Jeffrey Gibson

Even in English vs. 2b doesn't say what you think it says. Do you know what
διʼοὗ means?

And who is the subject of ἐποίησεν.

Jeffrey

Spanky

Are you writing a new translation as we speak, Jeffrey? Because I really want to read the Bible for what it really says.

Spanky

And I DO MEAN a translation for the ENTIRE Bible. Because, if we REALLY don't know what is written within its pages then I want to know. Please, enlighten me.

GakuseiDon

But what does being "of David's seed" or "of the tribe of Judah" in a spiritual context even mean? I know what it means in an earthly setting, but what does it mean in a heavenly setting?

According to Doherty, Christ was crucified by demons in a sublunar fleshly heaven. That is the "heavenly setting" for the crucifixion. I disagree since I've never seen anything to support the idea, but I at least understand what he means. So what does "seed of David" and "tribe of Judah" mean in a heavenly setting?

What do you mean "will he do that in the flesh or a Paulinesque vision"? What would be the difference IYO to the author of Hebrews? You seem to be implying that "flesh" means "earth". If you aren't implying that, then what is the distinction?

Amaleq13

Because you are tone deaf?

It was a simple statement of fact, Clive. You suggested a contradiction with the Gospel stories that does not exist.

There is nothing "apologetic" about the observation.

Amaleq13

What he must mean by "context" is that, because the word could be used to refer the earth and the spirit realm we should assume that is what was meant here even though there is no such indication from the actual context. This is in clear contrast with the context we have in Clement where the secondary meaning is certainly implied.

Even if we accept the expanded meaning as what was intended, it does nothing to establish or even suggest that nothing happened on earth. It just means earth and spirit realm.

The context he wants is not where he needs it.

I see no reason to think otherwise.

Amaleq13

I've addressed this in my post to Ben.

Please note that Earl simply asserts that "it seems that Hebrews’ ‘inhabited earth’ is populated only by angels" where there is no basis for it.

gstafleu

I know he has said so in other context. Did he make that claim for Hebrews (I don't remember)? In any case, in Hebrews there seems to be nothing that says "sublunar." There may, as I pointed out above, be evidence for various (at least two) "layers" of heaven, but that is as far as it goes. I'm not arguing anything sublunar here, I'm just arguing heaven.

I was being colloquial, and in current colloquial English "in the flesh" means a physical appearance. What we are discussing here is if that colloquialism can be transplanted to the thought world of Hebrews.

The question I was addressing is that if Jesus is supposed to reappear to his believers, than that presupposes a first appearance. If that first appearance was on terra firma then that second appearance can also be seen to be on terra firma. Conversely, if the second appearance is held to be on terra firma, that then can imply that the first appearance was on terra firma as well. What I meant to show with the "Paulinesque vision" is that in neither case such an appearance is necessarily a physical one. And given all this quoting from scripture that is going on (very little that is said about Christ does not seem to come from scripture), the first appearance may well be the bright idea the Hebrews got when studying scripture.

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

PhilosopherJay

Hi gtafleu,

You present a reasonable position on the issues.

We should remember that the difference between heaven and Earth was not generally perceived to be as great as it is today. Today, we think of heaven as being part of a religious/mythological system of thinking, not attached to the physical world and Earth, but on a different plane of thought. This was not the common thinking in the First century world of the Roman Empire.

Remember that Greek Gods lived on Mount Olympus, a real place on Earth. Although, Aristotle separated the heavens and Earth by giving eternal and fixed motion to the heavens, while free motion existed on the Earth, his view probably was not common. For the ordinary person, the Earth and Heaven was a continuum. By climbing a long enough rope ladder, you could reach heaven. A trip to heaven would not necessary take as long as a trip to Rome, (if you were living in Alexandria or Ephesus) or involve much more difficulties.

If you were to travel to Rome, you would encounter several cities and or land masses before arriving there. Likewise if you were to make the upwards journey to the home and palace of the creator God, you would likely encounter other places too with men a little above men on Earth but a little below the angels who lived closest to the palace of the great immortal Hebrew King/God.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

GakuseiDon

Doherty created the "sublunar fleshly heaven" to get out of a number of problems which a "heavenly crucifixion" raises.

For one, the idea that Satan was allowed by God to crucify anyone in heaven seems an incredible idea. So if you are arguing "heaven" as the location for this, how do you avoid this problem?

But this then comes back to "in the days of his flesh". If the English colloquial expression "in the flesh" means a physical appearance, and similarly appears to have the same meaning to the people of the Hebrews author's time, then why doesn't this suggest a physical appearance as the stronger alternative?

How about, the earthly setting didn't need to be firmly established since it was firmly assumed? If "flesh" was associated with the earthly sojourn (as it certainly appears to be) there would be no need to say "in flesh on earth". It would be redundent. It would not be redundent if flesh could exist above earth. Since we know that flesh exists on earth, and you and Doherty propose that flesh can exist above earth, why then didn't the author of Hebrews need to clarify the ambiguity?

Well, on one side we know. On the other side, we don't know. What side fits the known usage of terms? Surely it has to be the "earthly" side. As someone once said, all too often Doherty gives himself the benefit of the doubt. But if there is clear evidence on one side, and no clear evidence on the other, then this surely suggests that one side is the stronger.

And again I ask: what does a "heavenly" tribe of Judah even mean, IYO? And is there support for the idea?