Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-29-2013, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

On the face of it, Hebrews is preposterous as a historical reference. The ostensible purpose is to place Jesus in the appropriate position relative to fictional angels, the fictional Moses, as a fictional "exact representation" of God

While eloquent, I find this to be a bizarre perception. It is not a requirement that the angels, Moses, etc. have been 'historical' or real because the author isn't claiming that Jesus interacted with them when he performed the sacrifice.

I think you misuse the word bizarre, and misunderstand the post. The claim is that the letter is clearly not historical.

Quote:

The logical fallacy is concluding that the author had no knowledge of where the original believers in Jesus placed his crucifixion. There is no basis for concluding this.

Could you identify this alleged logical fallacy?

Quote:

It is a logical fallacy to assume that the letter is a 'pious fraud'. Prove it.

You seem to have picked up a new phrase, "logical fallacy." I do not think you fully understand it. It is not very persuasive if you think that you can just shift the burden of proof like that. Christian apologists like to claim that ancient documents should be presumed truthful unless there is an indication of falsehood, but this stands normal historical standards on their head. If you think that any part of the Bible is historically accurate, you should bear the burden of proof.

Quote:

It doesn't matter even if it was a letter or not (although certainly the writer could have not intended to visit them without Timothy--the logic again was lacking by rlogan).

Quote:

Why is this theoretical piece of such wide application - so wide as to be exactly what it is used for ie. every person on earth,

This only shows more ignorance about the letter and its audience. I won't respond any further.

We are all ignorant about the letter and its audience - we don't know who wrote it, when it was written, to whom it was written, or why. I can see why you would not want to continue.

jakejonesiv · 01-29-2013, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

An over-arching logical fallacy being employed by historicists is that if a Chapter of "Gone with the Wind" or what have you is written with the literal context implying the characters are real that the characters must have indeed been real.

This is the kind of facile "logic" behind all this pretentiousness of deep scholarship. It's actually much worse than the example of Gone with the Wind because in that novel there are no utterly ridiculous, fantastical claims and characters.

On the face of it, Henrews is preposterous as a historical reference. The ostensible purpose is to place Jesus in the appropriate position relative to fictional angels, the fictional Moses, as a fictional "exact representation" of God - how stupid do we have to actually be? It is only the centuries of brutal police-state dictatorship over thought and historical/cultural inertia thereafter that grants phony legitimacy to its historicity.

It is clearly a liturgical device masquerading as a letter, following the example of every other pious fraud in the collection of epistles. One sentence in the entire piece provides a g-string of verisimilitude: "I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been released. If he arrives soon, I will come with him to see you." Otherwise what? I will come without him? Won't come at all? If you are coming then why are you writing a letter? Why is this theoretical piece of such wide application - so wide as to be exactly what it is used for ie every person on earth, yet is allegedly written to "Hebrews" who are scattered over an entire Kingdom and beyond... So the author is coming to visit where, exactly? Tim's house? In Hebrew land?

How gullible do you have to be in accepting this as an actual letter dating to the first century rather than the as-usual "Oh look what I found in the basement" Biblical standard?

Hebrews is a parade of fictional Hebrew Bible characters through Noah, Abraham, and etc. all of whom we are to emulate with our faith . It was through faith that the fictional Noah was saved from the fictional flood with a fictional Ark full of fictional animals and so we too must have faith in the exhortations of this fictional book of Hebrews, yet another chapter in an entire Bible that is from the first to the last page a work of fiction.

So we have the spectacle of allegedly intelligent people, parsing the precise Koine Greek interpretation of a single word in a book that is the equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard's bizzaro-world of Xenu, to do battle over historicity.

Earl's approach is fraught with the same kind of difficulty one has in trying to explain Scientology. It is fiction, so getting into the exact details of where Xenu landed with the space ship and planted the hydrogen bombs; how this translates logically into engrams interfering in our ability to be "clear" - this is a tar baby of circumlocution I would never take on. Blah blah blah. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Oh look, I used the word "pin". So Angels are real.

+1 Finally a rational pespective on all the pontification.

