Amaleq13

No, my conclusion is based solely on the text without any such assumption. It simply does not say what you claim it says. As you make quite clear, it is your position (ie Earl's) that requires one to start with an assumption about a heavenly location for the sacrifice:
Given that Earl is correct, is Earl correct? This is precisely the sort of circular reasoning you have incorrectly attributed to me. Of course you can read Earl's conclusion into the text if you first assume he is correct! What else would you expect? If you try the more rational approach of making no such prior assumptions and simply read the text, the results are certainly not the same.

It is the idea of Christ taking on flesh so as to be like those made of flesh so that his sacrifice will be meaningful to those made of flesh. The only contrasts described by the author are between Heaven and earth. There is no "middle ground" of other heavenly spheres mentioned. These are important pieces of data, as well, which must be taken together to reach a conclusion.

Yes, if we assume Earl is correct, Earl's interpretation seems credible. You don't see that this is entirely circular? It should trouble you that this circular assumption is necessary to avoid what the text actually appears to be saying.

Yes. Is it like humans to exist and be executed in heaven?

I suggest one should read the text without presumptions about location and see what it says but, since that doesn't offer any support for your position, you prefer another approach.

I note that there is no reason to expect the author to do so.

Circular in nature, unfortunately.

It is the blood sacrifice of a spiritual figure who has taken on the flesh and blood of humanity so that the sacrifice might benefit humanity.

I agree that it appears Christ took his blood into a Temple in heaven but you seem to be conflating that with where his sacrifice took place. The priest needed the blood to enter the holy place but that isn't where the animal was sacrificed. Incidently, this depiction of the Temple on earth being a lesser reflection of the Heavenly Temple is where you find an explicit statement of the above-below concept. But please note that the author clearly indicates that Jesus was deviating from tradition and doing something different from the normal above-below parallel. Instead of entering the Holy Place of the Temple on earth, Christ took his blood to the Heavenly Temple and the Heavenly Holy Place. That is the only alternative described. Christ could either take his blood into the Temple on earth or he would take it into the Temple in Heaven. There is nothing to suggest any other locations.

The above-below parallel is specifically and explicitly broken by Christ's actions.

James Madison

5 So also Christ (M)did not glorify Himself so as to become a (N)high priest, but He who (O)said to Him,
"(P)YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU";

6just as He says also in another passage,
"(Q)YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO (R)THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK."

7 In the days of His flesh, (S)He offered up both prayers and supplications with (T)loud crying and tears to the One (U)able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His (V)piety. 8Although He was (W)a Son, He learned (X)obedience from the things which He suffered. 9And having been made (Y)perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, 10being designated by God as (Z)a high priest according to (AA)the order of Melchizedek.


You assume "Christ" as mentioned in verse 5 is not again referenced in verses 7-9. Yet, when you read these verses together, which talk about Christ being designated by God as a High Priest, continuing the theme which began in verse 5 about Christ not glorifying himself so as to become a High Priest, then we know "His" in verse 7 is referring to Christ. The "subject" is "Christ" in those verses.

Well, let's run with your proposition above but before we do allow me to make the following remark. First, I do not think it is an unreasonable proposition to abandon our common sense when taking a plain text reading of a prose. A plain text reading does not require us to abandon our everday common sense and knowledge when construing the text. In fact, a plain text reading requires it. In fact, it may be necessary to do so in order for communication to be possible between people. There is no flaw in taking a plain text reading and combining our common sense to understand what is being discussed UNLESS and UNTIL we have very good reasons not to do so.

For example, let's examine the following prose. Accordingly we went with Polemarchus to his house; and there we found his brothers Lysias and Euthydemus, and with them Thrasymachus the Chalcedonian, Charmantides the Paeanian, and Cleitophon, the son of Aristonymus. There too was Cephalus, the father of Polemarchus, whom I had not seen for a long time, and I thought him very much aged. He was seated on a cushioned chair, and had a garland on his head, for he had been sacrificing in the court; and there were some other chairs in the room arranged in a semicircle, upon which we sat down by him.

Now, according to your argument since the plain text does not tell us the subjects are "human," much less have any form at all, then we are to think of them as, well, nothing. Yet, to construe them as "nothing" is to impose an assumption upon the text. Is it not more reasonable to see these subjects human beings having a conversation with each other? Yes, it is more reasonable and there is nothing in the prose to make us suggest otherwise. Unless and until we have some good reasons or evidence, from the text itself or otherwise, then there is no reason to read this passage as "nothing" with names speaking to each other.

