Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 12-17-2007, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

Good luck getting this point across.

As a recovering "victim" of this insidious mindset, I am very much aware of the conscious effort involved in avoiding it.

Toto · 12-17-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...
That's not what Earl asserts, is it.

I think so. I think you have misread him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Umm, here's what Clive said:

Quote:

But Hebrews explicitly puts him in heaven as the creator of the worlds

How is this not a claim that "Jesus created the world"?

As I tried to explain, Clive said

Quote:

But Hebrews explicitly puts him in heaven (doing something)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is there any disagreement here at all? What is this all about?

It's about reading into a text something it does not say. (Where is there anything in Heb 1:2 about Jesus being in heaven in Heb. 1:2?} It's about reading a statement about instrumentality as if it were a statement about someone acting.

It is about ignoring the fact that, as one of Earl's authorities, Jean Hering, notes, Heb 1:2 presents the Son as "the mediator (not the author) of creation" (The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 4).

I gather than Earl also thinks that the Son was the mediator, not the author of creation, but he and Clive think that places the Son in heaven.

Or was the mediation through remote control? I find it hard to wrap my mind around these Platonic concepts at times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

And it's probably also about the fact that on matters of Greek, let alone on the legitimacy of Earl's claims about Greek and what is and is not "baseless", you, Toto, should probably not comment.

Jeffrey

But I do speak English, and this seems to be a dispute over the interpretation of something said in English.

Ben C Smith · 12-17-2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

This is in clear contrast with the context we have in Clement where the secondary meaning is certainly implied.

Doug: I guess I am not seeing how a secondary meaning is certainly implied in 1 Clement 60.1:

You through your operations made manifest the everlasting fabric of the world. You, Lord, created the earth [συ, κυριε, την οικουμενην εκτισας]. You who are faithful throughout all generations, righteous in your judgments, marvelous in strength and excellence, you who are wise in creating and prudent in establishing that which you have made, who are good in the things which are seen and faithful with those who trust on you, pitiful and compassionate, forgive us our iniquities and our unrighteousnesses and our transgressions and shortcomings.

Why is this not you created the inhabited earth?

When I read passages such as Jeremiah 10.12; 28.15 (LXX), I get the impression that οικουμενη is a good contrast with ουρανος (heaven) in the same way that γη (earth) is.

Gerard: If the οικουμενη in Hebrews 1.6 includes the heavens, as Doherty asserts, from where did God bring his son into it?

Ben.

Clivedurdle · 12-17-2007, 10:18 AM

Quote:

. Jesus, Creator of the world!
Of all mankind Redeemer blest!
True God of God! in Whom we see
The Father's Image clear express'd!
2.Thee, Saviour, love alone constrain'd
To make our mortal flesh Thine own;
And as a second Adam come,
For the first Adam to atone.
3.That selfsame love that made the sky,
Which made the sea, and stars, and earth,
Took pity on our misery,
And broke the bondage of our birth.
4.O Jesu! in Thy Heart divine
May that same love forever glow,
Forever mercy to mankind
From that exhaustless fountain flow.
5.For this Thy Sacred Heart was pierced,
And both with Blood and Water ran;
To cleanse us from the stains of guilt,
And be the hope of strength for man.
6.To God the Father, and the Son,
All priase and pow'r, and glory be;
With Thee, O holy Paraclete,
Henceforth through all eternity.

Click here for the Latin lyrics.

This hymn is part of the Divine Office, prayed publicly or privately by every Catholic Priest, professed religious, and many seminarians. It is part of the canonical hour of Vespers, being the hymn which comes toward the end. This particular Vespers hymn is taken from the Feast of the Sacred Heart. In a seminary or monastery, this hymn would be sung. It has a very compelling melody, which adds to the beauty of a hymn which extolls the mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The theme of the entire piece is Our Lord's Sacred Heart, and how It is the font of mercy for all who come to Him. It tells how we should value the infinite redemption he wrought for us.

http://www.chantcd.com/lyrics/jesus_creator.htm

gstafleu · 12-17-2007, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Gerard: If the οικουμενη in Hebrews 1.6 includes the heavens, as Doherty asserts, from where did God bring his son into it?

He took an ax, split open his skull, and out popped Jesus? IOW, as Athena popped out of Zeus' skull into the world, so popped Jesus out of God's skull into the heavens. For the skull business, substitute an appropriate creation process. E.g. the process He used to create the angels.

That, in the very beginning, there was an "outside" relative to the heavens can also be established:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gen 1.1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Imagine if you can the from where involved in creating the heavens, and you have a from where for the son as well.

Also:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prov 8:27

When He prepared the heavens, I [wisdom] was there

So, if wisdom wasn't inside the heavens (because they hadn't been created yet), she was, dichotomically speaking, outside them.

To summarize: when it comes to divine creation, asking earthly questions like "from where" may not be all that useful

.

Gerard Stafleu

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-17-2007, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

. Jesus, Creator of the world!
Of all mankind Redeemer blest!
True God of God! in Whom we see
The Father's Image clear express'd!
2.Thee, Saviour, love alone constrain'd
To make our mortal flesh Thine own;
And as a second Adam come,
For the first Adam to atone.
3.That selfsame love that made the sky,
Which made the sea, and stars, and earth,
Took pity on our misery,
And broke the bondage of our birth.
4.O Jesu! in Thy Heart divine
May that same love forever glow,
Forever mercy to mankind
From that exhaustless fountain flow.
5.For this Thy Sacred Heart was pierced,
And both with Blood and Water ran;
To cleanse us from the stains of guilt,
And be the hope of strength for man.
6.To God the Father, and the Son,
All priase and pow'r, and glory be;
With Thee, O holy Paraclete,
Henceforth through all eternity.

