Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 09-27-2012, 08:15 AM

I am agreeing that earthly stuff matters, but that what the dream, the vision does is inspire us to reach for the stars. And interestingly the xian dream has huge practical ramifications, in its rituals, its art and architecture, and its social vision. And the energy to do this makes more sense coming from dreams and spiritual ideas and theoretical concepts than a person, because it is so unbalanced towards the unreal.

But the dream of the saving christ does not require a grain in the oyster - a theoretical problem - how do we get out of the cave into the sun - is more than enough!

On sacrifice, don't forget Abraham and Isaac!

sotto voce · 09-27-2012, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

The rituals make it real. The Eucharist - transubstantiation is precisely about Jesus becoming real!

Funny how people who actually make bread into Jesus go out and bugger boys, then.

maryhelena · 09-27-2012, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Ted, it's a very big jump from animal sacrifices to a human sacrifice i.e. JC on the cross. A very big step. Is not the theology supposed to be around the idea that it's the human sacrifice that has the ultimate value?

I don't see it as a big step. The concept of sacrificing valuable animal life for the sins of the people had existed for hundreds of years. If things aren't working so well, you step it up a notch and sacrifice something of even more value--human life. But, why do this if you can see it as already having occurred via scriptural revelation? :

Ted, your going with interpretation - and that can amount to just another vision type thing. It's reality that has the potential to kick start new understanding. That is what one must work from. We have to connect the interpretation, the spiritual, with some reality. Without that - all one has to offer is a ticket for a lucky draw - a lottery of the visions/interpretations.

Quote:

I think Isaiah 53 makes the step a lot smaller. It is a Messianic passage and I think was seen so even if it was originally interpreted to be discussing the suffering of Israel for their own sins. Over time this passage came to be seen as Messianic--and as applying to an actual human being. Whether that change in interpretation came in response to an actual human being being killed or due only to the evolution of ideas over time we cannot say.

Clivedurdle · 09-27-2012, 08:23 AM

Is this a form of theoretical bicycling?

If you propose something impossible - conquering death, lions laying down with lambs, etc, one is immediately unbalanced. As one learns to cycle, one is early on very unbalanced, but finds one can balance by keeping moving forward.

Xians move forward through their rituals, their development of arts and welfare services.

sotto voce · 09-27-2012, 08:31 AM

'Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.' Heb 7:27 NIV

Which happened on this earth. According to the author of Hebrews:

'In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.' Heb 1:2 NIV

So completely unable were Jews and pagan Romans to show that Jesus had not sacrificed himself, they were forced into admitting it; though changing the theology to a travesty of the biblical one. So, pagan priests to this day lift up bits of bread and say that they are God, and that somehow he is sacrificing himself again, for the billionth time. And if you don't run along to the pagan priest, you'll never get your sins forgiven, you'll never get to heaven. So there.

Why are these absurd men not hanged? Or at least deported. They are solid evidence that Jesus died on this earth.

maryhelena · 09-27-2012, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I am agreeing that earthly stuff matters, but that what the dream, the vision does is inspire us to reach for the stars. And interestingly the xian dream has huge practical ramifications, in its rituals, its art and architecture, and its social vision. And the energy to do this makes more sense coming from dreams and spiritual ideas and theoretical concepts than a person.

But the dream of the saving christ does not require a grain in the oyster - a theoretical problem - how do we get out of the cave into the sun - is more than enough!

On sacrifice, don't forget Abraham and Isaac!

Sure, we need visions, dreams....but those must be day dreams - dreams with eyes open to reality....

Quote:

All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible.

T. E. Lawrence

Abraham was willing - but God stayed his hand. JC was willing, so the story goes, and God accepts the blood sacrifice. So.......either God has a change of heart - or that gospel sacrifice was not a human sacrifice at all. It was a symbol, a metaphor: a symbol of intellectual sacrifices. The old idea giving way to the new....That's step two. Step one - the scenario needs a physical 'sacrifice', crucifixion. Why? The Jerusalem above needs to mirror the Jerusalem below. The only difference being that one context produces value and the other produces a non-value.

maryhelena · 09-27-2012, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Is this a form of theoretical bicycling?