In addition, your argument would necessarily restrict us to conclude the setting for this conversation is "nowhere" as opposed to "earth." Again, is this reasonable?

Or, here is another example. My uncle often uses a cane because his knees hurt and the muscles in and around his knees are inflamed.

Now, relying upon your argument, we cannot conclude the uncle is a "human," or that the uncle exists on earth, because the text does not say so. Again, this is not a reasonable way to read this sentence.

Now, reflecting upon your comments, your reasoning makes us conclude the event of Christ's death took place "nowhere," and his existence in the flesh, in human form, took place "nowhere." Yet, I do not understand a plain text reading to require the outcome you seek to arrive at. Without a a plain text reading combined with my common sense and everday knowledge, I would have a very difficult time undertanding what you are saying to me.

So, I do not see any good reason why a plain text reading with some common sense application to it does not lead to the reasonable interpretation the author of Hebrews is talking about Jesus on earth.

gstafleu

"Ain't fertility rituals grand?" said John, while throwing eggs at his wife. "Eggs, never like the critters, a much better use, this."

"John!" Betty yelled, ducking a curve ball, "I'm all in favor of fertility rituals, but not here in the drive way. I've just washed the car. Why don't we do it in the road?"

"Nah," said John, scrambling a juicy specimen against the panoramic bay-window of their living room, "I'm having fun here. Wait, I think I can bounce one off the eaves-trough." A particularly goopy piece of that shot fell back to land right between Betty's not inconsiderable cleavage. "Yes!" yelled John, "Nothing but net!"

Betty was less impressed. "I'm standing right beside the car you dick-head, and I'm not wearing this here skimpy bikini because I want to wash it again. Please stop before you hit the car."

---------

So far John and Betty's crunchy but sticky escapades. I think this deals adequately with the idea that the phrase "Please Stop before You Hit the Car" has a "plain" meaning. Arguments to plain reading are a form of Appeal to Authority, where the appealer smuggles in the authority by intimating that anyone who doesn't recognize its presence in the text at first sight is a hopelessly confused soul, should stay out of the discussion and go hide himself in the rain in Spain: perhaps that will wash the egg out of his eyes.

Of course sometimes there indeed is a shared context, and in that case plain reading does work. Let me give a rule for when it does and does not work: If all participants in the discussion agree that the text is unambiguous and can have only one meaning, then an appeal to plain reading will work. As soon, though, as there is disagreement about the text, then its unambiguity by definition lies in shatters (or why else have the discussion), and appeals to plain reading become useless.

Gerard Stafleu

James Madison

First, you do realize your example is amendable to a plain reading and nowhere in your example do you present the idea the meaning of what you are talking about cannot be attained through a plain reading?

This makes absolutely no sense at all. Arguments to a plain reading are not even remotely close to any form of Appeal to Authority. This is the weirdestl appeal to authority I have ever read.

Furthermore, you do realize, don't you, that everytime you make a POST, you are validating my point a plain reading of the text is very viable?

Oh my....let's explore your "rule" here to test its reasonableness because it is absolutely unreasonable. First, whether or not ambiguity exists in a text is not contingent upon some number of people, or ANY number of people, agreeing upon it or disagreeing. The mere fact people disagree over a passage does not magically transform the passage into one of "ambiguity."

Let's use an example to illustrate what I am saying. The phrase, "Please stop before you hit the car," is not magically transformed into an ambiguous phrase merely because someone disagrees with someone else as to what it is saying. Yet, according to your logic, if one person says the italicized statement above is not unambiguous and cannot have only one meaning, then according to your logic the phrase of, "Please stop before you hit the car," becomes an ambiguous phrase? Well, the answer is no it does not.

The fact is, disagreement over the text does not render plain meaning useless, disagreement over the text does not render the text ambiguous, and so forth. If so, then phrase of, "Please stop before you hit the car," is an ambiguous statement, which is absolutely false, no matter how many people assert it is ambiguous, or contend such a phrase has more than one meaning.

Furthermore, you seem completely oblivious to the fact a plain text reading is introduced for the purpose of settling the dispute of the text. A plain text reading is one way of interpreting a text, like there exists so many other ways of doing so, and is present and introduced to resolve the DEBATE over the text. The fact there is debate over the text does not exclude modes or methods of interpretation but rathers debate makes them particularly and exceptionally relevant!

Now, let's test your rule on the following phrases below.