Bernard Muller · 01-29-2013, 02:47 PM

Emphasis mine:
Doherty wrote:

Quote:

The simple answer to that, Ted, is that if this writer (regardless of what the Jewish encyclopedia says, and I don't doubt its accuracy) had meant to make the cross part of the sacrifice, he would have presented it that way. He does not.

You are still ignoring "the sacrifice of himself" (9:26) and "the offering of the body of Jesus Christ" (10:10). And the writer never wrote that blood offering in heaven is the sacrifice.

Quote:

In fact, when offered the opportunity (13:11-13) to make Jesus' suffering and death a parallel to something, what does he do? Does he parallel it with the slaughter of the animals, as the Jewish Encyclopedia (and you) would suggest? No, he makes the very unsuitable 'parallel' of Jesus suffering outside the gate as corresponding to the burning of the animals' body!!!

Maybe he did not make a more suitable parallel because he knew where Jesus was crucified (outside a city gate) and not necessarily burnt afterwards, and where these animal were sacrificed (inside the camp), but burnt outside. Under these circumstances, that's as close as a parallel he could make, in order to make the point to look outside Judaism for salvation.

Here, I think there is a suitable parallel between animal blood offering and Jesus' own blood offering:
"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, ..." Heb 9:12

Cordially, Bernard

jakejonesiv · 01-29-2013, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I did not answer because the question doesn't make sense in this context. Such a statement could not have been made within the contrafactual structure of 8:4. The context is either he is not on earth now because of a now situation (which I reject on grounds beyond the grammatical), or he was not on earth then because of a past and ongoing situation. One could not get across the question you ask within that context. The statement would have to be entirely different, it would not involve a contrafactual, and thus the grammatical situations we have been arguing ad nauseum would not come into play.

The only "best interests" which are applicable here relate to the preservation of my sanity! Even Job was not subjected to the piling on, usually lacking in rational comprehension, that I have been. What this all shows me is not that there are legitimate rebuttals to my position, only that certain people are a priori determined that they are going to at all costs invent whatever they can come up with to disagree, to not give an inch. Ted's first interpretation of 8:4 (the "kind" of sacrifice) didn't work, so he went off and came up with an entirely different one, incompatible with the first one (not "according to the Law"), which equally didn't work. This is honest or reasonable debate? It's another form of apologetics, even if the motivations are different. Get Doherty, beat him down, no matter what the recourse. Even Stephan says he doesn't get on board with my interpretation, but does he offer an argumentative rebuttal to the case I've made?

Earl Doherty

Hi Earl,

OK. I can understand your frustration. You have staked out a position, and ended up defending it from all sides; apologists, historists, and non-Dohertian mythicists. Not everyone agrees to look through the narrow lens of your carefully crafted arguments, and the whole time aa is taking a sledge hammer to your assumptions.

The author of Heb 8:4 could quite easily have said that Jesus had never been on earth, but he chose not to. So you must parse everything the author wrote (with a precision that rlogan pointed out is not attainable) to relieve an otherwise unperceived ambiguity. You have 8 pages of angels pin head dancing filled with arguments from your own incredulity to prove something no one in antiquity ever knew. That can't seem fair to you. :huh:

Jake

TedM · 01-29-2013, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Christian apologists like to claim that ancient documents should be presumed truthful unless there is an indication of falsehood, but this stands normal historical standards on their head.

He was claiming the letters contents had no historical basis because the letter itself 1. had angels, and other fictional characters and 2. wasn't really written to anybody.

While he may be true, he can't prove it. His logic is unsound. His insult was unjustified. There are indications in the letter that the author was writing to people in a city who had undergone specific trials and had reacted in specific ways. Whether that's a 'cover' or not we can't say. Skeptics would say it cannot be proven. Close-minded skeptics would say what rlogan said and Mac seconded.

I'm done discussing it. Let's get back to the intent of the thread.

Toto · 01-29-2013, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Christian apologists like to claim that ancient documents should be presumed truthful unless there is an indication of falsehood, but this stands normal historical standards on their head.

He was claiming the letters contents had no historical basis because the letter itself 1. had angels, and other fictional characters and 2. wasn't really written to anybody.

