Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 11-14-2009, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one

Is this not game set and match for the heavenly anointed one? It says explicitly Christ did not become human nor enter the earthly temple. And logically, following the platonic thinking here, the reconciliation of heaven and earth could not happen by the gods becoming human - we have to become as gods, and his sacrifice in the heavens does that!

And you have found the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed.

To Clive! :notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-14-2009, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

But Hebrews 9 does not mention Jesus!!

Quote:

Hebrews 9

Worship in the Earthly Tabernacle

1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover.[a] But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

The Blood of Christ

11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!

15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

16In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[e] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

And the use of the term copies is Platonic thinking - reality is the heavens, we are but a shadow. So the Christ may be here to reconcile our Platonic cave lives to the real life of the heavens.

It isn't all a riff on Platonism from a Jewish perspective is it?

No, it's not. See Lincoln Hurst's "How 'Platonic' are Hebrews viii.5 and ix.23ff.?" Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983) and his "Eschatology and 'Platonism' in the Epistle to the Hebrews," Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 23, Chico (1984), pp. 41ff.

I wonder, Clive, not only of you'd tell us what Greek word is translated by "copies and what Greek word Plato uses when he is speaking of the manifestation of the "forms", but if you'd do us all the favour of ceasing once and for all your basing your "exegesis" of Greek texts on English translations of them.

Jeffrey

dog-on · 11-14-2009, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

But Hebrews 9 does not mention Jesus!!

And the use of the term copies is Platonic thinking - reality is the heavens, we are but a shadow. So the Christ may be here to reconcile our Platonic cave lives to the real life of the heavens.

It isn't all a riff on Platonism from a Jewish perspective is it?

No, it's not. See Lincoln Hurst's "How 'Platonic' are Hebrews viii.5 and ix.23ff.?" Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983) and his "Eschatology and 'Platonism' in the Epistle to the Hebrews," Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 23, Chico (1984), pp. 41ff.

I wonder, Clive, not only of you'd tell us what Greek word is translated by "copies and what Greek word Plato uses when he is speaking of the manifestation of the "forms", but if you'd do us all the favour of ceasing once and for all your basing your "exegesis" of Greek texts on English translations of them.

Jeffrey

But Jeffery, Hurst was wrong, so why do wish Clive to read this stuff?

Clivedurdle · 11-14-2009, 06:42 AM

Because obvious platonic stuff all over the New Testament isn't kosher? Although it is written in Greek?

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-14-2009, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

No, it's not. See Lincoln Hurst's "How 'Platonic' are Hebrews viii.5 and ix.23ff.?" Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983) and his "Eschatology and 'Platonism' in the Epistle to the Hebrews," Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 23, Chico (1984), pp. 41ff.

I wonder, Clive, not only of you'd tell us what Greek word is translated by "copies and what Greek word Plato uses when he is speaking of the manifestation of the "forms", but if you'd do us all the favour of ceasing once and for all your basing your "exegesis" of Greek texts on English translations of them.

Jeffrey

But Jeffery, Hurst was wrong

Really? He was? Assuming you've read these articles (is that a valid assumption), what makes you say so?

And even if Hurst was wrong, it wouldn't hurt Clive to actually read something beyond what he finds on the internet, would it? Then again ...

Jeffrey
Jeffrey

Clivedurdle · 11-14-2009, 06:44 AM

Quote:

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.

More gnostic dualist, platonic, cave stuff.

dog-on · 11-14-2009, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

But Jeffery, Hurst was wrong

Really? He was? Assuming you've read these articles (is that a valid assumption), what makes you say so?

And even if Hurst was wrong, it wouldn't hurt Clive to actually read something beyond what he finds on the internet, would it? Then again ...

Jeffrey
Jeffrey

No, but don't you think that it's a bit disingenuous to point him to articles, without giving any indication as to why, specifically, you believe that the opinions expressed in said articles would in fact be relevant to the current discussion?

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-14-2009, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Because obvious platonic stuff all over the New Testament isn't kosher?

What "obvious" platonic stuff?

You'll forgive me if I roll my eyes over this claim, especially since you've demonstrated not only that your knowledge of what "Platonic stuff" is is miniscule, but that your previous claims about where we find Platonic stuff in the NT and elsewhere have all been nonsense. But here you've reached heights of begging the question that are new even for you.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-14-2009, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Really? He was? Assuming you've read these articles (is that a valid assumption), what makes you say so?

And even if Hurst was wrong, it wouldn't hurt Clive to actually read something beyond what he finds on the internet, would it? Then again ...

Jeffrey

No, but don't you think that it's a bit disingenuous to point him to articles, without giving any indication as to why, specifically, you believe that the opinions expressed in said articles would in fact be relevant to the current discussion?

Without any indication of relevance?? Look at the titles!

What is disingenuous, but not unexpected, is your claim to knowledge you do not possess.

Jeffrey

dog-on · 11-14-2009, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

No, but don't you think that it's a bit disingenuous to point him to articles, without giving any indication as to why, specifically, you believe that the opinions expressed in said articles would in fact be relevant to the current discussion?

Without any indication of relevance?? Look at the titles!

What is disingenuous, but not unexpected, is your claim to knowledge you do not possess.

Jeffrey

Again Jeffrey, I understand that you like to snipe from the edges, but as some of us believe that you could add to the discussion, my question stands. Why not tell us why, you believe, that the positions espoused by Mr. Hurst, in the articles listed, should be considered.

As a matter of fact, I do not actually completely disagree with Hurst, as I see Paul as the primary source of the original christian beliefs and Hurst's ideas do, in some ways, support this against the accepted consensus, but I knew my statement would get a rise from you and allow me to ask you for specifics.

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

11-14-2009, 06:42 AM	#84
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Because obvious platonic stuff all over the New Testament isn't kosher? Although it is written in Greek?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.