For if the message spoken through angels was binding…
3how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which was proclaimed [received] at first [lit., a beginning] through the Lord, and confirmed to us by those who heard,
4God also bearing witness, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit…

Certain people received the first revelation, and then, probably in forming a group and winning converts during whatever length of time has passed since then (perhaps a generation?), the revelation was “confirmed” to them by those who had received it. There is no sense of apostolic tradition here, a chain of teachings over time through intervening figures from outside the community, let alone ones who had been followers of a Jesus on earth. Translations often insert the pronoun “him” at the end of verse 3 (it is not in the Greek) to strengthen the sense of it being the preaching Jesus whom the initial hearers had heard. But in fact the “hearing” and “confirming” refer back to the word “salvation,” implying the message of salvation. This was the revelation that was “received,” while “spoken through the Lord” refers to the channel of revelation. (There is a strong similarity in the event of revelation described in the ‘prologue’ to 1 John [where someone like Bart Ehrman forces neuter pronouns referring to "eternal life" into references to the very un-neuter Jesus of Nazareth].)

Verse 4 tells of God confirming the original revelation by signs and miracles. The ambiguity of the text makes it uncertain whether such signs came at the time of revelation, the time of its passing on (if the two are distinct), or as a reinforcement of the message as time went by. But those who wish to see verse 3 as a reference to Jesus’ ministry should be left wondering why such signs from God would be appealed to as validating the message of salvation, while the writer ignores Jesus’ own miracles which according to the Gospels served the very purpose of validating his preaching message.

Ellingworth (p.139) makes the point that “through angels” and “through the Lord” represent God doing the announcing, through old and new intermediaries. This parallels the thought at the opening of the epistle that, in contrast to the prophets of old, “in this final age (God) has spoken to us through the Son.” But as we have noted, Hebrews offers no voice of the Son on earth; he is heard solely through scripture. The reference to “hearing” in 2:3 should be taken in the same sense: “through the Lord” refers to the Son as a spiritual channel, speaking out of scripture, or regarded as God’s intermediary emanation in Logos fashion.

Moreover, considering that verse 2 represents the Law and the Old Covenant as “spoken through angels,” it would be consistent to see the delivery of the revelation about the New Covenant “spoken through the Lord” as a reference to another spirit-figure channel. Remember, too, that the first chapter’s comparison between the angels and the Son was presented entirely within the spiritual realm of scripture, with no reference to an earthly dimension for the Son. Viewing the medium of angels and the medium of the spiritual Son in chapter 2 as confined to scripture and Heaven would thus, once again, be consistent. [Although, as noted in the second excerpt below, "the Lord" could be a reference to God].

The claim that the message was something delivered by a Jesus on earth is also incompatible with later references to the message “heard” at the beginning. The writer in 5:12 is chiding his readers for not advancing swiftly enough from absorbing the basics of the message to mastering more advanced truths. How does he describe those basics? They are “the rudiments of the beginning of the oracles of God,” with the “beginning” being (as in 2:3) a reference to what was “received at first”—namely, the initial message of salvation. But if in 2:3 that message was allegedly the preaching and words of Jesus of Nazareth, why in 5:12 does it become “the oracles of God,” which is a reference to scripture and revelation? To avoid a contradiction, the earlier 2:3 must be understood in the same way, a reception from God, God’s own word.

Similarly, in 6:4-5, the writer says,

4It is impossible for those who have been enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift and are sharers in the Holy Spirit,
5who have tasted the good word of God and the powerful things of the age to come…

Here it is spelled out that the elements of the message heard/received at the beginning was not the teaching of Jesus, but a heavenly gift bestowed (“tasted”) through the Holy Spirit, and constituted the word of God. (This will be made even clearer by a passage to be looked at in chapter 12.) This is a total focus on God’s word and the gift from Heaven, with nothing left to be assigned to Jesus. It is impossible to imagine why a writer would present to his community such an account of the beginnings and inspiration of the sect if in fact those things lay in the life, teachings and death of a human Jesus only a generation or so earlier.

