Layman

Let me be clear that I do not think Amaleq is an idiot. I think he knows perfectly well what I was talking about.

mike_decock

Understood. I just can't assume to know what you or Amaleq are thinking so if I see something which looks like an ad hom, it's my duty to request the poster to refrain from it. The request goes out to all participants, of course.

-Mike...

Layman

Mike, I understand completely and appreciated the opportunity to clarify.

My point was that it was so clear that Jesus is called so many things (Son of God, Son of Man, Christ, Lord, Jesus Christ--in the Gospels as well as the Epistles), I can't imagine anyone being mislead by my-hardly unique--use of the name Jesus. I actually believe it would be more confusing to refer to him by different names throughout the same discussion as if they were references to different personages.

mike_decock

No problem.

I agree with you on that point. They're just different titles for the same person. It appears that Amaleq is trying to make a distinction that these titles imply different notions, some which correllate to the "living Jesus" and others which do not. At least, that's what I'm getting from his posts. Perhaps this is an important notion in Doherty's thesis but I haven't read it.

Is that what you're driving at Amaleq? Perhaps you could clarify why the distinct use of certain titles is important.

-Mike...

NOGO

GJohn clearly differentiates between Jesus the man and the Son of God who created the world.

How about answering my questions?

Amaleq13

I admit that Hebrews uses the terms to describe the same figure. There is only confusion if you are trying to assert that this is also the same Jesus described in the Gospels.

When you paraphrase a Hebrews passage that gives "His Son" as using the name "Jesus", it seems to me that you are trying to read the Gospel into the letter. It wouldn't be the first time I've run into that sort of "shell game" being run by anti-mythicists and there didn't seem to be any good reason for you to change the title to the name. If that was not your intent, as I already indicated, then the point can be dropped and I apologize for the confusion.

Actually, I only ignored two of them. I suggested your third was a possible interpretation but certainly not the only one and you denied this.

Here are the other two:
I would suggest that this is referring to the divine revelations that started the whole movement, not the teachings of a living Jesus. The salvation was spoken "through the Lord" and "heard" by some and followed by signs, etc. from God. The title "Lord" seems to refer to the Sacrificed/Raised Christ rather than the living Jesus. I agree that these revelations were recent but there is no need to assume a living, teaching Jesus where a Sacrificed/Raised Lord appears to be the referent.

Not really. There were mass crucifixions under Janneus and that takes us back Before the Common Era.

I wrote:
As I already mentioned, where you see a comparison or continuation, I see a contrast. Where you see the author stating that God speaking in His Son is the same as God speaking in the prophets, I see the author differentiating between the way God chose to communicate in the past with the way God chooses to communicate during these last days.

My primary reason is that none of yours are credible enough to support your interpretation. I've already addressed your other two supporting examples, so I'll assume that what follows are your reasons:

Agreed. God "spoke in" both. That does not, however, require that we assume anything else must be the same about them. In fact, by going on to describe His Son as "heir of all things" and "by whom he also made the world" it is difficult to see why I should assume the author considered this Son to be the same as the prophets of old.

Clearly, there is also a significant contrast described between the prophets of long ago and the Son by whom God made the world. God spoke "in" both but that is the only point of similarity.

I realize that I ignored your other two points and I have corrected that error. You are otherwise incorrect in your analysis of my thinking. My only emotional response was to your unwarranted and arrogantly condescending dismissal of my arguments as well as the suggestion that I am somehow less informed than yourself. Trust me, I'll let you know when you state something beyond my "limited understanding". It hasn't happened yet.

Layman

You accused me of dishonesty and then reinforced that accusation but now admit I did nothing of the sort and you were reacting to a shell game played by others?

Again, this is why I do not have much patience with you Amaleq. It's taken several posts and Moderator intervention to get you to withdraw the accusation and try and move on.

You also say that even if we assume the author of Hebrews sees Jesus as human he gives no indication that he existed at any specific point in history. When I point out that if we assume the author of Hebrews was referring to a human Jesus that he certainly does put him in a historical time and context, you jumped all over me for "circular reasoning."

I simply do not have the time or patience for this kind of waste--whatever your intentions.

Layman

No, actually you still have missed the point. The arguments I was talking about were arguments that showed that IF the author of Hebrews spoke of a human Jesus THEN he does place that human Jesus in a specific historical context. To avoid any further confusion, this was in response to YOUR statement that even IF the author of Hebrews wrote of a human Jesus he did not write of any sort of historical Jesus. You have yet to respond to them.

So here I am still waiting for you to respond to a tangent YOU started.

Amaleq13

Actually, I suggested that your changing "His Son" to "Jesus" gave the appearance of an attempt to slip the Gospel Jesus into Hebrews. You denied this and I have accepted your denial. I offered the background of my previous experiences to explain why I apparently misunderstood your use of "Jesus". I've accepted your denial and apologized for the confusion. Quit wasting time on this dead tangent.

I'm pretty sure I addressed all your points in the post at the top of this page (2). The "human Jesus" I am assuming you have established seems to exist in Hebrews only to be sacrificed (very similar to Paul's Christ). As I already explained in the post above, none of your arguments from Hebrews seems to refer to the "human Jesus" except the reference to crucifixion which cannot be placed any more specifically in history than "some time when folks were getting crucified". The Son through whom the world was created is hardly a reference to the "human Jesus" and, thus, cannot be understood as just like the prophets of old. The other passage you offered is a reference to knowledge of the great salvation "spoken through the Lord" which, as I also already explained, seems to describe information divinely revealed by the Sacrificed/Raised Christ (a.k.a. "Lord") rather than teachings from a human Jesus.

Layman

If anyone has any serious criticism, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.