If you propose something impossible - conquering death, lions laying down with lambs, etc, one is immediately unbalanced. As one learns to cycle, one is early on very unbalanced, but finds one can balance by keeping moving forward.

Xians move forward through their rituals, their development of arts and welfare services.

Yes, of course, moving forward is what it's all about...those "those dark satanic mills" might be gone but life for many people is still a struggle. The need for some sort of social evolution is way overdue. Living where I do - the lot of most people is a humanitarian disgrace. Reaching for the moon might have been one glorious achievement - but for those living in squatter camps hardly something to celebrate...

EarlDoherty · 09-27-2012, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Earl is concentrating on the idea that verse 4 is talking about Jesus sacrificing himself on earth as fulfillment of his role as priest on earth. But as I said above, the OFFER of his sacrifice takes place in heaven. Priests OFFER the sacrifices. Jesus OFFERED his crucified body. Where? In heaven. Not on earth. The idea that Jesus was crucified on earth does not make the offer of his blood in heaven non-sensical. Earl seems to require that the sacrifice be made in heaven. This would make for a more perfect parallel but what Earl can't do is point to a single verse in Hebrews that says Jesus sacrificed his body, was crucified, in heaven. That's the missing piece Earl needs.

Perhaps there are three issues here:

1) The Jerusalem below.
2) The Jerusalem above.
3) A link between them.

A human sacrifice, a crucifixion, an execution, on earth, has no rational or moral value. It can only be interpreted as such from a philosophical or theological perspective i.e. within the Jerusalem above. Thus, your OP is upholding this premise. The crucifixion is earthly but it's value is perceived to be a spiritual, an intellectual or philosophical value. The sacrificial offering is made in the heavens...

If one rejects an earthly sacrifice, one is, in effect, breaking the link between matter and spirit, between body and mind. Yes, of course, our minds have their own 'mind' - we can think stuff up that has no connection to reality. But that is our second nature, as it were. Our fundamental nature is the link, the cooperation between these two elements of our human nature. And it's that fundamental, raw, linkage that allows for our minds to sometimes go a wandering...

So, with the JC sacrifice issue - first must come what you have outlined above. A physical earthly human sacrifice, crucifixion, execution. The perceived value, the theological/philosophical value, is offered in the heavens. It's value is understood intellectually, philosophically. Human sacrifice has no earthly value. Value only comes about within an intellectual, spiritual, context.

That's step one as it were....

Step two - which is where Earl seeks to go.......is that once step one has been made then we can let our minds go a wandering....The Jerusalem above can be a parallel to the Jerusalem below. Intellectual sacrifices of outdated mental images can be 'crucified' - that's the story of intellectual evolution. The problem for Earl, his "missing piece", is that one can't get to step two before we take step one...

(and no, as I'm sure anyone reading my posts knows only two well.....JC is not historical - so there is no historical crucifixion of that gospel figure. But there was a historical figure executed by Rome - the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c.)

This is your own philosophical gibberish, maryhelena. You have no other reason for your 'breaking the link between spirit and matter' claim. It does not conform to the principle of paradigmatic parallelism between heaven and earth.

Earl Doherty

TedM · 09-27-2012, 10:44 AM

Earl, I'll address your reply in segments. The first has to do with the grammar. I don't know Greek, and I always use the NASB translation for reasons I no longer can recall

, from a review I did several years ago that led me to conclude they were fairly accurate relative to others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

You’ve ignored the fact that a competent Greek scholar (considering that you don’t think I’m one) has declared the tense of the key parts of verse 4 ambiguous.

I didn't ignore it but I didn't address it because it seemed unnecessary because if the tense was 100% certain there would be no further discussion: The issue would be settled. I accept that the verse need not follow the general grammatical 'rule'.

Quote:

And I’ve clearly pointed out that the general grammatical rule in the use of the imperfect tense would place the thought in the present.