1. The sun rises in the east.
2. The sun sets in the west.
3. The cat ate the mouse.
4. The lion hunted the Zebra.
5. John drove his new car down Fifth Street.
6. Adam and Eve were married in Las Vegas.
7. Achilles used his bow to shoot his arrow straight into the air.
8. Look up in the sky, it is a bird, it is a plane, it is Superman.
9. Jesus wept.
10. Luke, I am your father.

Now, according to your logic, as soon as someone disagrees with someone else as to the meaning of these sentences, as to what they say, and contests the claim each phrase is unambiguous, then, according to your logic, ALL of those phrases become ambiguous, and a plain reading is no longer applicable. Looking at those sentences, I think I have adequately made my point that your position on this issue is entirely unreasonable and not logically coherent.

I'd love for you to explain to me how exactly those phrases become ambiguous and subject to more than one meaning merely because someone says so or asserts those phrases are ambiguous and subject to more than one meaning?

Now, since words do have a limited range of meaning, and some words so common such that their meaning is commonly understood, then a plain text reading of each of those sentences can resolve any dispute over the meaning of them. Unless and until we have some good reasons or evidence to indicate the word "cat" no longer refers to a small animal, with a tail, fur, teeth, warmblooded vertebrae mammal, then there is no good reason to interpret the word "cat" in any other way, other than what we commonly understood and our common knowledge tells us about the word "cat." I can apply this same analysis to all ten sentences and the fact someone asserts those ten sentences are ambiguous and subject to more than one meaning does not make it so.

I think and hope I have made my point. You really are not making any substantive criticisms on the application of plain text reading at all, at least not in this post.

Now, you actually made a better criticism yesterday and there are criticisms to a plain text reading but you are not even remotely close to raising them thus far.

gstafleu

Yes, correct. The question of course is: what is that common knowledge? You simply assume that the Hebrews' common knowledge coincides with yours, at least on this issue. But just assuming that won't do, you'll have to demonstrate it.

Oh. Well, let's start at the very beginning:
So, what do we find in this very beginning? We find "a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds." I don't know about you, but I don't immediately conclude an earthly human from this, it sounds rather divine and heavenly to me. Speaking as a plain reader, that is, ignoring the fact that the Jewish god in those days was "wholly other," and most certainly resided in heaven. To throw in some more plain reading, this god and his son created all the world(s). It is a bit tough to be present on earth before you have created it, isn't it, plain-reading-wise?

Then in 1:3 we find "He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word." So that is, to me the plain reader, apparently what his is doing currently: after having first created everything he is now in the business of sustaining it. We next find something that looks like an intermedate phase between creating and sustaining: "When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs." Apparently our hero at some point "made purification for sins." It is from the plain text not quite plain when or where he did that, probably because the text doesn't say anything about that. But given that it is surrounded by clearly non-earthly bits (creating, sitting at the right hand of God), the plainest reading here is that it also happened in the heavenly realm. Otherwise we'd have to posit a quick trip down to earth specifically for this purpose, but as there is nothing in those first few verses to suggest, hint, imply, or infer a location on earth, we obviously don't want to do that.

I'm not going to go through the whole of Hebrews to point out all the other places where we find a similar situation. I did some of that in my response to Amaleq, above. Rather, I have a challenge for you: Given that we have such a clearly heavenly beginning, can you indicate where in the epistle the idea is introduced that Jesus did his "purification for sins" (or whatever) on earth, rather than in the heavenly realm where he apparently started and ended? And please do so without resorting to undignified trickery like translating "flesh" with "earth."

BTW, you did notice that so far I have made the argument without using either the word "Platonic" or "gospels," right?

Next, an issue of methodology:
Nope, nothing is being asserted. A certain hypothesis is made (An above-below thinking is present in Hebrews, Jesus performed his sacrifice "above"), and then the text is checked against this hypothesis: does it fit or not? As it happens, it does. What you do is say that, as the text fits the hypothesis, this means that the hypothesis is being asserted. Rather, it is being verified. There is a difference!

OK, let me rephrase: If the author had used language as plain as "while he was on earth," then we could have assigned that "plain" meaning to the passage. But he didn't, so we can't.

Were they tears of joy or sadness? Did somebody kick sand into his eyes? We need some context before we can come to a plain understanding. Now I'm assuming you are referring to John 11, the Lazarus resurrection scene. That helps a bit. Here we see Jesus plainly depicted as a human being, so from that we can infer that tears were coming from his eyes in a human-like way. But of joy or of sadness? We don't know. Could be sadness in sympathy with the bystanders, or it could be joy because Jesus realized he could resurrect the guy. Or it could be tears of frustration because they had securely buried him, putting this stone in front of the grave, so they had made things difficult for him. The point being, we know we are talking about human tears here, because Jesus is depicted as such: context.
Neither is there a VERSE which states that he was. And given the first verses of the epistle I quoted above, we definitely need such a verse before we can assume he touched down upon terra firma. But I'm sure you're up to that challenge!

