Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 01-19-2013, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

...

No, the context is Earl Doherty's Hebrew 8:4 challenge (and elsewhere) in which he argues that the only possible meaning of Hebrews 8:4 is that Jesus was never on earth. Please note that E.D. argues that from the grammer, it is impossible that Jesus may have been on earth in the writer's past.

And he has issued a challenge for anyone to prove him wrong (but with himself as the judge).

That would indeed be a smoking gun, but one would expect that if this were true, someone in antiquity would have noted it or taken exception to it.

Best,

Jake

I'm not so sure about the bolded part.

The proto-orthodox railed

We get the free thought, anyway. Maybe not the rationalism.

There were people who said that Jesus had not lived as an ordinary man on earth. Now why would they say that? Because they were thieves, adulterers, drunkards etc.? Such people would say that, obviously. It would be suspicious if it had not occurred.

aa5874 · 01-19-2013, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

...

No, the context is Earl Doherty's Hebrew 8:4 challenge (and elsewhere) in which he argues that the only possible meaning of Hebrews 8:4 is that Jesus was never on earth. Please note that E.D. argues that from the grammer, it is impossible that Jesus may have been on earth in the writer's past.

And he has issued a challenge for anyone to prove him wrong (but with himself as the judge).

That would indeed be a smoking gun, but one would expect that if this were true, someone in antiquity would have noted it or taken exception to it.

Best,

Jake

I'm not so sure about the bolded part.

The proto-orthodox railed against those who said that Jesus had not "come in the flesh." But then things get a little vague as to exactly what that entails.

The modern scientific mindset has rejected the reality of Platonic forms and layers of heavens and the whole spirit world, so to modern readers, the claim that Jesus was never on earth implies that he didn't exist and that the whole Christian religion must crumble. I don't think that the ancients saw things that way. There were self-described Christians who thought that Jesus was a spirit. If you accept that, is it so important if that spirit was on the earth or on some hyperplane of reality? Or for that matter, a really compelling fictional account?

I don't know enough to know how the Greek must be translated, but I don't think the lack of challenge to the idea that Jesus was never on earth is an argument for one translation over another.

What all Christians thought is really irrelevant.

Hebrews 8.4 is in the Canon.

It is wholly illogical that it was known that Epistle Hebrews was a product of Heretical teachings of an Anti Christ but was Canonised by the Church.

In the same Canon it is claimed that whoever claims Jesus did NOT come in the Flesh is a DECEIVER--the ANTI-CHRIST.

2 John 1:7 KJV

Quote:

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Doherty appears NOT to even understand that 2 John 1.17 is found in the same Canon with Hebrews 8.4.

It is not expected that a Canon of the Church would be compiled with the writings of an UNKNOWN Deceiver--An Anti-Christ.

Surely Epistle Hebrews MUST have been used in the Churches AFTER it was placed in the Canon and there is NO claim anywhere in all antiquity that the Epistle Hebrews did not admit that Jesus, the Son of God, did NOT come in the Flesh.

See the 34 Homilies on Hebrews attributed to Chrysostom where it is argued that the Jesus in Hebrews was the Son of God who came in the Flesh.

Homilies on Hebrews 1

Quote:

....For to which of the Angels said He at any time, You are My Son, this day have I begotten You. And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son? For these things indeed are spoken with reference also to the flesh: I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son— while this, You are My Son, this day have I begotten You, expresses nothing else than from [the time] that God is.

For as He is said to be, from the time present (for this befits Him more than any other), so also the [word] Today seems to me to be spoken here with reference to the flesh. For when He has taken hold of it, thenceforth he speaks out all boldly.

For indeed the flesh partakes of the high things, just as the Godhead of the lowly. For He who disdained not to become man, and did not decline the reality, how should He have declined the expressions?

Homilies on Hebrews 2

Quote:

What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that Thou visitest him? You made him a little lower than the angels: You crowned him with glory and honor. Hebrews 2:8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.

Now although these things were spoken of human nature generally, they would nevertheless apply more properly to Christ according to the flesh. For this, You have put all things in subjection under his feet, belongs to Him rather than to us. For the Son of God visited us when we were nothing: and after having assumed our [nature], and united it to Himself, He became higher than all.

Chili · 01-19-2013, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What all Christians thought is really irrelevant.

Hebrews 8.4 is in the Canon.

It is wholly illogical that it was known that Epistle Hebrews was a product of Heretical teachings of an Anti Christ but was Canonised by the Church.

In the same Canon it is claimed that whoever claims Jesus did NOT come in the Flesh is a DECEIVER--the ANTI-CHRIST.

2 John 1:7 KJV

Quote:

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Doherty appears NOT to even understand that 2 John 1.17 is found in the same Canon with Hebrews 8.4.

It is not expected that a Canon of the Church would be compiled with the writings of an UNKNOWN Deceiver--An Anti-Christ.

