PhilosopherJay

Hi James,

Common sense is often right, but it is sometimes wrong.

You give an example of a common sense reading of a text that leads to a correct conclusion. Here are examples where they lead to false conclusions.Take this quotation:

"My dear lady, you're always fancying things.
Your attention picks up every detail.
But you can't do anything about it,
except push yourself still further from my heart,
making matters so much worse for you.
If things are as they are, then that's the way
I want them. So sit down quietly.
Do as I say.

It would be common sense, just going by the information in the passage, to suppose that the speaker is a human man In fact the speaker is the God Zeus.The text is from Homer's Iliad, chapter one.

Here is another case.

El-ahrairah, your people cannot rule the world, for I will not have it so. All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed. And El-Ahrairah knew then that although he would not be mocked yet Frith was his friend.

Looking only at this passage, it would be common sense to suppose that the speaker is a man and both El-ahrairah and Frith were human beings. We have only to look at the text just prior to this to recognize that our common-sense deduction would be wrong.

And as he spoke, El-ahrairah' tail grew shining white and flashed like a star, and his backlegs grew long and powerful. and he thumped the hillside until the very bettles fell off the grass stems. He came out of the hole and tore across the hill faster than any creature in the world. And Frith called after him.

The passage is from Richard Adams' "Watership Down" and El-ahrairah and Frith are rabbits.

In the context of Hebrews, if we determine through an examination of the contextual evidence and other historical facts that Doherty is correct and that the Christ about which the author is speaking is a heavenly creature only, then common sense would be wrong in this case too.

In general, I agree that it is good to rely on the conclusions of common sense, but not when there is important and relevant evidence to suggest a different interpretation.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

I am unsure what the force of hung up is in this context. Could you elucidate? Thanks.

Ben.

James Madison

Haven't I already done this? Yes I have but I will repeat myself I guess. Let's ignore, for just a moment, the fact we are scrutinizing verses found in a book located in the bible but instead these are mere phrases and sentences a sheet of notebook paper.

1. 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.

2. Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—the Son also became flesh and blood by being born in human form. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the devil, who had[g] the power of death.

Now, what is our "common knowledge" and "common sense" tell us about flesh? Well, it burns, it can be injured, it heals, sometimes leaves scars from injuries, and so on. Or would you contest this is not common knowledge and common sense as it pertains to "flesh?" Please, if you know of "flesh" as not being susceptible to these attributes, then tell us all, so it can be documented as a medical and science marvel. Now, this digression aside, despite the fact the author does not inform us of these attributes and characteristics regarding "flesh," does it really make sense to assert they are lacking in regards to the flesh the author is talking about? No. The common knowledge and sense regarding the "flesh" is exactly as I described above. How do we know this to be true? Well, because we are "flesh" and consequently, we have personal knowledge. Second, this is well documented in the medical and science field. You know, the existence of all those hospitals where people are regularly admitted to be treated for injuries and wounds to their "flesh."

Similarly speaking then, common knowledge and sense tells us things of "flesh" exist on earth. We have yet to find or confirm the existence of any alien beings on another planet made of "flesh," and consequently, I fail to see now it is common knowledge or sense to believe so? Common knowledge and sense, combined with a plain reading of those verses above, leads a person to the reasonable conclusion they are talking about a human being, who walked this earth. Unless, of course, it is common knowledge and sense that people of flesh exist elsewhere in the universe, which it is not.

You can do a plain reading analysis on all the irrelevant verses in Hebrews to your hearts content.

First of all, your challenge has an erroneous assumption underlying it, specifically that Jesus did his purification for sins in heaven as opposed to earth. There are no verses in Hebrews which explicitly tells us Jesus died in a sublunar or heavenly realm. I have already told you the verses I am talking about and included an analysis and argument as to how and why I understand them.

In addition, I like your final phrase of, "where he apparently started and ended," because this is precisely what I am asserting. Jesus started in heaven, came to earth, and returns to heaven.