As an aside, there is 8:4 "Now if he were on earth..." Earl wants to read this as "Now if he had been on earth..." The Greek for "were/had been" here is "èn", perhaps one of the Greekerati can comment on this. Does "èn" mean "were" (he is not here now, but may have been here in the past) or "had been" (he wasn't here in the past). Does it have to be read one way or the other, does koine Greek distinguish between these senses? Earl also refers to this passage in his part 2, without relying on any Platonic philosophy for his conclusions. Perhaps, given that there is no Platonism there, you can say something about his analysis?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

Well, probably . But we're having a methodological misunderstanding here. The process is as follows:

1. State a hypothesis: In Hebrews we find above-below thinking, and Jesus performed his sacrifice above.
2. Check the text to see if it fits this hypothesis. If it does, this yields verification for the hypothesis.
3. State a criterion for falsification and see if you find anything in the text that fits that criterion. If you find something, that yields falsification of the hypothesis.

Now, my arguments come under 2 above: I present verifications for the hypothesis. Finding something that verifies your hypothesis is not circular reasoning!

My "challenge" to James above corresponds to 3 above: show me where the epistle says that Jesus performed his sacrifice on earth. Given that we have pretty explicit statements of him being in heaven in the times surrounding the sacrifice, I would hope for at least as explicit references indicating that his sacrifice by contrast was on earth.

Well, given that the passage (nor anywhere else AFAICT) does not mention a move from earth to heaven, that does seem to be the most straightforward reading of the text. Your reading requires an extra entity (the move from earth to heaven) and thus runs into Occam's razor with a distinct slicing sound.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

But James, I have just shown that "Please stop before you hit the car" is in fact an ambiguous statement. We have no idea if it means:

1. That you should hit the brakes because the car we are sitting in is about to hit another car
2. That you should stop throwing eggs because you might hit the just-washed vehicle
3. That you are playing a lottery like game where one of the prices is a car, and for tax-reasons the last thing we need right now is another car
4. That John and Betty are having intercourse in a moving car but that Betty deems a car crash a rather drastic form of coitus interruptus
5. Or that, alternatively to the above, Betty does not want John to bang some of his more delicate parts into the car again, thus instigating another hiatus into the marital relations.

So, given that, how can you possibly say that the phrase "Please stop before you hit the car," without context to determine what it means, is unambiguous?

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

The verb here is in the imperfect tense, setting up a present contrary-to-fact condition (if... then).

What this means is that the statement in the protasis (the if statement) of the condition is false. So we have:

If he were on earth (but he is not), he would not be a priest.

This statement has nothing to do with what may or may not have happened in the past. A past contrary-to-fact condition would read as follows:

If he had been on earth (but he was not)....

But this is not what we have in Hebrews 8.4. An English equivalent on the MJ theory might be:

If I were President (but I am not [nor have I ever been])....

An English equivalent on the HJ theory might be:

If I were a child (but I am not [though I once was])....

This is all grammar; the grammar offers no direct support to either theory.

Ben.

James Madison

No, it is not an ambiguous statement. You attempt to make it an ambiguous statement by focusing upon the fact the statement does not tell us "what" is to be stopped. The fact the statement does not tell us "what" is to be stopped does not make it ambiguous. Nice try.

Relying upon a plain text reading, we get the following translation. "Please stop (whatever it is you are doing, throwing eggs, driving a car, etcetera) before you hit the car." One person is telling another person to stop "whatever it is they are doing" before they hit the car. There is no ambiguity in the statement. The fact the statement does not tell us "what" is to be stopped does not render the statement ambiguous.

Now, the statement can certainly be criticized for not telling us "what" is to be stopped but failure to do so does not make it ambiguous. We can properly interpret the statement to mean that one person wants another person to stop doing something before he/she hits the car. It does not matter "what" the something is because the person wants it to "stop." Hence, it is completely immaterial for us to know "what" the person is asking the other person to stop doing because the person is merely asking for the person to stop doing it, no matter what it may be.

