GakuseiDon

In light of that, what do you make of Doherty's reading that Hebrews suggests that the Jesus being referred to was never on earth?

sotto voce

Both about as zany as each other.

The ideas, that is.

James The Least

Hard to believe that Hebrews could have been written pre-70. Everyone acknowledges that it has the most polished Greek and most sophisticated argumentation in the entire NT, which, combined with the high Christology, points to a very late date. 130?

Referring to the temple sacrifices in the present tense doesn't mean anything. The writer is Greek; neither he nor his audience has any idea what if anything is currently going on in Jerusalem. All of his knowledge is taken from the Septuagint and fellow Christians.

sotto voce

High Christology, low Christology, no Christology. Take your pick, folks!

andrewcriddle

Hebrews was known to Clement of Rome. On the traditional dating of Clement this requires a date for Hebrews well before 100 CE.

Andrew Criddle

EarlDoherty

Your ignorance is breathtaking. You’ve been mouthing off at me and mythicism for I don’t know how long, and you still don’t know the first thing about it. You haven’t even read the postings I’ve made on this thread. I said that the son speaks not on earth, or on Mars, but in scripture. All you have to do is read Hebrews itself and you would know that.

It’s also clear that you’re another who pontificates on the texts when you don’t know a word of Greek. The Greek of Hebrews 2:14 does not say “he too shared in their humanity.” Regardless of how many translations are done with Gospel-colored glasses (with people like you lapping it up in your ignorance), the Greek says “he too shared in the same things” referring to the “blood and flesh” which was done in like manner (paraplesios). This does not mean ‘identical to’ but ‘similar to’: yet another of the many references in the epistles which say that Jesus took on the “likeness” of men, meaning he did not become an actual man.

And I don’t know how many times I have parsed Heb. 2:17-18 for people like you,

'For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.' Heb 2:17-18 NIV.

The NIV’s “made like” is another Gospel-influenced translation. Instead, it is a verb meaning “become similar to” which is another “likeness” statement, another statement that he did not become a man. And why did he become similar? Look at the rest of the sentence. Nothing to do with being a man on earth, but to fill his role in suffering death and making the sacrifice of his blood in the heavenly sanctuary. For that, all he needed was spiritual flesh and blood. And the only temptation he is subject to is to refuse to obey God and fulfill that role.

I’m not offering this response for your sake (you are beyond being able to absorb anything) but for others who might be able to open their minds to what Hebrews as a whole is saying.

Earl Doherty

sotto voce

I know. You're not the first to say so. I had these quaint teachers, you see. They had this strange notion of reading books from the beginning, not part way through. Quaint; or maybe cunning.

You say that, Hebrews says something quite else.

It can't be identical to, can it. Not even God can be two persons at the same time.

(No matter what the certifiable loons of the RCC may say. )

Aaah. So people merely thought that the deceitful Jesus was a man. But you know better.

I'm not surprised.

Don't forget the bolding.

Absurdity again.

Not so. The sacrifice in the 'heavenly sanctuary' (the author is here borrowing OT imagery to express timeless order of the supernal) is possible only because the offering was perfect.

Remember what I said about chocolate cake. Before there was to be any creation at all, the creator knew that he would have to take the blame for the sins of all, if he was to carry out his intention. If sinners were to know that the sacrifice made on their behalf was perfect, they had to see and hear his own perfection for themselves. Why on earth would they believe if they were merely told that God had forgiven them? But the whole world did believe, and arguably still does, precisely because there were witnesses, and all believed those gospels! So it's absurd to present this hypothesis here in BC&H, of all places.

That creator's perfection had to be proved under the same circumstances that other humans lived and live under due to his 'perfectly imperfect' creation. So the chocolate cake had to be there, all day, every day, for him, as for all other humanity. That is why the present author quoted Psalm 45:

'"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the sceptre of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness."' Heb 1:8-9 NIV

PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseDon,

Good question. I tend to think that Doherty is quite right when he recognizes that Hebrews is not talking about a Messiah who was recently on Earth, at least not in its original form. I have to think carefully about the concept of Joshua never being on Earth. it might be possible that the writer did not take the history of Abraham, Moses and Joshua as history, but as allegorical tales occurring in a Platonic-like heaven.

I'll have to reread the text. I read "The Jesus Puzzle" a number of years ago and I am now reading "Neither God Nor Man," so I'll have to get back to this question after I'm finished.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi sotto voce,

I like the word "zany." I've been watching the early 1950's television show "Abbott and Costello." That is something I would describe as zany. Yet, in some ways, it reflects a certain world of that time period with incredible realism. The show mixes incredible vaudeville routines, re-imagined scenes from Abbott and Costello movies, with the imagined life of two out-of-work, impoverished vaudeville performers who live in a poor rooming house.
There is brilliant slapstick, improvisation and incredible allegories about life.

For example at the beginning of "The Paper Hangers" (Season 2, episode 1), Abbott and Costello are standing in the street looking unusually haggard. Abbott tells Costello that things have never been so bad. They don't have any money at all. It looks as if they will starve, if they don't find a job quickly. Suddenly another man comes up to them, and asks for a dime. He says that he really needs it. Costello looks at the man and his heart melts. He reaches into his pocket and takes out a dime. He's says that it is his last dime and that he has been saving it for an emergency. He didn't even tell Abbott about it. He gives the dime to the man. The man thanks him for the dime, turns around and deposits it in a parking meter. The camera pulls back to reveal a huge expensive car parked by the meter. The man thanks Costello for the dime saying, "Thanks, now I know I won't get a parking ticket." He walks on.

The gag makes the point eloquently that the rich only think about themselves, and are willing to take the last dime from the poor, while the poor are willing to give their last dime to help a person in trouble.

If we see the early Christian literature as being zany in this way, I think we are taking a giant step in the right direction of understanding it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

sotto voce

You recognise its suitable contextual apposition, I suppose.

In Israel, there were legal safeguards against poverty. So anything you say is likely to be irrelevant if not misrepresentative.

Or do you mean credible allegories?

That's zany? It's credible, human nature, anyway. Maybe it's the same thing, of course. Maybe it's Hebrews and the Bible that are a dose of common sense.

Then the Bible is like all the rest of books? Exactly which period of history shows humanity as sane, intelligent, mature and sapiens?

Hebrews is like what? What book outside the Bible tells humanity that the rich who think only of themselves are due to pay for their selfishness, while those who gratefully accept atonement will have happiness?