Look up the definition of "assertion" and "assert" in the dictionary. It means to state or declare positively. Some of the synonyms are declare, affirm, avow. Now, is Doherty doing any of this at all in his article? Yes. Doherty is absolutely making an assertion, and your obsessing over "hypothesis" does not change this fact. Doherty is stating the book of Hebrews and its author relied upon and intended to convey a "platonic philosophy" and consequently, the book of Hebrews is not ever talking about an earthly Jesus but an exclusively heavenly one. Hence, contrary to your incorrect remark above, an assertion is being made. You can continue with obsessing over the red herring of "hypothesis" but it does not change, alter, or diminish the fact Doherty is making an assertion.

Next, you are not conveying an accurate representation of Doherty's position. Doherty is claiming the book of Hebrews and its author relied upon and intended to convey a completely and exclusively Platonic view in regards to Jesus Christ and consequently, in remaining consistent and faithful to this platonic view, Hebrews speaks only of a heavenly Jesus, not an earthly one. In support for this view, he uses as evidence passages from the book of Hebrews. (I have already discussed why this is flimsy evidence). On this basis, he then concludes those verses discussing Jesus' time spent in the "flesh" are to be exclusively construed from a platonic philosophy and understanding, which means Jesus' existence in the flesh was not on earth but in heaven, thereby making these verses consistent with the platonic philosophy.

What Doherty seeks to do is make the following rather weak argument. Since there are verses in the book of Hebrews consistent with Greek Platonic philosophy, then the author/book of Hebrews is relying upon it to convey its point. This is not a very good argument by any means.

Now, what Doherty does next is truly phenomenal. After asserting some verses in the book of Hebrews have elements consistent with platonic philosophy, he then assumes on the basis of this the author is relying upon and intending to convey this platonic philosophy in the book of Hebrews; and making this assumption then allows him to place a platonic philosophy interpretation on those verses referring to Jesus' time spent in human form, in the flesh. This is precisely what Doherty is doing in his article. One major assumption underyling his entire argument is the platonic philosophy is, should, and was intended by the author to extend to those verses discussing Jesus' days in the flesh.

But, Doherty provides no evidence, absolutely none, to suggest, infer, or imply the platonic philosophy was intended, desired, or understood by its author to apply to those verses discussing Jesus' time in the flesh. His argument amounts to the weak one of, Well, the author of Hebrews used elements of the platonic philosophy here, in verse 20, therefore, he also used it elsewhere in the book, such as those preceding verses. All the while ignoring the very really possibility the author of Hebrews was relying upon and using the platonic philosophy exclusively in regards to those passages about the High Priest and earthly priest, but not anywhere else in Hebrews.

In other words this is what I am saying. I can assume Doherty is correct in that the author of the book of Hebrews relied upon the platonic philosophy in those verses discussing Jesus as the high priest in heaven and the earthly priests (again I think the reasoning he submits for this is weak). Now, this does not mean those verses discussing Jesus' time in the flesh are to be construed from the platonic philosophy merely because it is used elsewhere in the book, although Doherty says we can merely because it is used elsehwere in the book. Doherty has the burden of demonstrating the book of Hebrews and or its author intended, desired, or understood the platonic philosophy in the book of Hebrews as it pertains to the discussion about earthly and heaven priests extends to other verses, such as Jesus' days and time in the flesh. He cannot merely "assume" it does and the argument because the author did so elsewhere, therefore here is a weak argument because it ignores the fact the author, as authors are known to do, may have been limiting the philosophy to that specific part of the book and not relying upon it anywhere else in the book.

No, this is not what I am saying, precisely because what you just said above makes absolutely no sense at all. What you just above is completely non-sensical and not even close to what I am saying.

Amaleq13

No, I am not. Both must necessarily follow consideration of the evidence. I shouldn't have to point this out as your own words clearly support this obvious necessity.

Yes, you start by looking at the evidence. :huh:

Except the plentiful passages that specifically refer to humans and earth. Selective attention to the evidence? Not a good way to obtain a reliable conclusion.

I can only hope you see now that you actually agree that considering the evidence first and deriving one's hypotheses from the evidence is really the only rational way to go about it.

This is the step where your preconception creeps in. You are clearly not seeing how much fits your assumption. You are clearly seeing how much can be made to fit your assumption.

This is circular reasoning and it "works" just as well with about any conclusion one wishes to force upon a body of evidence.