Using your logic, the statement is "ambiguous" because it does not tell us the sex of the involved parties. The statement does not tell us the sex of the person speaking or the listener. Hence, relying upon your reasoning, the statement is ambiguous because the "sex" of the parties is not mentioned. Yet, it makes no sense to render the statement as "ambiguous" merely because the sex of the parties is left out because we can still discern and determine what is being said, despite the fact the sex of the parties is not disclosed. A failure of adequate or proper disclosure does not render the statement "ambiguous."

My statement is not ambiguous no matter how hard you try to make it and no amount of brutally twisted and tortured logic will alter this fact.

As I said before, and reiterate, your proposition a statement is rendered ambiguous my someone merely saying so is incorrect.

1. The sun rises in the east.
2. The sun sets in the west.
3. The cat ate the mouse.
4. The lion hunted the Zebra.
5. John drove his new car down Fifth Street.
6. Adam and Eve were married in Las Vegas.
7. Achilles used his bow to shoot his arrow straight into the air.
8. Look up in the sky, it is a bird, it is a plane, it is Superman.
9. Jesus wept.
10. Luke, I am your father.

Someone asserting all ten statements are "ambiguous" does not make it so. Hence, I reject your proposition because it is illogical and unreasonable. A statement is not rendered ambiguous merely because you say so. Ambiguity arises when the "meaning of the terms" is in doubt or there exists some evidence or compelling reason not to take a plain text reading because the author intended or sought to make a point contrary to the plain meaning or was not relying upon the common meaning of the terms and was instead substituting some other meaning.

The fact the statement did not disclose something, such as the sex of the cat and mouse in number three, or the type of car John drove down the street, does not render those statements ambiguous. Just as the fact the statement of, "Please stop before you hit the car," does not tell us what is to be stopped, we still assuredly know that whatever it is, the person is asking for it to stop before he/she hits the car." Hence, we know what is being said and there is no ambiguity here. As I said before, failure to disclose something does not automatically render the statement ambiguous, as you erroneously assume.

In the context of this debate regarding Hebrews, Philosopher Jay provides plenty of evidence to support this proposition. The book of Hebrews does not specifically tell us "where" Jesus existed in the flesh but merely tells us he "existed in the flesh." The fact the book of Hebrews does not tell us "where" does not render it "ambiguous" because we are still capable of discerning what is being said, which is Jesus existed in the flesh, and died in the flesh. We do not need the location of where this happened to properly interpret those verses as meaning precisely what they say, Jesus existed in the flesh and died in the flesh. The fact the verses are "silent" as to where this occurred does not make them "ambiguous," just as the fact the statement of, "Please stop before you hit the car," is silent as to "what" is to be stopped does not make the statement ambiguous. Why? Because we know they are asking the person to stop doing something, whatever it is, before he/she hits the car. The determination of "what" is irrelevant in properly interpreting the phrase from a plain text perspective.

As I said before, the fact the statement, phrase, or verse does not tell you 'something' does not automatically render the statement/phrase as ambiguous, as my points above illustrate.

GakuseiDon

Yes, all this is true, and it is something that many of us have been pointing out for a while. That Christ was perceived as "fleshly and on earth" doesn't necessarily mean he was historical. He could still be mythical or fictional, like Hercules and Ebion, as many have said. The problem is that Earl's theory of a "fleshly sublunar realm" has no support and is arguably false, but when this is pointed out, it seems to be regarded as a rejection of mythicism itself. But it isn't, and can't be.

The irony of this is that MANY mythicists on this board appear to disagree with Earl on a "fleshly sublunar realm" (believing that "fleshly" references are interpolations, etc), but find it difficult to question Earl on it, probably because it would make it appear they were questioning mythicism itself. However, IF Earl's "fleshly sublunar realm" theory is unsupportable, then it is a disservice to mythicism to leave it unchallenged, since it starts to put his theory into the "Horus was Jesus" bracket. OTOH, if Earl's "fleshly sublunar realm" theory IS supportable, then they should be out there, pushing for it as hard as they can get.

There is a curious middle ground on this board, where mythicists think that Earl is wrong in specifics, but correct overall in conclusions. But mythicists seem to want people to disprove his conclusions, not the specifics. However, until the specifics have been validated, discussion of Earl's theory can't progress IMO.

How many mythicists here think that Earl's theory of a "fleshly sublunar realm" can be substantiated from the literature of the time? And that the references to "days of his flesh" etc in Hebrews is best interpreted as being acted out in that "fleshly sublunar realm"?

If NO-ONE supports it, can we put Earl's theory to rest, finally? And then move the discussion on mythicism onwards? Or are we always going to be falling over the stumbling block of the "fleshly sublunar realm"?