Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 07-06-2011, 12:07 PM

Hi Kapyong,

The phrase in question here seems garbled:

God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law,

Born of woman, just means "man" and born under the law means "Jewish." We are now getting the concept that God sent his Jewish son to redeem Jews.

Everything gets cleared up when we reverse the key phrases "born of a woman, born under the law" and "to redeem those under the law":

Quote:

"God sent his son born of a woman born under the law to redeem those under the law."
"God sent his son to redeem those under the law,
born of a woman born under the law."

The statement is now perfectly clear and makes sense. Paul is now saying that God sent his son to redeem Jews born of a Jewish mother. A Jew is traditionally defined as someone born of a Jewish mother, as it is the matrilineal line that counts. In other words, according to Paul here, God sent his son just to save those strictly defined as Jews by Jewish law. Sorry, you gentiles are out of luck.

I suggest that Paul sees the "Son of God" as the "Word of God." The Word of God is the Torah. Thus the writer is saying that he sent the word of God (the Torah) to save legally born Jews. The distinction that he is trying to draw is between legally-born Jews (with Jewish mothers) and those who convert to Judaism or have just Jewish fathers. God did not send his word/son to save those people.

The copyest doesn't really appreciate Paul's strict orthodox Jewish concept, so he changes the phrases around to imply a connection between God's son and the New Testament's Mary.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

And the solution proposed by Earl Doherty et al. is that the early Christian authors did not believe in a historical Jesus, and there is a separate realm of heaven where inhabitants are born of women and are in the flesh, the gospel authors wrote as though the story happened on Earth, and there was a very big misunderstanding of the orthodoxy.

I keep asking - WHO is the woman according to Paul?
Will you ever answer that ?

Here is the passage with allegorical passages in green :

1 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

12 I plead with you, brothers and sisters, become like me, for I became like you. You did me no wrong. 13 As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you, 14 and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. 15 Where, then, is your blessing of me now? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?

17 Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may have zeal for them. 18 It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always, not just when I am with you. 19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, 20 how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!

21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

So Abe,
what woman does Paul actually mention here ?

K.

andrewcriddle · 07-06-2011, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

.................................................. ........................................

Where in Jiri’s complacent interpretation of 8:4 is the idea that a Christ on earth could not have performed his duty as a high priest, because there were already high priests on earth performing the equivalent/parallel duty of offering a blood sacrifice? He has ignored the very words of the verse because he wishes to dismiss the possibility that a proper interpretation of 8:4 would tell us that Jesus had not been on earth, past or present. Since 8:4’s “if…” makes this a contrafactual statement, then it states, if the NEB translation is correct, that Jesus had not been on earth. This is why virtually every other translation attempts to avoid that problem by rendering the verb in the present: if he were (NOW) on earth. But an essential aspect of my 8-page discussion is a clear demonstration that a present sense is impossible within the context. The NEB translation is correct (we can be sure that the translators simply closed their minds to its implications). Jiri then says:

Quote:

It is clear from the contexts that the sacrifice took place on earth.

But if it did, then Jesus’ role as High Priest (the chief essence of which was the performance of his sacrifice) would have been performed on earth. This, then, would be incompatible with the statement of 8:4, which is a statement that had he been on earth, he would not have been able to fill his role as High Priest—i.e., the performance of his sacrifice—because there already were high priests operating there, and the two could not take place in the same dimension. (This restriction doesn’t have to make all that much sense to us—though it does within the writer’s Platonic principles—but that is the stated view of the writer and his picture of the complementary sacrifices taking place, one on earth, the other in heaven. Don’t blame me for reading what the writer wrote, rather than reading into the text what orthodox Christianity based on the Gospels has been desperate to find there.)

And are we to ignore a respected and competent Greek scholar’s own admission about 8:4? Paul Ellingworth, in his Commentary on Hebrews (p.405), says that this verse “…could be misunderstood as meaning that Jesus had never ‘been on earth’.” He also admits that the verb is “temporally ambiguous” so that the sense of the NEB’s past tense “is grammatically possible.”

Once again, scholarly preconception determines interpretation, not the text itself.