Surely Epistle Hebrews MUST have been used in the Churches AFTER it was placed in the Canon and there is NO claim anywhere in all antiquity that the Epistle Hebrews did not admit that Jesus, the Son of God, did NOT come in the Flesh.

See the 34 Homilies on Hebrews attributed to Chrysostom where it is argued that the Jesus in Hebrews was the Son of God who came in the Flesh.

Homilies on Hebrews 1

Quote:

....For to which of the Angels said He at any time, You are My Son, this day have I begotten You. And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son? For these things indeed are spoken with reference also to the flesh: I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son— while this, You are My Son, this day have I begotten You, expresses nothing else than from [the time] that God is.

For as He is said to be, from the time present (for this befits Him more than any other), so also the [word] Today seems to me to be spoken here with reference to the flesh. For when He has taken hold of it, thenceforth he speaks out all boldly.

For indeed the flesh partakes of the high things, just as the Godhead of the lowly. For He who disdained not to become man, and did not decline the reality, how should He have declined the expressions?

Homilies on Hebrews 2

Quote:

What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that Thou visitest him? You made him a little lower than the angels: You crowned him with glory and honor. Hebrews 2:8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.

Now although these things were spoken of human nature generally, they would nevertheless apply more properly to Christ according to the flesh. For this, You have put all things in subjection under his feet, belongs to Him rather than to us. For the Son of God visited us when we were nothing: and after having assumed our [nature], and united it to Himself, He became higher than all.

That is true and it still does not matter what Christans say because they do not understand that Catholics are not Christians today, and the unknown Christ must be in the flesh to be made known first person to them before they are a Christian . . . and no longer need to flip pages to validate their claim such as by those for whom Jesus is deceiver and so the anti-christ.

That so is what 'the flesh' is all about and Hebrews is in the Canon only to feed those who's house was not clean where they received and my word pigfeed is in reference to.

The reason why it does belong, or at least can be added, is that most of the NT is about the pitfalls and perils of the purgation stage of life that are real and to be avoided, and by avoided I mean to place a question mark behind towards uncovery to be the negative stand of inquiry wherein they are juxtaposed with the truth in other lines they see, so the reader will understand in the harmony that the opposites present.

So it is not about purifying flesh but drawing beauty from those lines, instead of placing the son above all and worship him instead, as the homilies of Chrysostom show.

aa5874 · 01-19-2013, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Well you may want to try and change this then, good luck with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Hebrews

The use of tabernacle terminology in Hebrews has been used to date the epistle before the destruction of the temple, the idea being that knowing about the destruction of both Jerusalem and the temple would have influenced the development of the author's overall argument to include such evidence. Therefore, the most probable date for its composition is the second half of the year 63 or the beginning of 64, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.[6] Another argument in favor of an early dating is that the author seems unfamiliar with the Eucharist ritual (had the author been familiar, it would have served as a great example).[10]

You seem to be completely naive. The very last thing that you should do is to accept dates of authorship of NT writings from the Church especially without corroboration.

The Church produced the well known forgery called the Donation of Constantine, and their Canon is filled with manipulations, False attribution, bogus time of authorship and chronology for ALL, every single book and letter.

There is absolutely no corroborative evidence at all to support any claims by the Church that any book of the Canon was composed before c 70 CE.

jakejonesiv · 01-20-2013, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

...

No, the context is Earl Doherty's Hebrew 8:4 challenge (and elsewhere) in which he argues that the only possible meaning of Hebrews 8:4 is that Jesus was never on earth. Please note that E.D. argues that from the grammer, it is impossible that Jesus may have been on earth in the writer's past.

And he has issued a challenge for anyone to prove him wrong (but with himself as the judge).

That would indeed be a smoking gun, but one would expect that if this were true, someone in antiquity would have noted it or taken exception to it.

Best,

Jake

I'm not so sure about the bolded part.

The proto-orthodox railed against those who said that Jesus had not "come in the flesh." But then things get a little vague as to exactly what that entails.

The modern scientific mindset has rejected the reality of Platonic forms and layers of heavens and the whole spirit world, so to modern readers, the claim that Jesus was never on earth implies that he didn't exist and that the whole Christian religion must crumble. I don't think that the ancients saw things that way. There were self-described Christians who thought that Jesus was a spirit. If you accept that, is it so important if that spirit was on the earth or on some hyperplane of reality? Or for that matter, a really compelling fictional account?

I don't know enough to know how the Greek must be translated, but I don't think the lack of challenge to the idea that Jesus was never on earth is an argument for one translation over another.

Hi Toto,

I appreciate the nuance of your reply. I think it confirms my point.

Earl claims that, according to the writer, there is no possiblilty that Jesus was ever on earth, that Hebrews 8:4 absolutely precludes this possibility. He claims that the Greek allows no other interpretation. He is allowing no nuance. It is a smoking gun, a time bomb.

