Bernard Muller

Yes Earl,
I know about your comments on Heb 7:14 in JNGNM. But, if you click on my link, you'll see I showed your reasonning to be far-fetched, unevidenced and therefore not valid.
Cordially, Bernard

EarlDoherty

Bernard, for someone who has obviously been through Hebrews with a fine-toothed comb, you display an astonishing lack of comprehension of the text. What is “the sacrifice of himself” set against? Look at verse 24. “Nor is he there to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the sanctuary year by year with blood not his own.” IOW, the high priest on earth is not offering part of himself as the atonement act. Whereas Jesus is doing precisely that: “…to abolish sin by the sacrifice of himself.” The “himself” is simply pointing out the contrast between the two. Certainly the word does not signify that the offering must mean of his whole body and consequently be placed on Calvary. That is a simplistic and naïve atomism, of which you are constantly guilty.

And I have already pointed out that the writer uses the term “body” in 10:10 because he is commenting on the Psalm quoted in 10:5, which uses the term “body.”

I have not ignored anything, Bernard, not even you, when ignoring you would be the reasonable course to follow.

This is almost incoherent. Where do you get ‘looking outside Judaism for salvation’? The entire epistle is a plea to understand a new way of interpreting the Jewish texts (e.g., see the reference to the Holy Spirit in 9:8). Certainly, there is no plea to understand Jesus by means of a pagan interpretation. And within a new interpretation of the Jewish scriptures, since he is already directly comparing Jesus’ acts with traditional Jewish ones, there is no reason why he could not have made a perfectly suitable and rational parallel between Jesus’ suffering and death with the slaughter of the animals which provided the blood for the earthly high priests’ sacrifices.

I fully agree. And you will see that this verse contradicts the claim you have been trying to push through. The offering is of his blood, and he enters the heavenly sanctuary to make the sacrifice of that blood, just as the high priests enter their sanctuary and perform their corresponding sacrifices with blood. Nothing of Calvary there, nor of an entire “body”.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Earl, you did question Rlogan when he claimed Hebrews was non-historical. Your post is recorded.

It is utterly contradictory that your Celestial Jesus was not historical but that Hebrews accounts of your Celestial Jesus in heaven are history.

Hebrews Must BE NON-historical if its accounts are of a non-historical figure.

That is basic. You are confused. Hebrews cannot ever be historical if your Jesus was not.

And further, it is utterly erroneous that there was a sect before the Jewish War that painted an historical picture of a Celestial Jesus.

No source in the Entire Known Existing manuscripts have even suggested that there was a Celestial Jesus that was crucified in heaven.

The celestial Jesus crucified in heaven is your invention and has ZERO support in or out the Canon.

TedM

Oh geez. To distrust the first-hand eyewitness reports of people simply because they have believed in the truth of Christianity is to not recognize the source of their belief. People can hold ignorant beliefs without themselves being irrational in many other respects.

It isn't irrational to believe in angels if the source is a conviction that the Bible is true. Many who believe simply are IGNORANT (NOT IRRATIONAL) of the problems that many of us here DO know with regard to the Bible. The preachers and apologists have been very good at selling the 'reasonable evidence' of the Bible. It is a highly coherent message. It begins with the beginning of the world, and it ends with the end of the world. In between you have prophecies that clearly came true (it is said), and you have a theology of sin (and who denies the evil in the world), and the only reasonable solution to it; If man can't overcome his own evil, God did it for him, through sending his own spirit in the world through his Chosen People that demonstrated their inability to even follow God's laws for purification. He was a perfect substitute for the pattern of animal sacrifice. This theology is widely taught throughout Christianity and it simply makes sense if you buy into certain basic assumptions: God created the world. Man sins and therefore pays a price. God has provided a solution. And then you have the strong belief that there were 12 disciples and that history attests to their willingness to die terrible martrys deaths for their faith in the resurrection of Jesus.

For those that don't research this stuff it makes a lot of sense historically, and emotionally. It explains why we are here, because it seems highly irrational that we are here as an accident and for no reason.

So, to claim that those who believe this are IRRATIONAL people, is really not accurate. What would be more accurate is to claim that they have bought into a false but highly creative and clever creation of religion by many of the brightest minds the world has ever known.

Wasn't it Vork who said that the Gospel of Mark was the greatest piece of literature ever written? Wasn't Isaac Newton, one of the brightest minds of all time, a Christian?

Bernard Muller

To Doherty,
But "Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly" (9:25) is connected very closely to "for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly" (9:26), which means offering of himself is sufferance. Offering of blood does not involve sufferance, but crucifixion does.

The author, who practiced a lot of cut and paste, could have dropped "body". He did not. He could have been justified to do so, because, for Ps 40, the Hebrew bible does not mention "body". Only the LXX version does.
As for 10:10, this is neither a repeat of 10:5, or even a paraphrase of it. It is an explanation on what "will" would mean for the audience of the epistle, and through what:
"And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (RSV)
Cordially, Bernard

Toto

TedM - how did we get into this diversion? Are you trying to claim that Hebrews contains some eyewitness testimony? If so, please identify it.

aa5874

It is Doherty who is claiming that Hebrews in the Canon is a record of a crucifixion in heaven when the very Canon in multiple books show that the crucifixion happened in Jerusalem after Jesus was delievered up by Caiaphas and after a trial with Pilate and the Sanhedrin and was buried by Joseph of Aritmathea.

How did Doherty get Jesus crucified in heaven in the Canon??

Where are his corroborative sources?

TedM

We got into this diversion because rlogan posted an off-topic criticism of the attempt to understand 8:4. One of his claims had to do with the reliability of someone who believes in angels (in this case the author)..and so on..I'm willing to drop it if you are.

Toto

I don't think rlogan's comment was off topic, and I don't think you fully understood the basis for it. Perhaps we should just drop it.

TedM

Earl, in case you missed this, here is my latest post regarding 8:4:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....85#post7381085