Earl Doherty

The priestly role is the offering of the sacrifice which Jesus does in Heaven where he is a priest. The death itself need not be performed by a priest and can be accomplished on Earth by Jesus without requiring Jesus to be a priest while on Earth.

Andrew Criddle

blkgayatheist · 07-07-2011, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The priestly role is the offering of the sacrifice which Jesus does in Heaven where he is a priest. The death itself need not be performed by a priest and can be accomplished on Earth by Jesus without requiring Jesus to be a priest while on Earth.

Andrew Criddle

That seems A BIT strained. Also begs the question why Jesus would need to perform the sacrifice in Heaven if it were already done on earth. Also begs the question why Jesus' sacrifice on earth isn't mentioned.

EarlDoherty · 07-07-2011, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

The priestly role is the offering of the sacrifice which Jesus does in Heaven where he is a priest. The death itself need not be performed by a priest and can be accomplished on Earth by Jesus without requiring Jesus to be a priest while on Earth.

Sorry, Andrew, but that doesn't work in the context of what 8:4 says.

If Jesus is only a High Priest in heaven, because by definition that's where his sacrifice--narrowly defined as the smearing of his blood (shed elsewhere) on the altar of the heavenly sanctuary--took place, then 8:4's statement is pointless. It says the reason why Jesus couldn't have acted as priest if he had been on earth, is because there were Temple priests already there performing such sacrifices. This idea implies that Jesus could have been a priest on earth if it weren't for the fact that this would have conflicted with the earthly priests. So the writer is not subscribing to your 'out'. Otherwise, he could simply have said, "If Jesus had been (or were) on earth, he couldn't have been a priest because he is, by definition, only a priest in his act in heaven." The presence of human priests on earth at the same time would have been an utterly irrelevant reason.

Besides, why wouldn't the death be included as part of the sacrifice? After all, the Temple priests slaughter the animals whose blood they take into the Holy of Holies to smear on the altar. A perfect parallel to that would have been the death which Jesus underwent, so that this could have been part of his role as High Priest. But if this took place on Calvary, it would contradict 8:4's statement that he could not be a priest on earth if he had been there.

Now, the same principle might be said to operate in heaven. Why is Jesus not a High Priest in the matter of undergoing death in the firmament at the hands of the demons? Well, we don't know if he is or not. The writer has virtually ignored the death itself in his soteriological picture, though if pressed he might have admitted it as one dimension to his "sacrifice". But at least in the heavenly-death setting, he would not be contradicting his statement of 8:4, which he does if one assumes a death on earth.

Earl Doherty

andrewcriddle · 07-07-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blkgayatheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The priestly role is the offering of the sacrifice which Jesus does in Heaven where he is a priest. The death itself need not be performed by a priest and can be accomplished on Earth by Jesus without requiring Jesus to be a priest while on Earth.

Andrew Criddle

That seems A BIT strained. Also begs the question why Jesus would need to perform the sacrifice in Heaven if it were already done on earth. Also begs the question why Jesus' sacrifice on earth isn't mentioned.

Earl Doherty will correct me if I am wrong, but IIUC he would agree that the death of Christ outside the camp (Hebrews 13:13) the enduring of the cross (Hebrews 12:2) the suffering in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7) occur in some place very different from the heavenly temple Jesus has now entered (Hebrews 9:24).

Jesus must die in the sphere of mortality and offer his death in heaven to make atonement. The difference between my position and that of Earl Doherty is that I regard the region of mortality as being this earth whereas Earl Doherty regards it as the region between the earth and the moon.

Andrew Criddle

EarlDoherty · 07-07-2011, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

Jesus must die in the sphere of mortality and offer his death in heaven to make atonement. The difference between my position and that of Earl Doherty is that I regard the region of mortality as being this earth whereas Earl Doherty regards it as the region between the earth and the moon.

Quite right. But your position still hasn't grappled with the fact that 8:4 tells us that Jesus had never been on earth.