If so, we have a case of the dog that didn't bark. No one in antiquity can be shown to have Earl's understanding of Hebrews 8:4. If the text were unambiguos some one should have noticed, since it would be deemed a heretical thought to the winners of the doctrinal wars who compiled our canon.

Whether Jesus was believed to have come to earth in historical time in the flesh, or as a spirit is another issue entirely. The Marcioites believed the latter, which is apparently something else Earl did not know until I informed him recently. http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=101

Earl's dogmatism on this point is troublesome. If Earl were merely saying that his reading is a possibility, then we can all agree to disagree.

jakejonesiv · 01-20-2013, 05:28 AM

:slowclap:

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi sotto voce,

No, Hebrews makes no mention of the Jerusalem temple. All the references to earthly sacrifice are to the wilderness tabernacle of Moses. Thus these references provide no anchor for dating the composition of the work.

Jake

Well you may want to try and change this then, good luck with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Hebrews

The use of tabernacle terminology in Hebrews has been used to date the epistle before the destruction of the temple, the idea being that knowing about the destruction of both Jerusalem and the temple would have influenced the development of the author's overall argument to include such evidence. Therefore, the most probable date for its composition is the second half of the year 63 or the beginning of 64, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.[6] Another argument in favor of an early dating is that the author seems unfamiliar with the Eucharist ritual (had the author been familiar, it would have served as a great example).[10]

Hi Outhouse, your reply is an appeal to the authority of the Catholic Encylopedia quoted in a wikipedia article. You googled this up in what, 2 seconds?

Good luck with to you in the future with your research methodology.

Jake

jakejonesiv · 01-20-2013, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...
The modern scientific mindset has rejected the reality of Platonic forms and layers of heavens and the whole spirit world, so to modern readers, the claim that Jesus was never on earth implies that he didn't exist and that the whole Christian religion must crumble. ...

Toto,

While I agree that Jesus is ahistorical, I think a bit too much reliance is placed on Platonism.

For example, the Epistle to the Hebrews is often said to use Platonic allegory, with its talk of earthly copies of heavenly realities. But that is not necessarily the case. Exodus itself says that Moses made sure the earthly Tabernacle conformed to the heavenly pattern. Exodus 25:9.

Jake

Bingo the Clown-O · 01-20-2013, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

one would expect that if this were true, someone in antiquity would have noted it or taken exception to it.

1 John 4:2 and 2 John 1:7 are the type of exceptions you are looking for.

Aren’t they?

sotto voce · 01-20-2013, 07:14 AM

It has been said before that the letter to Hebrews goes beyond the rest of the Bible, even beyond Romans. Despite volumes of negative commentary, it remains for many believers the highest 'prize' of the whole Bible.

What must be supposed is that the imperial fake church must have included it in its belated canon only because the true church would have identified exclusion as the action of false teachers. It makes clear that the concept of dispensing salvation in small doses, that have very temporary effect, is deeply erroneous. Yet this was the very principle upon which Roman Empire held itself together; and the author of this letter, presumably without consciousness of this external issue, in effect made a flagrant assault on that principle. The political interest that drove the involvement of the empire in Christian matters is still around as control-freakery, and attempts to relegate this letter are certainly in sympathy with that motivation.

In terms of what passes for scholarship, these attempts usually have a desperate air about them, with vague assertions made; they often barely register as even competent; and certainly have never had any noticeable success so far.

Chili · 01-20-2013, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

one would expect that if this were true, someone in antiquity would have noted it or taken exception to it.

1 John 4:2 and 2 John 1:7 are the type of exceptions you are looking for.

Aren’t they?

The unknown Christ must be in the flesh to be made known first person to the believer before he is a Christian, and then from above by faith and not below as passage reader (Jn.5:39-40).

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

01-20-2013, 07:14 AM	#219
sotto voce Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: UK Posts: 3,057	It has been said before that the letter to Hebrews goes beyond the rest of the Bible, even beyond Romans. Despite volumes of negative commentary, it remains for many believers the highest 'prize' of the whole Bible. What must be supposed is that the imperial fake church must have included it in its belated canon only because the true church would have identified exclusion as the action of false teachers. It makes clear that the concept of dispensing salvation in small doses, that have very temporary effect, is deeply erroneous. Yet this was the very principle upon which Roman Empire held itself together; and the author of this letter, presumably without consciousness of this external issue, in effect made a flagrant assault on that principle. The political interest that drove the involvement of the empire in Christian matters is still around as control-freakery, and attempts to relegate this letter are certainly in sympathy with that motivation. In terms of what passes for scholarship, these attempts usually have a desperate air about them, with vague assertions made; they often barely register as even competent; and certainly have never had any noticeable success so far.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.