Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bingo the Clown-O · 01-29-2013, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

An over-arching logical fallacy being employed by historicists is that if a Chapter of "Gone with the Wind" or what have you is written with the literal context implying the characters are real that the characters must have indeed been real.

This is the kind of facile "logic" behind all this pretentiousness of deep scholarship. It's actually much worse than the example of Gone with the Wind because in that novel there are no utterly ridiculous, fantastical claims and characters.

On the face of it, Henrews is preposterous as a historical reference. The ostensible purpose is to place Jesus in the appropriate position relative to fictional angels, the fictional Moses, as a fictional "exact representation" of God - how stupid do we have to actually be? It is only the centuries of brutal police-state dictatorship over thought and historical/cultural inertia thereafter that grants phony legitimacy to its historicity.

It is clearly a liturgical device masquerading as a letter, following the example of every other pious fraud in the collection of epistles. One sentence in the entire piece provides a g-string of verisimilitude: "I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been released. If he arrives soon, I will come with him to see you." Otherwise what? I will come without him? Won't come at all? If you are coming then why are you writing a letter? Why is this theoretical piece of such wide application - so wide as to be exactly what it is used for ie every person on earth, yet is allegedly written to "Hebrews" who are scattered over an entire Kingdom and beyond... So the author is coming to visit where, exactly? Tim's house? In Hebrew land?

How gullible do you have to be in accepting this as an actual letter dating to the first century rather than the as-usual "Oh look what I found in the basement" Biblical standard?

Hebrews is a parade of fictional Hebrew Bible characters through Noah, Abraham, and etc. all of whom we are to emulate with our faith . It was through faith that the fictional Noah was saved from the fictional flood with a fictional Ark full of fictional animals and so we too must have faith in the exhortations of this fictional book of Hebrews, yet another chapter in an entire Bible that is from the first to the last page a work of fiction.

So we have the spectacle of allegedly intelligent people, parsing the precise Koine Greek interpretation of a single word in a book that is the equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard's bizzaro-world of Xenu, to do battle over historicity.

Earl's approach is fraught with the same kind of difficulty one has in trying to explain Scientology. It is fiction, so getting into the exact details of where Xenu landed with the space ship and planted the hydrogen bombs; how this translates logically into engrams interfering in our ability to be "clear" - this is a tar baby of circumlocution I would never take on. Blah blah blah. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Oh look, I used the word "pin". So Angels are real.

Excellent post! >

<

Just one question:

What are Henrews? :frown:

TedM · 01-29-2013, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Just as you can't prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit around Mars?

I'm going to answer this because it is a common argument that sometimes applies but in this case it seems to be missing the point.

The book is postulating what happens in the heavens. As such, of course no one is going to claim it is a historical reference for those parts. But why would anybody assume it negates ALL of it on a historical basis? I know people that believe in angels but are 100% reliable when it comes to their first-hand testimony. Don't you?

Not anyone that I would trust.

That's very telling Toto. I think that is indicative of the way many people on this forum think. It says that anyone who has faith in things unseen cannot be trusted to be a reliable witness for things they claim they experience firsthand. That applies to about 90% of the population. I don't believe that level of distrust in others is warranted, or healthy.

Quote:

Is there any positive basis for inferring that this author knew anything about a historical Jesus? What would that be?

Other than statements which suggest Jesus was part of history, and relatively recently? No.

This discussion isn't comparable to an argument about how many angels can dance on a pin. It is about whether one of the earliest documents to mention Jesus has a verse that suggests he never came to earth. Angels, Moses, Melchezidek and a requirement for a 'positive basis for inferring that this author knew anything about a historical Jesus' are all irrelevant with regard to determining the proper intent of the author re 8:4. IF he implies that Jesus never came to earth, that would be significant. It doesn't mean he was right, but it would be a very important piece of the puzzle.

Toto · 01-30-2013, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

... I think that is indicative of the way many people on this forum think. It says that anyone who has faith in things unseen cannot be trusted to be a reliable witness for things they claim they experience firsthand. That applies to about 90% of the population. I don't believe that level of distrust in others is warranted, or healthy.

You either have a grasp of reality, or you don't.

In fact, most people, including those who do not believe in angels, are not reliable witnesses for their first hand experiences. Read up on the problems of eyewitness testimony, and how easy it is to plant false memories.