Earl Doherty

andrewcriddle · 07-07-2011, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

The priestly role is the offering of the sacrifice which Jesus does in Heaven where he is a priest. The death itself need not be performed by a priest and can be accomplished on Earth by Jesus without requiring Jesus to be a priest while on Earth.

Sorry, Andrew, but that doesn't work in the context of what 8:4 says.

If Jesus is only a High Priest in heaven, because by definition that's where his sacrifice--narrowly defined as the smearing of his blood (shed elsewhere) on the altar of the heavenly sanctuary--took place, then 8:4's statement is pointless. It says the reason why Jesus couldn't have acted as priest if he had been on earth, is because there were Temple priests already there performing such sacrifices. This idea implies that Jesus could have been a priest on earth if it weren't for the fact that this would have conflicted with the earthly priests. So the writer is not subscribing to your 'out'. Otherwise, he could simply have said, "If Jesus had been (or were) on earth, he couldn't have been a priest because he is, by definition, only a priest in his act in heaven." The presence of human priests on earth at the same time would have been an utterly irrelevant reason.

According to Hebrews Jesus is not a descendant of Aaron. God has appointed the sons of Aaron as the only legitimate priests on earth. Hence the presence of Aaronic priests prevents Jesus as a non-Aaronid from doing on earth things that only priests can do.

However, God's restriction of priests to sons of Aaron is a later development. In the time of the Patriarchs the Patriarchs were their own priests. If the Aaronic priesthood had not been instituted, then Christ could have acted as a priest on earth as was true of the Patriarchs before Aaron.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Besides, why wouldn't the death be included as part of the sacrifice? After all, the Temple priests slaughter the animals whose blood they take into the Holy of Holies to smear on the altar. A perfect parallel to that would have been the death which Jesus underwent, so that this could have been part of his role as High Priest. But if this took place on Calvary, it would contradict 8:4's statement that he could not be a priest on earth if he had been there.

Now, the same principle might be said to operate in heaven. Why is Jesus not a High Priest in the matter of undergoing death in the firmament at the hands of the demons? Well, we don't know if he is or not. The writer has virtually ignored the death itself in his soteriological picture, though if pressed he might have admitted it as one dimension to his "sacrifice". But at least in the heavenly-death setting, he would not be contradicting his statement of 8:4, which he does if one assumes a death on earth.

Earl Doherty

I agree that the death and the offering of the death are part of one act. However the Mishnah (tractate Zebahim chapters 2 and 3) distinguishes between who can validly do different bits.

Only someone entitled to act as priest can offer the blood but any adult Israelite can perform the slaughter. Hence Jesus is competent to perform the sacrificial death here on earth but must complete the atonement by offering the sacrifice in Heaven where he is entitled to do things reserved to a priest.

Andrew Criddle

EarlDoherty · 07-07-2011, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

According to Hebrews Jesus is not a descendant of Aaron. God has appointed the sons of Aaron as the only legitimate priests on earth. Hence the presence of Aaronic priests prevents Jesus as a non-Aaronid from doing on earth things that only priests can do.

Hebrews does not say this, and certainly not in 8:4 and its context. The issue is not to what tribe he belongs and whether this qualifies or disqualifies him from performing priestly duties on earth. Nor is it because all priestly duties are by Law restricted to the descendants of Aaron. Nothing like that is ever argued.

What is stated, if you read chapter 7, is that there has been a change of priesthood. The old system, the old “law” based on animal sacrifices, has been superseded by a new one, a new covenant based on the sacrifice of himself by the new High Priest Jesus. This new priesthood must be a different one from that in charge of the old, not because only Aaronids were permitted to perform the old sacrifices, but because the whole Aaronid priesthood and old covenant had failed (7:11, 8:7-13). The new covenant had to be directed by a new priest of a new tribe, in order to start a whole new slate. The writer would have had no interest in saying (and he doesn’t) that Jesus could not be a priest on earth because he wasn’t a member of the tribe of Aaron. The writer wanted his new Priest to have nothing to do with the priestly tribe of Aaron. It and the law and the old covenant it had directed had been discredited.