Click here for the Latin lyrics.

This hymn is part of the Divine Office, prayed publicly or privately by every Catholic Priest, professed religious, and many seminarians. It is part of the canonical hour of Vespers, being the hymn which comes toward the end. This particular Vespers hymn is taken from the Feast of the Sacred Heart. In a seminary or monastery, this hymn would be sung. It has a very compelling melody, which adds to the beauty of a hymn which extolls the mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The theme of the entire piece is Our Lord's Sacred Heart, and how It is the font of mercy for all who come to Him. It tells how we should value the infinite redemption he wrought for us.

http://www.chantcd.com/lyrics/jesus_creator.htm

Perhaps you'll be kind enough to tell me how the statements of an anonymous 18th century writer of Latin hymns stand as good (or even relevant) evidence for what the author of Hebrews, writing in Greek in the first century, was stating in Heb. 1:2?

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith · 12-17-2007, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

To summarize: when it comes to divine creation, asking earthly questions like "from where" may not be all that useful

.

Okay. Then from where did Jesus go into heaven in Hebrews 9.24?

Also, what does the οικουμενη in 1.6 mean on your view (or what is your best estimate)? And what support do you have for that meaning?

Ben.

Toto · 12-17-2007, 11:04 AM

Let's not get diverted onto the question of which part of the Trinity created the world. The author of that hymn, along with many other Christians, did not clearly distingish between God and the Son, for theological reasons.

gstafleu · 12-17-2007, 11:30 AM

[QUOTE=Ben C Smith;5039148]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Then from where did Jesus go into heaven in Hebrews 9.24?

Earl has a passage about that in his part 2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doherty

In regard to 9:24-26, Attridge acknowledges that the author’s language throughout his work is “Platonizing” in regard to the contrast between heavenly and earthly tabernacles. He even, quite interestingly, detects a further “Platonizing motif” in the reference to Christ entering “heaven itself” (verse 24) to appear before God. This suggests, he says [p.263],

“a distinction between the innermost or uppermost heaven where God is enthroned, the heavenly inner sanctuary, and the outer or lower heavens that correspond to the portion of the tabernacle outside the veil.”

Quote:

Also, what does the οικουμενη in 1.6 mean on your view (or what is your best estimate)? And what support do you have for that meaning?

I would guess that oikumene in this case includes the heavens, and my support is that quote Earl gives from Bauer: "“where oikoumenē seems to mean the whole world (so far as living beings inhabit it, therefore the realm of spirits as well).” However, as I said in this post, it is possible that we are seeing the first indications of a move towards earth here. To quote myself:

Quote:

Finally, something I want to come back to. You have quite rightly pointed out that a number of passages "make sense" in an earthly setting. And so they do. But they only make sense, the earthly setting is never made as explicit as the heavenly one. That is a strange dichotomy that needs to be explained. My conclusion from this is that while the heavenly location is indeed firmly established, the earthly one is much more tentative. Here I want to make a suggestion as to why that could be the case.

In another thread I called the situation of a mythology that puts its god(s) purely in heaven without any appearances on earth "mythologically unstable." Such a rather esoteric mythology may be sustainable among the mystically and poetically inclined, perhaps also among an initial group of enthusiastic believers, but it doesn't work too well among th great unwashed. There one will inevitably see what we see in this very forum: a tendency to bring things down to earth. My suggestion now is that what we see in Hebrews may contain the first seeds of that process.

Whenever Jesus is placed in Heaven this is done in a clear and unambiguous manner. But whenever something "makes sense" in an earthly location, the language is never explicit. We have to deduce it from the fact that Jesus "became like humans," "took on flesh." Even when a seemingly clear word for "world" is used, oikumene, it turns out that this word can also include the heavens, and this in a text not all that far removed in time and context from Hebrews (1 Clement). Further, the concept of a heavenly Jerusalem is introduced (12:22), and the question naturally arises: if Jerusalem can be placed (as a "copy" one presumes) in Heaven, what else can be placed there in a like fashion? The tribe of Juda? The gate outside which he suffered? We just don't know.

So my position is not that an earthly location for the pre-sacrifice is impossible. Rather, it is that given its ambiguity, and given the non-ambiguity of the heavenly location, the idea that the whole death and pre-sacrifice period also occurred in the heavens should be seriously considered. It is not a slam-dunk, but neither is the earth hypothesis. Possibly the "earthly" passages represent the first inevitable move towards an earthly environment, a move that we see completed in the gospels. But whether that is so or not, in Hebrews both scenarios should be seriously considered.

Gerard Stafleu

Amaleq13 · 12-17-2007, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Doug: I guess I am not seeing how a secondary meaning is certainly implied in 1 Clement 60.1:

Sorry, my mistake. I had in mind the first sentence:

You through your operations made manifest the everlasting fabric of the world.

But even that could only be referring to the planet.

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

12-17-2007, 11:04 AM	#238
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Let's not get diverted onto the question of which part of the Trinity created the world. The author of that hymn, along with many other Christians, did not clearly distingish between God and the Son, for theological reasons.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.