DCHindley · 01-30-2013, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Now, please answer the second question. If the writer had wanted to say, that Jesus was not on earth now, but had been so in the past, what tense would he have written? This is not a trick or a trap. I really want to know what readers of this thread think.

Jake,

Kind of Action and Time of Action for Each Verb Tense

Tense Name	Kind of Action	Time Element (In Indicative Mood)
Present	Progressive (or 'Continuous')	present
Aorist	Simple (or ‘Summary’) Occurrence	past
Perfect	Completed, with Results	past, with present results
Imperfect	Progressive (or 'Continuous')	past
Future	Simple Occurrence	future
Past Perfect	Completed, with Results	past
Future Perfect	Completed, with Results	future

EarlDoherty · 01-30-2013, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I did not answer because the question doesn't make sense in this context. Such a statement could not have been made within the contrafactual structure of 8:4. The context is either he is not on earth now because of a now situation (which I reject on grounds beyond the grammatical), or he was not on earth then because of a past and ongoing situation. One could not get across the question you ask within that context. The statement would have to be entirely different, it would not involve a contrafactual, and thus the grammatical situations we have been arguing ad nauseum would not come into play.

The only "best interests" which are applicable here relate to the preservation of my sanity! Even Job was not subjected to the piling on, usually lacking in rational comprehension, that I have been. What this all shows me is not that there are legitimate rebuttals to my position, only that certain people are a priori determined that they are going to at all costs invent whatever they can come up with to disagree, to not give an inch. Ted's first interpretation of 8:4 (the "kind" of sacrifice) didn't work, so he went off and came up with an entirely different one, incompatible with the first one (not "according to the Law"), which equally didn't work. This is honest or reasonable debate? It's another form of apologetics, even if the motivations are different. Get Doherty, beat him down, no matter what the recourse. Even Stephan says he doesn't get on board with my interpretation, but does he offer an argumentative rebuttal to the case I've made?

Earl Doherty

Hi Earl,

OK. I can understand your frustration. You have staked out a position, and ended up defending it from all sides; apologists, historists, and non-Dohertian mythicists. Not everyone agrees to look through the narrow lens of your carefully crafted arguments, and the whole time aa is taking a sledge hammer to your assumptions.

The author of Heb 8:4 could quite easily have said that Jesus had never been on earth, but he chose not to. So you must parse everything the author wrote (with a precision that rlogan pointed out is not attainable) to relieve an otherwise unperceived ambiguity. You have 8 pages of angels pin head dancing filled with arguments from your own incredulity to prove something no one in antiquity ever knew. That can't seem fair to you. :huh:

Jake

No, Jake, what is frustrating and unfair is that you seem incapable of recognizing deductive logic. And you cannot even accept what established scholars and grammarians, never mind myself, have declared. That Hebrews 8:4 can, from the grammatical point of view itself, have a meaning located in the past. So your declaration that the writer "chose not to" is completely unfounded and reflects your own incredulity and adamant refusal. You refuse even to argue on established grammatical grounds, acknowledging that 8:4 can refer to a past situation. You are no better than aa. In every post you display a closed mind. That is what is unfair here. It makes impossible any debate with you.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 01-30-2013, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I don't understand rlogan's reasoning here. In what way is Hebrews not "historical"? It is not claiming to be presenting an historical figure in its Jesus the High Priest...

What??? A Son of a God is now a figure of history?? Earl you now appear to be totally confused.

The Jesus in Hebrews MUST be Myth if he was Only Celestial.

Hebrews 4:14 KJV

Quote:

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Earl, you have now forgotten what your 800 page book was about??

Do you remember it is entitled "Jesus Neither God Nor Man"--the case for the Mythical Jesus ???

This is really a disaster. Doherty has forgotten that the Celestial Jesus is a Myth.

No, aa, the disaster here is that you cannot read plain English. I said: "(Hebrews) is not claiming to be presenting an historical figure in its Jesus the High Priest." You read that as the exact opposite?

Unbelievable. Mindless. And Jake (who often praises aa for his perceptive posts and "rational perspective") thinks that I'm the one who has gone off the rails?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 01-30-2013, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Just as you can't prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit around Mars?

