beallen041

I don't think anyone seriously considers Paul to have written Hebrews, but the author of Hebrews may have written prior to the composition of the Gospels (which I date at least partially after 135 CE tentatively, on the basis of Mark 13's correspondence to the construction of the temple of Zeus in Aelia Capitolina).

EarlDoherty

Where in 1 Thess. does it convey the idea that Paul or anyone else is concerned about the failure of the parousia to occur? What the concern is about is the fate of those believers who had died. This was a preaching movement which declared that the arrival (not return) of Christ was imminent, and there was no doubt some kind of scenario being bandied about as to what would happen to believers when that arrival occurred, expected any day. But since even in a couple of decades a certain number of those waiting believers would have died, it was probably natural for surviving members to wonder and worry about what would happen to them. By dying did they miss out on being carried into the kingdom of God as those still alive would?

So Paul had to come up with a scenario which would now encompass those who had died since the new movement began. Paul introduces his expanded parousia scene in 4:15f by identifying it as "a word of the Lord," which taken with the rest of the handful of such things (like 1 Cor. 7:10 and 9:14) is regarded by some scholars as directions Paul has received directly from Christ in heaven. Faced with the worry in his congregation over what would happen to those now deceased, he must have asked the Lord for elucidation and apparently got it.

This 1 Thess. passage, by the way, is the prime source of today's evangelical lunacy known as the Rapture.

Incidentally, by the very fact that 1 Thess. does not attempt to address any concern about a delay of the parousia (as, for example, 2 Peter does), I regard this as evidence that it is not a 2nd century product

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Well guess who claimed or implied "Paul" wrote Hebrews?

Origen.

The Preface to De Principiis De Principiis 1."De Principiis"3.1 Origen's "Commentary on John" II Origen's "Commentary on John" X So it is very clear that Origen did claim or imply that "Paul" wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.

But, the epistle to the Hebrews was supposedly written after the Fall of the Temple.

Again, we have indications that "Paul" is a late writer from apologetic sources.

"Paul" is AFTER the Fall of the Temple based on apologetic sources like the Synoptics, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Origen, Arnobius and Eusebius.

Vorkosigan

I wrote a post about how that works on my old NT blog. Two post:

http://michaelturton2.blogspot.com/2...killed-in.html

http://michaelturton2.blogspot.com/2...f-mark_22.html

hjalti

Do you have a new NT blog?

EarlDoherty

Abe, the very fact that you were unfamiliar with this passage in Hebrews shows that you are out of your depth. You really need to take some time off (how about a decade?) and study the documentary record you so blithely pontificate on out of vast ignorance.

But I'm afraid I will have to remove Heb. 9:28 from your side of the ledger. If you had read either of my books you would realize that there is a much more likely alternate translation of that verse, namely along the lines of: 'Christ was sacrificed once to take away sin [not necessarily on earth], and the next thing to happen [i.e., in the salvation process sequence] is his arrival at the end time to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. (There is also another way to take it, as a 'second' in sequence to his past arrival in heaven to perform his sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary, but that one is a little complicated; you'll have to check JNGNM for that.)

And when you bring in Heb. 10:37, which says that the "one coming" prophesied in Habakkuk 2:3 "will come soon," with no acknowledgment that he had already been here for a first time (which is the way Christians applied the prophecy once an HJ arose, quite a while after Hebrews was written), any 'return' idea in 9:28 has doubly to be discarded.

Bummer, eh?

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe

Thanks, Mr. Doherty, I appreciate it. I would very much expect that the "second appearance" would be with respect to "those who are waiting for him," given both points that it is the immediate context and that it fits the concurrent ancient Christian perspective that we explicitly know about. If you propose that the "appearance" is actually in heaven, then it seems to come off as improbable and ad hoc--rewriting the evidence to fit your conclusion. Of course you can do that for any passage, and I know that you often do, but I think you need to demonstrate the relative probability of your model, not just the possibility.

Toto

Earl's argument is laid out in greater detail here.

arnoldo

IIRC, there is a verse in the book of revelations which supports ED's hypothesis of heavenly appearance/atonement rather than a literal earthly atonement. The verse states something along the lines of a sacrifice "before the foundation of the earth." Perhaps some fundies would argue that this can indicate both a heavenly and earthly atonement?
</back into lurk mode>

andrewcriddle

Revelation 13:8

One problem is that it is unclear if one should translate or IE is it the Lamb who has (in some sense) been slain from the beginning ? or is it the redeemed who have (in some sense) had their names recorded by God from the beginning ?

Andrew Criddle