NOGO

Layman,

Let's see if we can agree on anything.

The above passage says that Jesus having made purification of sins (by his death) sat down at the right hand of the Father and thus became so much better than the angels that he inherited the title of "Son of God".

So Jesus inherited the title of "Son of God" after he sat at the right hand of the father and thus after his resurrection.

Do you agree that the passage above says this?

Paul puts it this way

This may have two interpretations.
For a human Jesus it may simply say that his disciples realized that he was the Son of God when he resurrected.

But in view of Hebrews 1:3-5
I would say that Paul agrees with Hebrews that the title of "Son of God" was given to Jesus after the resurrection?

Do you agree?

Layman

If your argument is that therefore no Christian would refer to Jesus as the "Son" when discussing actions prior to the resurrection, then I disagree with you.

Romans 5:10: "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son...."

Romans 8:3: "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh."

Romans 8:32: "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us...."

Gal. 4:4: "But when the fulness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,"

Heb. 5:8: "Although he was a Son, He learned obediance from the things which he suffered."

NOGO

You answered a question that I did not ask.
I want to agree on the evidence first before getting to the conclusions, or is this too much to ask from a believer.

Ok, let's get that one out of the way so that we can proceed more quickly. The conclusion that you are talking about is not important to me so please let us not waste much time on it.

Basically it goes something like this.
First let me deal with your objection. The text that you quote was written after the fact. Since humans are not perfectly logical you cannot expect Paul to say something like "God sent Jesus who was not his Son at the time, to save us ..."
On the other hand the Gospels are written as history. People recalling or trying to recall historical facts.

Example 1:
Jesus asks his disciples who do you say that I am?
And Peter stating "you are the Son of the living God"
Example 2:
The virgin birth: Jesus was born as the Son of God. Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit.
Example 3:
Jesus' baptism: The voice which was heard from above stated that "this is my beloved Son ..."

There is more but this will suffice for now.

You see my point; I am sure.
Let me state it as clearly as I can.
Anybody familiar with the Gospel stories cannot possible state that Jesus became "Son of God" with the resurrection.

As I said this is small point.
You can comment if you wish but I would like an answer to my original question in my previous post.

Layman

Purported conflicts between the Epistles and the Gospels are not the focus of this thread.

NOGO

Of course they are.
Doherty is at least right in saying that the Jesus of the Gospels is very different than the Jesus of the Epistles. Paul did not believe in the Jesus of the Gospel which you now believe in.

You raise many points which I believe are weak in Doherty's theory, however, you do not want to answer any of the other points which show that the Gospel Jesus is a million miles from Paul's faith.

As a believer you job is to show complete conformity in the NT.
Tough job! One which you obviouly decline to undertake.

Doherty has punched so many holes in that conformity that you feel compelled to attack his theory. But that will not salvage your view which is even weaker.

Layman

Like I said. Irrelevant to this thread. And question begging.

Actually, I want to keep this thread on track. When an Christian tries to argue about the consistency of Paul and the Gospels, he is yelled at "you first have to show Jesus existed first." When I undertake to show that one of the epistle authors believed Jesus existed, you now shout at me "you have to show that the Gospels and the Epistles are consistent."

I get the feeling you are just trying to avoid a losing discussion.

It is not for you to tell me my task as a believer. The purpose of this thread is to undertake a thorough review of Doherty's treatment of Hebrews. I was actually hoping for some serious discussion on it.

If I ever undertake to show complete conformity in the NT, feel free to argue away. But that is hardly the issue here.

NOGO

Funny, that was exactly my feeling. Last time this happened I started a new thread and challenged you concerning the end of the world and Hebrews 9:26 and you were smart enough to avoid it.

The purpose of this thread is to cut up the issue into parts which you feel you can defend while conveniently avoiding parts which you know you cannot.

Complete conformity at least with regard to a human Jesus.

If you want to challenge Doherty please start at the heart of the issue. For example explain the Jesus in GJohn. I will start another thread of this subject feel free to contribute.

Layman

I can hardly have lost a discussion I did not participate in.

What issue? Inconsistencies between various Christian documents are just as easily explained by HJ theories as JM theories. So the issue is not Doherty's theory specifically or the JM generally. So it's irrelevant to this thread.

No such conformity is needed to counter the JM.

Why is that the "heart of the issue"? Doherty is the one who said an examination of Hebrews provided a case where we could examine "all the elements" of his theory. So I took him up on it. I'd much rather take his lead on what he considers to be relevant and important to his theory than yours.

Layman

For the Record. From the first line of my article on Hebrews:

On his website, Doherty claims that all the pieces of his Jesus Puzzle can be understand by reviewing the Epistle to the Hebrews. As he puts it: "More than any other New Testament document, the Epistle to the Hebrews contains all the elements needed to understand the general nature of early cultic Christianity."