[And that passage in chapter 12:]

Most telling is the picture of the old and new “voices.” Hebrews 12:25 says:

See that you do not refuse him who speaks. For if those ones did not escape when they refused to hear him who warned them on earth, how much less will we (escape) if we turn away from the one who speaks from heaven?

The first part of the second sentence refers to the voice of God at Mt. Sinai. But the “one who speaks from heaven” in the final phrase is also the voice of God, who speaks a quotation from the prophet Haggai 2:6: “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” First of all, we ought to note a close resemblance of thought between these verses and earlier ones in chapter 2:

12:25 – For if those ones [the Israelites of the Exodus] did not escape when they refused to hear him who warned them on earth, how much less will we (escape) if we turn away from the one who speaks from heaven?

2:2-3 – For if the message [at Sinai] spoken by angels was unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just punishment, how shall we escape, if we ignore so great a salvation which was first spoken through the Lord?

Not a single scholar I am aware of allows the later verse to influence the meaning of the earlier. In 12:25, with its juxtaposition of old and new, the voice that is heard in the context of the New Covenant is the voice of God, not Jesus. It is “the voice that speaks from heaven,” the same as spoke at Sinai, as verse 26 states. Thus, in a similar juxtaposition of old and new (and similar language), the common interpretation that the chapter 2 passage refers to the hearing of Jesus of Nazareth by his followers cannot stand. That voice, too, must be the voice of God, and thus it cannot be a reference to Jesus and his historical ministry, but only to a revelatory experience in which the voice of God (“the Lord”) was ‘heard.’ By corollary, we must also assume that the writer is aware of no voice of Jesus on earth, no historical ministry, for how could such a voice be completely ignored in chapter 12’s peroration on the establishment of the New Covenant? How could the reader not be urged to heed the voice of Jesus as heard in his earthly life and career as a prophet?

The same idea is stated again in 13:7:

Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you…

Whether these leaders were those who were the first to hear it, or whether they received it from those who did, what was “spoken” is stated to have been the word of God, not the words of a preaching Jesus.

The voice of God presented in both the Old and the New Covenants is the voice of God in the writings, the latter being newly interpreted under perceived revelation. Once again, the progression is not scriptural history to present history, but scripture to scripture, from a voice heard at the Exodus to a voice heard from Heaven—both voices being that of God. If the idea of the voice of God “through the Son” (1:2) has any application here, it can only be that the spiritual Son is regarded as an intermediary channel, sometimes speaking in scripture in his own voice. In 12:18-19, the Son is not heard in any way; he stands only in the background. The quote from Haggai is attributed to God, serving to illustrate that the old is passing to make way for the new. The author had no words of Jesus on earth, authentic or otherwise, which could serve to illustrate this dramatic turning of the ages.

01-11-2013, 11:47 PM	#1
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	The Foundations of Christianity Hebrews 6 is clear about what the foundations of Christianity are 'Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.' The foundations of Christianity don't seem to include an earthly Jesus teaching these things.

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

01-12-2013, 12:17 AM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	You recognize that the apostle introduces this statement by saying "let us move beyond the elementary teachings" (Hebrews 6.1) about Christ. In other words, what you are citing is explicitly identified as something more than the commonly held knowledge about Jesus. If I can use the analogy of Secret Mark to the commonly held Mark - "to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils." In short, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

01-12-2013, 12:57 AM	#4
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Steven, it says "the elementary teachings ABOUT christ", not by him. Is there any sense in Hebrews that its author knows the tale and proverb telling jesus?

01-12-2013, 10:16 AM	#8
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	You're refuting yourself, outhouse, Implying that the gospels in contrast would have been written by people in Jesus's location, reporting on what they have seen. Exactly what I've been saying. Thank you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.