And what has been the impetus to envision a new, superior High Priest that could supplant the old? What else but scripture? In 7:11, the author says:

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for it is on this basis that the people were given the Law), what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising, in the succession of Melchizedek, instead of the succession of Aaron?

Who or what did this ‘speaking’? Nothing else but scripture, and the author proceeds to quote it. Psalm 110:4: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his purpose: ‘You are a priest forever in the succession of Melchizedek’.” Scripture has given him a new and eternal Priest whose priesthood is traced back to Melchizedek, who is associated with the tribe of Judah, thus also giving him a new, non-Aaronic priesthood. No connection of the latter to David is ever presented. When in 7:14 he says: “For it is very evident that our Lord is sprung from Judah,” he makes no appeal to Jesus being a descendent of David, but only to his scriptural link with Melchizedek. By “it is evident” is meant through the words of scripture.

Incidentally, the new High Priest owes his priesthood “to the power of a life that cannot be destroyed.” Does this refer to the historical death and resurrection? No, it refers to that one passage in Psalm 110, the statement that “thou art a priest forever.”

8:4 does not say that Jesus could not have been a priest on earth because he wasn’t Aaronid, or because there are already legitimate Aaronid priests there performing sacrifices. For him, Aaronid priests were no longer legitimate, they were passing away along with their whole Temple cult. The new Priest followed new rules, so it was immaterial to his role that he did not belong to Aaron, and no impediment or lament would be envisioned on that score. No, the statement in 8:4 is one about venue. Regardless of tribe, Jesus performed his sacrifice in heaven, while the Temple high priests perform theirs on earth. This represents the division of territory, the one operating in heaven, the other on earth, and is a reflection of the Platonic philosophy of the writer, which his whole soteriological scenario and changeover from old to new is dependent on. I spend a very long chapter on it. This division between heaven and earth is constantly focused on all through this middle section of Hebrews in comparing the respective sacrifices and venues of the old high priests versus the new High Priest. 8:4 is a part of it, even if a rather trivial part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

Hence Jesus is competent to perform the sacrificial death here on earth but must complete the atonement by offering the sacrifice in Heaven where he is entitled to do things reserved to a priest.

But that dimension of it is never presented as having taken place on earth. If it had, it would contravene, or at least confuse or interfere with, the Platonic principles the writer is operating under. Your language shows that it is inevitable that the death on earth would be thought of as part of the sacrifice, and that is where the division between the High Priest acting in heaven and the Temple high priests acting on earth would be fatally waylaid. The writer would absolutely have to address it to salvage his presentation, and he does not.

In any event, Andrew, none of this addresses or deals with the case I have made that 8:4 states that Jesus was never on earth.

Earl Doherty

andrewcriddle · 07-09-2011, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

In any event, Andrew, none of this addresses or deals with the case I have made that 8:4 states that Jesus was never on earth.

Earl Doherty

Hi Earl

It sems generally agreed that as a pure point of Greek. without respect to context or the writer's general thought, Hebrews 8:4 could mean if he had ever been on earth or if he were currently on earth (along with other possibilities).

It seems clear that the point the writer is making is that Jesus could not at one and the same time both be on earth and do things that only a priest could do. I don't think the argument can be that even a brief sojourn on earth would automatically and permanently disqualify Jesus for priestly activities. Why should it ?

If I'm right I don't think the argument implies that the author regarded Jesus' death as occurring somewhere other than on earth. As I argued before, the part of Jesus' atoning death that only a priest can perform is the offering of the sacrifice before God. The death itself can be carried out by someone not currently competent to act as priest.

Andrew Criddle

Kapyong · 07-09-2011, 01:48 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I would presume that Paul had Jesus's mother Mary

Ah, so you just assume Paul supports your pre-conception, regardless of what the text says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

in mind when he wrote that, based on the contemporary accounts of the gospels (using a definition of "contemporary" as it is typically used in all ancient historical scholarship).

Pardon?
The Gospels were LATER than Paul - didn't you know that? Seriously?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

However, I believe in fitting the conclusion to the evidence, not fitting the evidence to the conclusion.

You just did the EXACT opposite - you ASSUMED Paul agreed with your conclusion.

K.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.