While he may be true, he can't prove it. His logic is unsound.

rlogan said:

On the face of it, Henrews is preposterous as a historical reference. The ostensible purpose is to place Jesus in the appropriate position relative to fictional angels, the fictional Moses, as a fictional "exact representation" of God -

There's nothing about not being written to anyone. He just says the obvious - as a historical reference, this is preposterous.

Quote:

His insult was unjustified.

But it was clearly justified.

Quote:

There are indications in the letter that the author was writing to people in a city who had undergone specific trials and had reacted in specific ways. Whether that's a 'cover' or not we can't say.

But that doesn't make the parts about Jesus a historical record.

Quote:

Skeptics would say it cannot be proven. Close-minded skeptics would say what rlogan said and Mac seconded.

Just as you can't prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit around Mars?

Quote:

I'm done discussing it. Let's get back to the intent of the thread.

:wave:

TedM · 01-29-2013, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Just as you can't prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit around Mars?

I'm going to answer this because it is a common argument that sometimes applies but in this case it seems to be missing the point.

The book is postulating what happens in the heavens. As such, of course no one is going to claim it is a historical reference for those parts. But why would anybody assume it negates ALL of it on a historical basis? I know people that believe in angels but are 100% reliable when it comes to their first-hand testimony. Don't you?

The book also talks about things that the author believes happened in the past, based on scripture. Once again, no one is relying on Hebrews to be accurate historically for those sections--he's simply repeating OT verses and pontificating about them.

The book also talks about Jesus. It applies OT verses to his actions in some places and in other places it describes actions without OT support given.

There is no logical basis for claiming that Jesus performed no actions, and that the writer knew nothing historical about Jesus which he relied upon in his writings about Jesus' actions. People believe all kinds of things but that doesn't mean they know nothing, nor that they don't report certain things with 100% historical accuracy. To claim otherwise is unfounded.

Do any of you really think that the OT beliefs and references by the author somehow renders any information he provides about Jesus -- a more recent figure -- to be completely without any basis? How do you know? How can anybody say whether this author knew these things were true, or just thought them to be true?

And do any of you really think Earl, Bernard, and I believe that if we can just figure out what the author meant in 8:4 that it provides definitive proof that Jesus did or didn't come to earth?

EarlDoherty · 01-29-2013, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

An over-arching logical fallacy being employed by historicists is that if a Chapter of "Gone with the Wind" or what have you is written with the literal context implying the characters are real that the characters must have indeed been real.

This is the kind of facile "logic" behind all this pretentiousness of deep scholarship. It's actually much worse than the example of Gone with the Wind because in that novel there are no utterly ridiculous, fantastical claims and characters.

On the face of it, Henrews is preposterous as a historical reference. The ostensible purpose is to place Jesus in the appropriate position relative to fictional angels, the fictional Moses, as a fictional "exact representation" of God - how stupid do we have to actually be? It is only the centuries of brutal police-state dictatorship over thought and historical/cultural inertia thereafter that grants phony legitimacy to its historicity.

It is clearly a liturgical device masquerading as a letter, following the example of every other pious fraud in the collection of epistles. One sentence in the entire piece provides a g-string of verisimilitude: "I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been released. If he arrives soon, I will come with him to see you." Otherwise what? I will come without him? Won't come at all? If you are coming then why are you writing a letter? Why is this theoretical piece of such wide application - so wide as to be exactly what it is used for ie every person on earth, yet is allegedly written to "Hebrews" who are scattered over an entire Kingdom and beyond... So the author is coming to visit where, exactly? Tim's house? In Hebrew land?

How gullible do you have to be in accepting this as an actual letter dating to the first century rather than the as-usual "Oh look what I found in the basement" Biblical standard?

Hebrews is a parade of fictional Hebrew Bible characters through Noah, Abraham, and etc. all of whom we are to emulate with our faith . It was through faith that the fictional Noah was saved from the fictional flood with a fictional Ark full of fictional animals and so we too must have faith in the exhortations of this fictional book of Hebrews, yet another chapter in an entire Bible that is from the first to the last page a work of fiction.