Yes, that's all I was pointing out. The general grammatical rule argues against your interpretation. Based on grammar alone, there is a greater than 50% chance that the proper interpretation is that it refers to a 'what if' situation of Jesus coming to earth in the present. That's the implication of having a 'general rule', even if the rule is not 'secure', as you put it.

Quote:

But this quote of yours of the opening verses of Hebrews imposes your own preferences:

It's the one my NASB uses. Are you claiming that for all of the verses OTHER THAN verse 4 the tense used was meant to be past tense? Do any of the other translations use the past tense in all the places I noted? If not, then even though one may claim that that 'is' actually meant 'was', the grammar supports me for the entire context. It is what it is.

Here is the passage, and your comments about the intended tenses.:

Quote:

8:1Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.” 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl

You fail to distinguish that the first “is” of verse 3 is speaking of the general role of high priests in Jewish history, and thus is in the present tense because it is referring to the general history of the Temple sacrifices up to and including the present, and so an “is” is natural there.

It is possible. It is natural. However, if he was speaking in verse 4 in the past, it may have been more natural to use 'was' in verse 3, since there would be no need to include the present. Like this:

Quote:

3 For every high priest was appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it was necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He had been on earth, He would not have been a priest at all,

There is no need for verse 3 to use 'is' if it were talking about the past. Not knowing the Greek, I cannot say, but didn't they have a word to use for past tense events? Couldn't the author have used the equivalent of 'was'? If so, why didn't he use that?

I note, that you said:

Quote:

because it is referring to the general history of the Temple sacrifices up to and including the present

IF verse 4 was not talking about the present--but was talking about the scenario of Jesus having made his sacrifice on earth in the past, then there would have been no need for the writer to include the present in verse 3! The present would have been not only irrelevant, it would have been distracting to his point. Yet, you just claimed that he did. This actually would seem to provide further evidence on a grammatical basis for a present tense in verse 4.

Quote:

The second “is”, if you had looked at the Greek text or even at my discussion of the point, is also ambiguous because there is no verb there. As I pointed out that the NEB points out, it could have either an “is” or a “was” understanding.

The succeeding “have something” is not a present tense but an infinitive, whose understanding and placement in time is determined by whatever is understood by “it…necessary”, past or present.

Agree. Both of those could be referring to past or present, grammatically. I would submit that since the author was clearly speaking in the present in verses 1-2, if he intended to switch to the past for verses 4 it would seem likely that he would have used words to make that clear in those verses. The fact that he didn't word 3-4 that way suggested that he intended to carry forward with the same tense--ie the present tense.

Quote:

At the same time, you ignore my argument that simply speaking in verse 3 of “sacrifices” and “something to offer” points to the subject of the sacrifices, whether of animals or of Jesus’ own blood, and since the latter’s sacrifice—once for all, as the writer continually stresses—took place in the past and could not be repeated in the present, any comparison in regard to respective sacrifices has to relate to the past. The thought of Jesus making another sacrifice in the present would be inapplicable, ludicrous and a non-sequitur. Thus the “it…necessary” can only make sense as: “it was necessary.” You have missed that point of my argument completely.

If the writer was referring to Jesus' past sacrifice in verse 3, he doesn't say so. That would have been a good place to say: "3 For every high priest was appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it was necessary that this high priest also offer a sacrifice--himself". But he doesn't do that. All he says is "so it is/was necessary that this high priest also have something to offer". I agree that he isn't referring to present ongoing sacrifices of himself, of his own blood. That wouldn't make sense. But he doesn't mention a sacrifice at this point at all Earl. Why would the author not mention Jesus' past sacrifice at this point if that is what he had in mind?

Instead he refers to the vague 'has something to offer'. Why? What is he referring to? He doesn't say in that verse. But, he mentions his position as high priest. One could see that as high priest it would make some sense for him to have 'something to offer' on an on going basis.

Verse 2 refers to the present Jesus as "a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle". Verse 6 repeat this and mentions an ongoing role as minister/high priest:

Quote:

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant

In the prior chapter this was also stated:

Quote:

7:24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

These two verses are significant. They spell out what his ongoing role as high priest is.