I'm going to answer this because it is a common argument that sometimes applies but in this case it seems to be missing the point.

The book is postulating what happens in the heavens. As such, of course no one is going to claim it is a historical reference for those parts. But why would anybody assume it negates ALL of it on a historical basis? I know people that believe in angels but are 100% reliable when it comes to their first-hand testimony. Don't you?

The book also talks about things that the author believes happened in the past, based on scripture. Once again, no one is relying on Hebrews to be accurate historically for those sections--he's simply repeating OT verses and pontificating about them.

The book also talks about Jesus. It applies OT verses to his actions in some places and in other places it describes actions without OT support given.

There is no logical basis for claiming that Jesus performed no actions, and that the writer knew nothing historical about Jesus which he relied upon in his writings about Jesus' actions. People believe all kinds of things but that doesn't mean they know nothing, nor that they don't report certain things with 100% historical accuracy. To claim otherwise is unfounded.

Do any of you really think that the OT beliefs and references by the author somehow renders any information he provides about Jesus -- a more recent figure -- to be completely without any basis? How do you know? How can anybody say whether this author knew these things were true, or just thought them to be true?

And do any of you really think Earl, Bernard, and I believe that if we can just figure out what the author meant in 8:4 that it provides definitive proof that Jesus did or didn't come to earth?

The problem is, Ted, the writer of Hebrews never gives us anything about his Jesus which he identifies as happening on earth. "Speaking through the Son" fails to offer a single saying of an earthly Jesus. Everything is from scripture. The author "knows" these things are "true" because they are contained within scripture, not because he ever relates them to corresponding events or words on earth. Even "in the days of his flesh" he passed up the opportunity to say anything about a Jesus on earth and only gives us a reference from scripture. Even the taking on of blood and flesh is said to be only in a "resemblance" manner (never placed on earth) and words spoken about regarding believers as his "brothers" are taken from scripture. His "temptings" are entirely to do with his performance of sacrifice. His entire focus on that sacrifice is related to heavenly imaginings. So where is the material offered by him which we could reasonably allow to be "information he provides about (an earthly) Jesus"? That "information" is what is in the Gospels and which you attempt to import into the 'background' of what Hebrews is saying, even though the writer doesn't actually say it. Can you not see the fallacy and invalid methodology in that?

And my reference to "historical" in regard to rlogan's posting naturally refers to the question of Jesus' actions, not in regard to OT supposed history. The latter is obviously beside the point.

Earl Doherty

Bernard Muller · 01-30-2013, 08:42 AM

A good reason why Hebrews 8:4 is a present contrafactual:
Hebrews 7:14
Cordially, Bernard

EarlDoherty · 01-30-2013, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted

That's very telling Toto. I think that is indicative of the way many people on this forum think. It says that anyone who has faith in things unseen cannot be trusted to be a reliable witness for things they claim they experience firsthand. That applies to about 90% of the population. I don't believe that level of distrust in others is warranted, or healthy.

It would be unwarranted and not healthy for let's say 30% of the population to distrust a 70% who believe that any day now they are going to be raptured to heaven and leave the rest of us behind to the clutches of Satan? Or that same 30% to distrust a politician who says he isn't concerned about global warming because Jesus' Second Coming is imminent?

It isn't healthy for the rational minority to have misgivings about the irrational majority who believe in angels and demons, heaven and hell, crucified gods, creation 6000 years ago, a world wide flood, believers vs. infidels, a paradise with 72 virgins which helps motivate suicide bombers, demons who cause sickness because the Son of God himself (sorry, Himself) believed in and conversed with them, who believe science is all wet and that miracles against nature are possible, who have used burning stakes to get their point across, who are hell bent on tailoring laws and human rights according to what a motley collection of primitive writings reflecting 3000 year old views of the world and human nature have to say?

I am damn mistrustful.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 01-30-2013, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

A good reason why Hebrews 8:4 is a present contrafactual:
Hebrews 7:14
Cordially, Bernard

You've said that before, Bernard. And I have referred you before to my chapter on Hebrews in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, and my e-book The End of an Illusion.

Earl Doherty

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

01-30-2013, 08:42 AM	#168
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	A good reason why Hebrews 8:4 is a present contrafactual: Hebrews 7:14 Cordially, Bernard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.