So we have the spectacle of allegedly intelligent people, parsing the precise Koine Greek interpretation of a single word in a book that is the equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard's bizzaro-world of Xenu, to do battle over historicity.

Earl's approach is fraught with the same kind of difficulty one has in trying to explain Scientology. It is fiction, so getting into the exact details of where Xenu landed with the space ship and planted the hydrogen bombs; how this translates logically into engrams interfering in our ability to be "clear" - this is a tar baby of circumlocution I would never take on. Blah blah blah. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Oh look, I used the word "pin". So Angels are real.

+1 Finally a rational pespective on all the pontification.

I don't understand rlogan's reasoning here. In what way is Hebrews not "historical"? It is not claiming to be presenting an historical figure in its Jesus the High Priest. It is presenting a picture of what has gone on in the heavenly world, according to this sect's findings in scripture. In that context, there is nothing 'false' about it, and certainly no need to regard it as a second century fabrication with some hidden agenda. It is an exhortation from someone in a community to his fellow sect members. The "Timothy" business is a later addition, simply to identify the author as Paul. That's the only 'phoney' thing about it. A comparison with Scientology is irrelevant. Yes, both sect's mythology is equally bizarre and fanciful, but what does that prove for our purposes here?

What "historical reference" does rlogan think this purports to be? That is precisely what it does NOT present, a picture of historical events. They are all heavenly. And if the historical reference is the picture of a sect in turmoil, with an advocate seeking to reinforce the sect's beliefs in its members' minds, what is "fraught with difficulty" about that? There were no cults in the ancient world holding bizarre ideas and mythology? If Scientology today can win over thousands with its lunatic myths, why can we not see an ancient cult believing in its own lunatic myths? (At least scripture was a better writer than L. Ron Hubbard.)

I have no idea what rlogan is advocating here, and no idea why Jake thinks he has brought rationality to the question.

Earl Doherty

aa5874 · 01-29-2013, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I don't understand rlogan's reasoning here. In what way is Hebrews not "historical"? It is not claiming to be presenting an historical figure in its Jesus the High Priest...

What??? A Son of a God is now a figure of history?? Earl you now appear to be totally confused.

The Jesus in Hebrews MUST be Myth if he was Only Celestial.

Hebrews 4:14 KJV

Quote:

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Earl, you have now forgotten what your 800 page book was about??

Do you remember it is entitled "Jesus Neither God Nor Man"--the case for the Mythical Jesus ???

This is really a disaster. Doherty has forgotten that the Celestial Jesus is a Myth.

Toto · 01-29-2013, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Just as you can't prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit around Mars?

I'm going to answer this because it is a common argument that sometimes applies but in this case it seems to be missing the point.

The book is postulating what happens in the heavens. As such, of course no one is going to claim it is a historical reference for those parts. But why would anybody assume it negates ALL of it on a historical basis? I know people that believe in angels but are 100% reliable when it comes to their first-hand testimony. Don't you?

Not anyone that I would trust.

Quote:

The book also talks about things that the author believes happened in the past, based on scripture. Once again, no one is relying on Hebrews to be accurate historically for those sections--he's simply repeating OT verses and pontificating about them.

The book also talks about Jesus. It applies OT verses to his actions in some places and in other places it describes actions without OT support given.

There is no logical basis for claiming that Jesus performed no actions, and that the writer knew nothing historical about Jesus which he relied upon in his writings about Jesus' actions. People believe all kinds of things but that doesn't mean they know nothing, nor that they don't report certain things with 100% historical accuracy. To claim otherwise is unfounded.

You are again inverting the test. Is there any logical reason to believe that the author had a historical Jesus in mind? If so, what is it?

Quote:

Do any of you really think that the OT beliefs and references by the author somehow renders any information he provides about Jesus -- a more recent figure -- to be completely without any basis? How do you know? How can anybody say whether this author knew these things were true, or just thought them to be true?

Is there any positive basis for inferring that this author knew anything about a historical Jesus? What would that be?

Quote:

And do any of you really think Earl, Bernard, and I believe that if we can just figure out what the author meant in 8:4 that it provides definitive proof that Jesus did or didn't come to earth?

No one really expects definitive proof at this point.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.