SO, is being a 'mediator', or his 'making intercession' what he means when he says that Jesus 'has something to offer'? Why not? In his new role as high priest He is offering his services as mediator for the salvation of others.

With regard to this, you wrote:

Quote:

I demonstrated that in the key verses 3 and 4, and a couple in the preceding part of chapter 7, the writer is clearly addressing the sacrifice, not the intercession. And it is in regard to the sacrifice that the thought of verse 4 is being applied.

Then why did he use the phrase 'has something to offer' instead of 'had sacrificed himself"? I don't think Jesus' past sacrifice was the 'thought of verse 4 at all, especially given the context of 1-6.

While it is true that elsewhere the author refers to Jesus' offer of himself as the sacrifice, we must not conclude that once that is done Jesus has nothing to offer as the new high priest. He HAS to--that's his role! The author uses the word 'offer' somewhat liberally in a couple other places:

Quote:

5:13 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications

13:5 Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God

Both of these quotes use the word 'offer' in the context of prayers to God. The second one even refers to those prayers as 'sacrifice'. Given this, why shouldn't we conclude that the author would not consider his continual intercession on behalf of those who trust him also to be his 'something to offer' up to God?

Regarding the above you say:

Quote:

The writer does not have to use a past tense in regard to the latter even if he is speaking of a Jesus in the past. A past tense would have made it sound like the high priests no longer offer sacrifices.

I don't think it would have sounded that way because the readers would have known that he was talking about the priests that existed at the time of Jesus' sacrifice. This sounds fine to me:

Quote:

3 For every high priest was appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it was necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 If He had been on earth, He would not have been a priest at all, since they offered the gifts according to the Law

Quote:

Sorry, but verse 6 does not say “Because he has obtained…” as though to explain why he can’t be a priest on earth. Verse 6 actually begins a new thought, and there is no visible connection between it and verse 4, and certainly not as an explanation for verse 4.

Verse 6 begins "But, now". That isn't a new thought. That is a connection with the old thought--the prior covenant still in practice by priests presently on earth mentioned in verse 5. I don't know how you can see no visible connection between it and verse 4 when you admit that verse 4 includes priests who were still presently giving gifts and sacrifices under the old Law. How can you not see the obvious comparison/connection and call it a "new thought with "no visible connection" in verse 6?:

Quote:

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl

Besides, verse 4 already contains the explanation for why Jesus could not have been a priest on earth. Not because of superiority or a more excellent ministry, but because there were already priests operating on earth. That’s as clear as a bell. It is stated clearly.

It doesn't say that the reason Jesus could not have been a priest was "because there were already are priests operating on earth." That's no explanation. Why couldn't he too have been a priest just like them? The answer has to do in part with the TYPE of priest:

Quote:

since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;

Present tense. And, since he offers 'something' in heaven as the heavenly copy, if he were here on earth he wouldn't be offering earthly sacrifices and gifts. It wasn't because there were already priests here operating on earth doing his job--it was because the priests here weren't doing his job!

Quote:

And as I say, if Jesus could not be a priest on earth in the present because there are already priests operating on earth, why did that exclusivity of territory situation not operate in the past when he WAS presumably on earth?

I reject the requirement that the priests be in exclusive locations at the same time. A perfect parallel requires that Jesus lived and died in the heavens, but was also fully human. But, that has its problems, for what human lives and dies and is crucified by sinners in heaven? A heavenly man who is perfect on earth, and sacrifices himself here on earth but doesn't complete the offering until he is in heaven seems to work pretty well too. It may be that Jesus wasn't an 'active' high priest until he made his first offering--in heaven. IF that is the right interpretation there is no conflict with your Platonic approach with coexisting on earth with other priests since he had not yet taken on his high priestly duties--which would take place in heaven. In any case I don't think it is necessary to require a perfect parallel on every single level. Again if you require that you must require that the sacrifice be made in heaven too. That missing piece would really help your case.

