spin

Sorry, this confusion caused by my abreviating Matthew and Luke after having already mentioning them to M and L.


spin

rlogan

Didn't know about the hypothetical reconstruction on chapter and verse.

In fact, I'm just a poseur. An ignoramus with an internet hook-up.

spin

The chapter and verse are actually based on where Luke has the "Q" material.

The text was compiled by the International Q Project of the Society of Biblical Literature and Sterling Bjorndahl is the major scholar attached to the project. I haven't been able to track down a current location for the text, though you can find a copy here.


spin

GakuseiDon

Hehe. I like that. Hey, how did you know what my middle name is?

I've lurked on these boards quite a bit, but I must admit I've never heard of such a reconstruction of Q either.

Amaleq13

For the author of Hebrews, Jesus is the Messiah which requires a certain lineage. Also for the author of Hebrews, Jesus is a heavenly priest which, according to Jewish tradition requires a different lineage. It is "evident" to the author that "the Lord" has "arisen" from the tribe of Judah because he believes Jesus to be the Messiah. This is a conclusion based only on the text of Hebrews while yours requires us to read quite a bit into that text. The author of Hebrews, like Paul, assumes as specific lineage for Jesus based on the a priori belief that he is the Messiah. That is why both simply assert this as a fact without finding it necessary to refer to any actual family tree. It is only in the Gospels, where the authors are trying to establish Jesus in history, that we find examples of that kind of support for the assertion. It is not a coincidence that the attempts differ because neither had any genuine records but were fabricating the lineage to historicize the messianic assumption.

Not just the "focus" but the entire description of the pre-sacrifice Jesus in Hebrews. That clearly denies your unsubstantiated assertion that Hebrews portrays Jesus as living an actual life beyond the described death. If there is a human Jesus in Hebrews, the description of his "life" only consists of the moment of his death.

I wrote:
So, a reference to the crucifixion taking place outside the gate makes it "quite clear" that the author was talking about Jerusalem? I know you can do better than that! Your suggestion is only "clear" if you read Hebrews through the lense of the later Gospel story. That is a great way to get earlier texts to read as though they agree with the Gospels but a rather poor way of figuring out what the earlier author was actually saying.

There is no "city" in Hebrews, only a "gate". Just like there is only a "gate" in Psalms. There is no "radical discontinuity" between Hebrews and Mark's Gospel account. The former describes Jesus being sacrificed outside the "gate of righteousness" while the latter describes Jesus as being crucified at "Golgotha" without any reference to a "gate". Mark is creating an historical context for the Jesus of Hebrews. This is not "radical discontinuity" but "theological development" from a spiritual concept to an attempt at historicization.

That is only because you insist on understanding Hebrews through lense of the Gospel stories. This is quite obviously not a legitimate methodology.

My only "agenda" is to try to figure out what the author of Hebrews was thinking when he wrote the letter. I am "resistant" to the idea of using another author's work to accomplish that goal because it does not seem logical or reasonable.

He is assumed to have arisen out of the tribe of Judah because he is first assumed to be the Messiah. In the Gospels, this assumption is given the illusion of historicity by two different authors in two different ways. This is theology being presented in an historical narrative but there is no legitimate basis for your persistent method of reading a later narrative into an earlier document.

No, the author is clear about why it is a problem. It is a problem because he wishes to describe Jesus a both the Messiah and a heavenly priest but he knows that those are traditionally associated with different lineages.

Sure, but only after he was dead. Hebrews offers no description or suggestion that there was any prior activity on the part of the sacrificed Jesus other than being sacrificed. The lineage is assumed on the basis of the belief he was the Messiah. The rest clearly takes place during the crucifixion.

I wrote:
I'm not sure which passage you are referring to with regard to the "crying out" but I'll bet it takes place during the crucifixion.

I'll take the absence of any denial to be an indication that I am correct.

Your attempts to support your theological presuppositions is simply not credible to anyone not sharing those presuppositions.

Layman

Ameleq,

Onced again you offer nothing but your own unuspported opinion for your conclusions. You rarely site primary evidence and almost never site secondary evidence.

Every one of these points is addressed fully in my article, yet you seem intent on ignoring the discussion and just saying "it ain't so because I say it ain't so."

If you are serious about discussing the Epistle to the Hebrews, why not try doing so in depth, fairly raising and then meeting my discussion on these issues in the article?

You have done anything but. And I see little value in wasting my time pointing out that you offer nothing but unsupported opinion.

Amaleq13

On the contrary, my argument has been almost entirely based on the primary evidence of the contents of Hebrews. I read Hebrews to understand Hebrews. You, on the other hand, apparently consider it legitimate to read the Gospels to understand Hebrews. Like I said before, that is a great way to maintain your beliefs but clearly a very unreliable way of determining what it is the author of Hebrews actually believed. I admit freely that it is my personal opinion that your interpretation of Hebrews is flawed and, thus, not credible. I have offered specific reasons to doubt or even reject your various interpretations of specific passages. I have absolutely no problem allowing others to reach their own conclusions after reading your article and my rebuttals. I also have absolutely no problem with you continuing to ignore the apparent flaws in your argument in favor of your beliefs. I'm only interested in trying to figure out the best explanation for the evidence. You clearly do not have that, IMHO.

I directly rebutted your article on Hebrews in the Hebrews article thread. I have responded to each of your arguments here. I'm not sure what you think I'm "ignoring" but that seems to be a popular fall-back position you like to take so, unless and until you provide specific points you believe I have "ignored", I'll assume the accusation is without substance.

Your emperor appears to have no clothes and all you've done to prove otherwise is point to somebody else's closet.

Layman

Amaleq,

I can't believe you really believe this.

But it worries me that you just might.

Toto

This is a sincere question.

I think that Amaleq13 is sincere and his arguments are well put. You obviously not only disagree with him, but can't credit his analysis at all.

How do you propose to resolve this, if it is possible? Do you think that one of you has unstated assumptions? has made errors of fact? has made errors of logic?

Christians come here and express frustration when their arguments are not accepted. But I don't think that any Christians were converted by logical argument (I think I recall you saying that.) Do you have to be a Christian to start off with to follow Christian logic - in which case, is any communication even possible?

Layman

Toto,

Please don't be patronizing. Otherwise there will be no Christians who come here. Something you seem intent on promoting as a moderator and a poster.

You promised that if I wrote a review of Doherty's treatment of Hebrews you would read every word. Have you?

If you think any part of my analysis depends on some unknowable "Christian logic" please identify it.

Layman