sotto voce

Skeptics being way above such low ploys.

Late joiners are sooooo suspicious. Especially when they make a habit of it.

Have you really not read the thread, Clown-O, or are you just clowning?

Bingo the Clown-O

Okay sotto.

Whatever.

Chili

Thunking is like dunking and denies indunction of the inferred and will always be their handicap . . . and so pigfeed Hebrews will remain for them.

So did you guys all go to clowning school?

aa5874

What hopeless illogical absurdity!!!

Based on your absurdity--- your own post MUST have been been written Before c 70 CE because YOU refered to "human priests still offering Temple sacrifices.

Please, are you even aware of fiction stories?? Are you aware that stories in NT Scriptures were INVENTED??

Now the claim or implication that Jesus was on earth does NOT confirm the historicity of Jesus because Satan, the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost were also on earth in the NT.

In the NT, the Holy Ghost is the ACTUAL FATHER of Jesus and SATAN the Devil ACTUALLY Placed Jesus on the Pinnacle of the Temple the same Jesus who used to Walked on sea water Before he transfigured.

The NT is a compilation of fantastic Myth Fables like those in Jewish, Greek and Roman writings.

The Jesus story may have been the most Plausible Myth Fable in antiquity and was accepted as history by those who believed Gods, Son of Gods, Angels, Devils and Ghost were real figures of History.

jakejonesiv

Hi sotto voce,

No, Hebrews makes no mention of the Jerusalem temple. All the references to earthly sacrifice are to the wilderness tabernacle of Moses. Thus these references provide no anchor for dating the composition of the work.

Jake

Chili

All good points you make and that is why nay-sayers are no better that yeah-sayers because both must first accept the major to affirm or deny the minor, while the Gospels are a 'first order enthymeme' wherein the major is missing so we can be the major through the minor. i.e. the beneficiary. Which, btw, is very popular on polical platforms where promises are made.

The political 'set' is only there to point at the end that seekers desire when they cast their allegaince to the speaker from the platform, and so it is just a staged event presented to them with words of what they seek to find in life. This, however, does not deny the end they see and is still there in the background of the fable . . . or they would not even see the end that already exists within, but not in the right memetic configuration for which a trail with form is needed to understand.

So the problem now here is, again, that they cling to the minor in the absence of the conclusion wherein they must find the major, while the nay-sayers now say fuck the whole shebang, he must be celestial and was not really here, which now is a definition problem of the word 'real' that does exist in your word 'fable,' but I am not sure it it is conceiled in the word 'fiction' that you like to use, or fables would also be fiction.

So here now the difference is that the Greeks would call it 'paralogism' as out-side talk from the platform, I have no problem with that, but be sure to understand that it is enthymematic and not fantastic and so remains iconic, and this where fiction is the wrong word to use, and therefore was it written from what they called a neologistic point of view by those inside the know.

sotto voce

By this view, the author of Hebrews wrote at or before the time of David. And yet, he wrote of the life of the Messiah, who was to be descended from David.

outhouse

Well you may want to try and change this then, good luck with that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Hebrews

The use of tabernacle terminology in Hebrews has been used to date the epistle before the destruction of the temple, the idea being that knowing about the destruction of both Jerusalem and the temple would have influenced the development of the author's overall argument to include such evidence. Therefore, the most probable date for its composition is the second half of the year 63 or the beginning of 64, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.[6] Another argument in favor of an early dating is that the author seems unfamiliar with the Eucharist ritual (had the author been familiar, it would have served as a great example).[10]

Toto

I'm not so sure about the bolded part.

The proto-orthodox railed against those who said that Jesus had not "come in the flesh." But then things get a little vague as to exactly what that entails.

The modern scientific mindset has rejected the reality of Platonic forms and layers of heavens and the whole spirit world, so to modern readers, the claim that Jesus was never on earth implies that he didn't exist and that the whole Christian religion must crumble. I don't think that the ancients saw things that way. There were self-described Christians who thought that Jesus was a spirit. If you accept that, is it so important if that spirit was on the earth or on some hyperplane of reality? Or for that matter, a really compelling fictional account?

I don't know enough to know how the Greek must be translated, but I don't think the lack of challenge to the idea that Jesus was never on earth is an argument for one translation over another.

Chili

It is a clear slam-dunk of the early protestants who walked away from John 6:56, even if that was not part of the story, and maybe that is why it's not.

The wilderness tabernacle makes reference to 'clearing carved' in the wilderness of life where Moses had received that caused the destruction of the temple that in Gen.3 is called the TOK, where the offering must be made just outside Jerusalem so it may be renewed in time to come, soon to him, but never did.

It is an utter condmenation from beginning to end and just a story for flatlanders who swear high-water in hell that the world is round and that is why the author remains unknown.