I note too that you skipped over the fact that the first verse in chapter 8 is clearly talking about the situation AFTER the sacrifice had been made:

Quote:

we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and n the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.

The section started out with the present. You are suggesting that the author went from the present in verses 1 and 2, to back to the past in verses 3 and 4, and then back to the present in verses 5 and 6. That's possible, but does it really make sense for him to do that when there is no problem whatsoever with interpreting both verses 3 and 4 as referring to the present? To do so would make a much more coherent passage throughout verses 1-6.

To summarize, your grammatical interpretation for verse 4 falls under the category of 'exception', it doesn't explain the failure to use a past tense when describing the priest's role in verse 3 if he were intending to compare their role at the time Jesus's sacrifice was made, it interrupts the obvious present tense as applied to Jesus' role in the verses just preceding and following 3-4, which if it were not to do so would make for a very coherent passage--all in the present tense.

I just don't see any justification on a grammatical basis given the context of the passage for concluding that the past tense was intended in verse 4.

I will review the rest of your post in a few days.

Ted

EarlDoherty · 09-27-2012, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Ted, it's a very big jump from animal sacrifices to a human sacrifice i.e. JC on the cross. A very big step. Is not the theology supposed to be around the idea that it's the human sacrifice that has the ultimate value?

Once one rejects a human element in all of this and goes for a purely spiritual sacrifice - then one is leaving reality behind and opting for pure speculation. One has to retain some reality or one ends up only offering another vision. A battle of the visions.....

Ideas are great - but they need to have some connection to reality if they are going to be of any benefit, of any value to living in the here and now.

It's not all spiritual, it's not all pie in the sky.

Again, you have nothing to back this up except your own personal feelings about the topic. Give me a single passage in the record which makes this kind of point. In fact, in the very place we might expect elucidation on this claim of yours, in the letters of Ignatius, it is not there. Ignatius argues for an earthly occurrence of the crucifixion ("he was really crucified by Pontius Pilate"--and this is NOT anti-docetism, which you would know by reading my work, supported by at least one other scholar). It is on the basis of it happening IN FLESH that Ignatius claims it has meaning. He makes no mention of its meaning in the spirit world in parallel with the earthly event. No one else anywhere even intimates your concept. Paul also would have had more than one opportunity to bring up that idea (your "don't break the link between matter and spirit"). It is nowhere to be found.

Please stop advocating your own peculiar outlook on early Christian thought when you have absolutely nothing to back it up from the texts.

Earl Doherty

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

09-27-2012, 08:15 AM	#21
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I am agreeing that earthly stuff matters, but that what the dream, the vision does is inspire us to reach for the stars. And interestingly the xian dream has huge practical ramifications, in its rituals, its art and architecture, and its social vision. And the energy to do this makes more sense coming from dreams and spiritual ideas and theoretical concepts than a person, because it is so unbalanced towards the unreal. But the dream of the saving christ does not require a grain in the oyster - a theoretical problem - how do we get out of the cave into the sun - is more than enough! On sacrifice, don't forget Abraham and Isaac!

09-27-2012, 08:23 AM	#24
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is this a form of theoretical bicycling? If you propose something impossible - conquering death, lions laying down with lambs, etc, one is immediately unbalanced. As one learns to cycle, one is early on very unbalanced, but finds one can balance by keeping moving forward. Xians move forward through their rituals, their development of arts and welfare services.

09-27-2012, 08:31 AM	#25
sotto voce Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: UK Posts: 3,057	'Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.' Heb 7:27 NIV Which happened on this earth. According to the author of Hebrews: 'In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.' Heb 1:2 NIV So completely unable were Jews and pagan Romans to show that Jesus had not sacrificed himself, they were forced into admitting it; though changing the theology to a travesty of the biblical one. So, pagan priests to this day lift up bits of bread and say that they are God, and that somehow he is sacrificing himself again, for the billionth time. And if you don't run along to the pagan priest, you'll never get your sins forgiven, you'll never get to heaven. So there. Why are these absurd men not hanged? Or at least deported. They are solid evidence that Jesus died on this earth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.