Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-16-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi gtafleu,

You present a reasonable position on the issues.

We should remember that the difference between heaven and Earth was not generally perceived to be as great as it is today. Today, we think of heaven as being part of a religious/mythological system of thinking, not attached to the physical world and Earth, but on a different plane of thought. This was not the common thinking in the First century world of the Roman Empire.

Remember that Greek Gods lived on Mount Olympus, a real place on Earth. Although, Aristotle separated the heavens and Earth by giving eternal and fixed motion to the heavens, while free motion existed on the Earth, his view probably was not common. For the ordinary person, the Earth and Heaven was a continuum. By climbing a long enough rope ladder, you could reach heaven. A trip to heaven would not necessary take as long as a trip to Rome, (if you were living in Alexandria or Ephesus) or involve much more difficulties.

If you were to travel to Rome, you would encounter several cities and or land masses before arriving there. Likewise if you were to make the upwards journey to the home and palace of the creator God, you would likely encounter other places too with men a little above men on Earth but a little below the angels who lived closest to the palace of the great immortal Hebrew King/God.

Do you really think that there's no distinction between the Greco Roman conception of where the gods (who have bodies) dwell and Jewish conceptions of where Yahweh dwells?

If you do, could you please point me to some Jewish texts that show unambiguously that Jewish views of "heaven" were one and the same with the Greco Roman view of the home of the Olympians?

Jeffrey

Toto · 12-16-2007, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...
Do you really think that there's no distinction between the Greco Roman conception of where the gods (who have bodies) dwell and Jewish conceptions of where Yahweh dwells?

...

Does traditional Judaism even have a heaven? YHWH lived in in inner sanctum in the Temple, in a little box, IIRC, if he wasn't walking around the camp grounds, wrestling with people, showing his backside, or speaking out of a burning bush. (Except that Moses did have to go up a mountain to get the Ten commandments, and Enoch (Gen 5:24); Elijah (2 Kgs 2:1-12) ascended to heaven.) But by the first century, Hellenistic Judaism had absorbed the Greco-Roman model of the cosmos, as evidenced by Philo's writings.

There is an essay by James Tabor on ascents to heaven here.

It sounds like there was an early Greco-Roman-Jewish concept of gods who lived on mountains close to earth, followed by a first century consensus that there were spheres of heaven above.

Toto · 12-16-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

?

Even in English vs. 2b doesn't say what you think it says. Do you know what
διʼοὗ means?

And who is the subject of ἐποίησεν.

Jeffrey

Earl has dropped me a note on this, which I reproduce in part:

Quote:

The subject is, of course, God, who created the world through the agency of the Son, just as traditional Wisdom theology said that God created the world through the agency of his emanation, personified Wisdom.

. . . . Jeffrey’s grammatical distinction is not only irrelevant, it is baseless, since if the Son is the agency through which creation was performed (this is pure Logos philosophy), then he has a direct role in that creation, regardless of the grammatical organization of the thought.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-16-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Even in English vs. 2b doesn't say what you think it says. Do you know what
διʼοὗ means?

And who is the subject of ἐποίησεν.

Jeffrey

Earl has dropped me a note on this, which I reproduce in part:

Quote:

The subject is, of course, God, who created the world through the agency of the Son, just as traditional Wisdom theology said that God created the world through the agency of his emanation, personified Wisdom.

. . . . Jeffrey’s grammatical distinction is not only irrelevant, it is baseless, since if the Son is the agency through which creation was performed (this is pure Logos philosophy), then he has a direct role in that creation, regardless of the grammatical organization of the thought.

So much for Earl's Greek. And his knowledge of Judaism. And of Ellingworth. And what on earth is "pure Logos philosophy".

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-16-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...
Do you really think that there's no distinction between the Greco Roman conception of where the gods (who have bodies) dwell and Jewish conceptions of where Yahweh dwells?

...

Does traditional Judaism even have a heaven? YHWH lived in in inner sanctum in the Temple, in a little box, IIRC, if he wasn't walking around the camp grounds, wrestling with people, showing his backside, or speaking out of a burning bush. (Except that Moses did have to go up a mountain to get the Ten commandments, and Enoch (Gen 5:24); Elijah (2 Kgs 2:1-12) ascended to heaven.) But by the first century, Hellenistic Judaism had absorbed the Greco-Roman model of the cosmos, as evidenced by Philo's writings.

Do you really think that Philo is representative of all of Hellenistic Jewish thought and that every Hellenistic Jew (which, according to Hengel, was almost every Jew to one degree or another) thought like Philo? Does Paul? Does Matthew?

Jeffrey

Toto · 12-16-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Earl has dropped me a note on this, which I reproduce in part:

So much for Earl's Greek.

Jeffrey

Please be more explicit.

Toto · 12-16-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...

Do you really think that Philo is representative of all of Hellenistic Jewish thought and that every Hellenistic Jew (which, according to Hengel, was almost every Jew to one degree or another) thought like Philo? Does Paul? Does Matthew?

Jeffrey

Can you post something that is not a question?

I expect that there was some diversity of thought in the first century, but that there would be some similarities in first century thinking as opposed to, say 20th century thinking. So?

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-16-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

So much for Earl's Greek.

Jeffrey

Please be more explicit.

Baseless?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-16-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...

Do you really think that Philo is representative of all of Hellenistic Jewish thought and that every Hellenistic Jew (which, according to Hengel, was almost every Jew to one degree or another) thought like Philo? Does Paul? Does Matthew?

Jeffrey

Can you post something that is not a question?

Yes. But in this case, a question was hardly out of place.

Quote:

I expect that there was some diversity of thought in the first century, but that there would be some similarities in first century thinking as opposed to, say 20th century thinking. So?

That's nice. Now just what are those similarities?

Jeffrey

Toto · 12-16-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please be more explicit.

Baseless?

Jeffrey

Jesus H Christ, Dr. Gibson. You act like a hostile witness on the stand.

Are you saying that there is an inaccuracy in what Earl says? If so, exactly what does he get wrong? Please provide your own translation.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.