"If I'm right" is what precedes predictions about the evidence. If it precedes and is the basis for interpreting the evidence, you have again fallen into the trap of circular reasoning.

If your "hypothesis" guides your interpretation of the evidence, however, you are still engaging in circular reasoning. The evidence should lead to the hypothesis without assuming the hypothesis to be true.

Adhering to this principle is a large part of why science has been so tremendously successful throughout history. Ignoring this principle is why so many snake oil salesmen have made so much money throughout history.

Surely, by now, you see that this is impossible without your having considered the relevant evidence beforehand?

As long as your interpretation of the evidence is, as with your position here, dependent upon the prior assumption of the "bright idea", you are engaging in circular reasoning.

As I've already explained, circular reasoning occurs when your conclusion is part of the argument leading to your conclusion. You simply cannot hope for any reliability by assuming your are correct and interpreting the evidence accordingly.

:huh: What are you talking about? You need me to point out the passages where the author describes Christ descending to be like humans? Doherty's thesis accepts this and you should know that. The only difference is that the descent stops prior to earth in a lower sphere of heaven. You want me to point out the absence of any other location than Heaven and earth? That is just more burden-shifting. It is your responsibility to point to passages you believe support a "lower sphere" location. I understand why you would want to avoid that responsibility since those passages simply do not exist.

James Madison

Hi, PhilosopherJay:

Actually, I think both you and I are in agreement. I agree with everything you just said and it coincides with the points I have been making in my posts to Gstafleu, the difference being you seem to better comprehend the logical persuasiveness of them than he does.

Now, here is the question as it relates to Doherty's article. What important and relevant evidence is there to justify abandoning a common sense plain reading of the verses discussing Jesus days and time in the flesh as being on earth? If, you are reading Hebrews for the first time, from left to right, (i.e. chronologically in terms of chapters and verses), without any knowledge of what Platonic philosophy is or means, or the Gospel accounts of Christ, then when you get to these verses in Hebrews you have not yet encountered any important and relevant evidence to abandon a common sense interpretation that those verses are talking about someone on earth.

Even as one reads further on in the later chapters of Hebrews, there is nothing in them to persuade a reader to go back and abandon their common sense plain reading of those verses. Nothing in those later chapters and verses indicates Jesus' time in the flesh was spent in heaven as opposed to earth. Rather, a common sense plain reading is Jesus was on earth in the flesh, died, and then later appears in Heaven, as far as the book of Hebrews is concerned.

So I am unsure what relevant and important information you think may exist in the book of Hebrews to justify a reader abandon their common sense plain reading of those verses regarding Jesus' time spent in the flesh?

The platonic philosophy, however, accomplishes what the plain text cannot, which is probably why Doherty is so insistent on it being present in the text. Anyone familiar with Plato's thoughts on the "forms" understands that Plato believed there was a perfect and universal notion of "justice," and a flawed and incomplete representation of it here on earth. Hence, the platonic philosophy of an above perfect existence of something and a below flawed representation of it, the above and below dichotomy. If one assumes and imposes this philosophy onto the ENTIRE book of Hebrews, then this operates as a very convincing reason to no longer read those verses about Jesus days in the flesh as existing on earth.

But this is the entire issue and consequently, Doherty cannot be allowed to merely assume the platonic philosophy is present in the book of Hebrews or assume it is to be extended to those verses about Jesus' days in the flesh rather than being specifically confined to those latter verses (presuming it is even present in those latter verses). The fact is, Doherty has done a completely lousy job in providing evidence to support either assumption. Consequently, I have read nothing, no evidence or compelling reasoning, to abandon a common sense plain reading of those verses in the book of Hebrews.

All the best,

James

Clivedurdle

James our common sense understanding of flesh and ancient understandings are not the same. Spittle and clay on an eye was thought to cure blindness. The brain was thought as a cooling system for semen - covering hair was thought to be stopping others looking at rude bits.

Dust to dust....

Flesh is a mixture of God's breath and the dust of the ground.

Christ is explicitly stated as the creator and sustainer of the worlds. He made the dust. Christ is explicitly stated as being identical to God - as if it is Christ's breath that makes life. The idea of the word is also related here.

