dogsgod

Paul claimed to have been to the third heaven, so that in itself is evidence of at least three heavenly layers believed to have existed back then:



2 Corinthians 12:2

I was caught up to the third heaven fourteen years ago. Whether I was in my body or out of my body, I don’t know—only God knows.


Paul's audience would have known what he meant by the third heaven, he was quite proud of himself for having been taken there, he was boasting about it.

aspronot

Why would you expect that Biblical scholars, overwhelmingly Christian raised in and accepting of the HJ tradition, would think to look twice at this passage?

Up until the mid-1800's few dared or sought to seriously question the historicity of Genesis, let alone an obscure passage in Hebrews.

aa5874

Who was Paul's audience and which Paul? Only God knows.

But Gods do not exist.

EarlDoherty

Jiri, when you are ready to take my case apart about Hebrews 8:4, we might have something to debate. You declaring that "it tells us nothing of the sort" is not a counter argument. Just as me saying that your superficial statement, "The verse simply contrasts Jesus as a high priest in heaven with the function of the high priests appointed by law on earth," completely misses the import of the passage is itself not a counter-argument. The counter-argument is the 8-page analysis of the verse in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man.

So the the ball is once again in your court. But since I have no doubt that once again you will fail to return it, I guess we'll have to let it go at that. That gives us three dissenters who refuse any attempt to address my challenge of Hebrews 8:4, which ought by itself to lay the HJ to rest.

Earl Doherty

Kapyong

Gday,

I keep asking - WHO is the woman according to Paul?
Will you ever answer that ?

Here is the passage with allegorical passages in green :


1 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

12 I plead with you, brothers and sisters, become like me, for I became like you. You did me no wrong. 13 As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you, 14 and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. 15 Where, then, is your blessing of me now? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?

17 Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may have zeal for them. 18 It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always, not just when I am with you. 19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, 20 how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!

21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.


So Abe,
what woman does Paul actually mention here ?


K.

Kapyong

Gday,


I have found another reference to a "third heaven" in the 1st century :

The Life of Adam and Eve 11:1, 1st C. :
Then God spake to the archangel(s) Michael, (Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael): 'Go away to Paradise in the Third Heaven, and strew linen clothes and cover the body of Adam and bring oil of the 'oil of fragrance' and pour it over him.

It's also mentioned in 2 Enoch, Ch.8 :

1 And those men took me thence, and led me up on to the third heaven, and placed me there; and I looked downwards, and saw the produce of these places, such as has never been known for goodness.

2 And I saw all the sweet-flowering trees and beheld their fruits, which were sweet-smelling, and all the foods borne by them bubbling with fragrant exhalation.

3 And in the midst of the trees that of life, in that place whereon the Lord rests, when he goes up into paradise; and this tree is of ineffable goodness and fragrance, and adorned more than every existing thing; and on all sides it is in form gold-looking and vermilion and fire-like and covers all, and it has produce from all fruits.

4 Its root is in the garden at the earth’s end.

5 And paradise is between corruptibility and incorruptibility.

As well as :
The Testament of the 12 Patriarchs.
The Ascension of Isaiah
Irenaeus
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul
3 Baruch
The Testament of Solomon
Cyprian
and many more ...

K.

Added:
Wiki says :
a number of specific figures and spirits are mentioned as residing in the Third Heaven. These include, by source,The Legends of The Jews by Louis Ginzberg:
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Moses
Aaron
the Israelites of the Exodus
the kings of Judah (notably David, but "with the exception of Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, who presides in the second division, over the penitents")

Paul is comparing himself to them.

ApostateAbe

Sorry, K. I think it was some time ago that I decided to skip most of the things that your write. I thought I let you know, but maybe not. Anyway, to answer your question, I would presume that Paul had Jesus's mother Mary in mind when he wrote that, based on the contemporary accounts of the gospels (using a definition of "contemporary" as it is typically used in all ancient historical scholarship). If you connect the "woman" with Hagar by drawing from the broader context of Paul, then I think the biggest problem is that Hagar is explicitly connected by Paul to "Jerusalem," not to the Son. The other big problem is that the most immediate context is more important than the broader context, and the immediate context requires that the Son of God be born of an actual human woman and under the Jewish law "to redeem those under the law." Paul's reasoning makes at least some sense if he were telling of an actual human woman, but it makes very little or no sense if the woman is merely metaphorical. It would require, for example, that he would be using the phrase, "under the law," to be both literal and metaphorical--metaphorical the first time and literal the time directly after that. If we can make perfect sense of it by reading it literally, then that is what we should do. Metaphor is scattered all throughout the Bible, and of course you can think of anything as metaphorical in order to make your conclusion work. However, I believe in fitting the conclusion to the evidence, not fitting the evidence to the conclusion.