The creator of dust and god's breath being spoken about as flesh is - using common sense - obviously a very special sort of flesh.

It is then legitimate to propose that maybe this special sort of flesh stayed in the heavens - there is no need for Christ to be geocentric - as the creator and sustainer he does not need to get down and dirty.

Maybe that twelth century mystic who Dali copied was correct - the sacrifice was in the heavens.

http://www.glasgowmuseums.com/venue/...id=4&itemid=68

(And Earl if you are still reading I strongly recommend that picture as evidence that people have thought stuff went on in the sub lunar realm - it should be in your essay - a picture is worth a thousand words!)

James Madison

I am not going to continue with a long post in regards to this issue between you and I because you are just wrong and in application.

"Please stop before you hit the car." Applying your logic above, in which I agree with for the first time, except for the last erroneous statement, the statement of "Please stop before you hit the car," is not ambiguous merely because it does not tell us the "sex" of the parties. Why? As you just said, the statement does not refer to the sex of the parties so who cares. EXACTLY and precisely the point I am making.

The statement of, "Stop before you hit the car," does not refer to "what" is to be stopped stopped, just as it does not refer to the sex of the parties, so who cares? Just as it does not matter if the parties are male, female, alien, eunuchs, hermaphrodites, or no sex at all. We can substitute any number of those sex possibilities into the statement and the understanding of the statement is still the same. Just as we can susbtitute any number of outcomes in regards to what is to be stopped into the statement, "Please stop before you hit the car," and reading of the statement is still the same. It does not matter if it is throwing eggs, playing the lottery, or driving a vehicle, the reading is still the same, just like the reading is still the same no matter the sex of the parties.

It would be different if the statement read, "Stop IT before you hit the car," but the statement does not say this at all. The phrase, "Stop IT," actually uses the word "it" to refer to "something" without telling us what "IT" is, whereas the phrase "Stop before you hit the car" is completely devoid of the word "it," and consequently, as you said above, who cares?

You said, it is words "in the statement" which result in ambiguity and since there are no words in the statement regarding the "sex" of the parties, just as there are no words in the statement regarding "what" is to be stopped, then the phrase of, "Please stop before you hit the car," is not an ambiguous statement.

You attempt to magically transform this into an ambiguous statement by observing the fact the statement does not tell us what is to be stopped. Well, by this same logic, the statement is ambiguous because it does not tell us the sex of the parties. If the sex of the parties is irrelevant because, as you properly identified before, the statement does not refer to the sex of the parties, then "what" is to be stopped is also irrelevant.

It would be no different with the phrase of, "Please stop." This is not an ambiguous phrase for the reasons you mentioned in regards to the topic and issue of "sex" of the parties, whereas, "Please stop it," is an ambiguous phrase because it places at issue what is to be stopped, "it."

James Madison

Yeah...well the relevant question is, can you give me evidence where ancient people thought flesh existed on other planets or realms? If you can, then you have a great point. If not, then what precisely is your point?

gstafleu

I'm getting totally lost here, so let me try something else. I think you are saying that it is invalid to use data that led to the original formulation of the hypothesis as evidence for that hypothesis, as that would be circular. OK, so here is my proposition. I have never read Hebrews before. I read the first four verses, see that this Son is presented as a heavenly being, and from that formulate the hypothesis that this being was always heavenly and never touched down on earth. As of then I no longer refer to 1:1-4 but just look in the rest of Hebrews for evidence pro and contra. Would that be OK?

I then find lots of places where Jesus is placed explicitly in heaven (like with his blood in the super tent), but non where it says anything about him being on earth. Hence I conclude that the evidence pro outweighs the evidence contra, and my hypothesis is verified.

Yes, please. Point out some passages where it is said that Christ descended to earth. You cannot quote things like taking on flesh or becoming like humans, because the issue at hand is if that was seen as happening on earth, hence assuming this would be begging the question. Please note how you yourself phrased it: "Christ descending to be like humans." So not just "Christ becoming like humans," we know that, the question is did he need to descend to earth in order to do that. Please show me verses from Hebrews where this is said. My guess: you can't do it because there ain't no such thing. But maybe I missed something.

Gerard Stafleu

No Robots

What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning.--Werner Heisenberg