Doug Shaver

You can only presume so, of course, because he doesn't say so, does he? Nowhere, in any document attributed to him, does he so much as hint to any knowledge of who could have been the mother of this person he refers to as "Christ Jesus," does he?

Would you please quote one reputable scholar using the word "contemporary" in a sense that would make the gospels contemporary with the Pauline corpus?

Why? Are you referring to some provision of Jewish law that was in effect during Paul's lifetime? Can you cite that law, specifically?

So say they all.

Spanky

Don't you need to read the entire chapter to get the gist of what the writer was trying to portray? If you read from 8:1 and on (not just verse 4), you can see that the writer is exalting Jesus beyond any priest or mediator there is. How? Why? Because this Jesus is at the right hand of God, a minister in the sanctuary of a heavenly tabernacle not made by man. We have a priest that is not on earth, but is in the heavens. This is what the writer was selling. It is most obvious (at least from reading it in the English translations) that the writer was not saying anything about Jesus never being on earth; the writer was simply selling the point that, like it says in the first verse: 1Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

You seem to be reading into things.

EarlDoherty

Well, you’ll never know for sure unless you read my 8-page discussion, will you?

As a matter of fact, that analysis reaches back into the last few verses of chapter 7. And like Jiri, who seems to be as much an atomist as you are, you have even failed to understand the meaning of the remark itself in 8:4, regardless of context. Jiri contended: “The verse simply contrasts Jesus as a high priest in heaven with the function of the high priests appointed by law on earth.” But contrasted in what way? Jiri went on to say:

First of all, Jiri’s statement simply presents a picture of complementary duties, one performed in heaven, the other performed on earth. It is stating that the two forms of high priest operated in their two different venues. But 8:4, while it includes that basic thought, actually says something quite different:

Now if he had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts which the Law prescribes…”[NEB]

This is not the same as what Jiri claims the verse says. Jiri’s interpretation says nothing about the idea of “if Jesus had been on earth.,” and what could or could not be done if he were. That’s the essential element of this verse. Like I said, he has missed the entire import of it. The writer has already said, and will again say, his piece about Jesus the High Priest operating in heaven and the Temple high priests operating on earth, two different places. 8:4 is hardly just another statement of the same thing.

Where in Jiri’s complacent interpretation of 8:4 is the idea that a Christ on earth could not have performed his duty as a high priest, because there were already high priests on earth performing the equivalent/parallel duty of offering a blood sacrifice? He has ignored the very words of the verse because he wishes to dismiss the possibility that a proper interpretation of 8:4 would tell us that Jesus had not been on earth, past or present. Since 8:4’s “if…” makes this a contrafactual statement, then it states, if the NEB translation is correct, that Jesus had not been on earth. This is why virtually every other translation attempts to avoid that problem by rendering the verb in the present: if he were (NOW) on earth. But an essential aspect of my 8-page discussion is a clear demonstration that a present sense is impossible within the context. The NEB translation is correct (we can be sure that the translators simply closed their minds to its implications). Jiri then says:

But if it did, then Jesus’ role as High Priest (the chief essence of which was the performance of his sacrifice) would have been performed on earth. This, then, would be incompatible with the statement of 8:4, which is a statement that had he been on earth, he would not have been able to fill his role as High Priest—i.e., the performance of his sacrifice—because there already were high priests operating there, and the two could not take place in the same dimension. (This restriction doesn’t have to make all that much sense to us—though it does within the writer’s Platonic principles—but that is the stated view of the writer and his picture of the complementary sacrifices taking place, one on earth, the other in heaven. Don’t blame me for reading what the writer wrote, rather than reading into the text what orthodox Christianity based on the Gospels has been desperate to find there.)

And are we to ignore a respected and competent Greek scholar’s own admission about 8:4? Paul Ellingworth, in his Commentary on Hebrews (p.405), says that this verse “…could be misunderstood as meaning that Jesus had never ‘been on earth’.” He also admits that the verb is “temporally ambiguous” so that the sense of the NEB’s past tense “is grammatically possible.”

Once again, scholarly preconception determines interpretation, not the text itself.

Earl Doherty