Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo Quote: Originally Posted by Clivedurdle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gnostic_Paul There would seem to be an agenda to deny what I understand as obvious - the cultural habit of splitting the world into a real perfect heaven, stating that our lives now are somehow unreal - Plato's cave, Paul's glass darkly, Hebrew's heavenly temple. The perfect heaven comes from the heights of the ecstatic experience. It is like that; the inner light comes but then it goes and the mystic becomes depressed when he descends back into the cave. BTW, the idea of humans in Hebrews as copy (ὑπόδειγμα, Heb 8:5, ἀντίτυπος, Heb 9:24) of the heavenly things / abode in being Platonic, here is a quote from Timaeus:

[37ξ] ὅταν δὲ αὖ περὶ τὸ λογιστικὸν ᾖ καὶ ὁ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ κύκλος εὔτροχος ὢν αὐτὰ μηνύσῃ, νοῦς ἐπιστήμη τε ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀποτελεῖται: τούτω δὲ ἐν ᾧ τῶν ὄντων ἐγγίγνεσθον, ἄν ποτέ τις αὐτὸ ἄλλο πλὴν ψυχὴν εἴπῃ, πᾶν μᾶλλον ἢ τἀληθὲς ἐρεῖ.

ὡς δὲ κινηθὲν αὐτὸ καὶ ζῶν ἐνόησεν τῶν ἀιδίων θεῶν γεγονὸς ἄγαλμα ὁ γεννήσας πατήρ, ἠγάσθη τε καὶ εὐφρανθεὶς ἔτι δὴ μᾶλλον ὅμοιον πρὸς τὸ παράδειγμα ἐπενόησεν ἀπεργάσασθαι.

[37δ] καθάπερ οὖν αὐτὸ τυγχάνει ζῷον ἀίδιον ὄν, καὶ τόδε τὸ πᾶν οὕτως εἰς δύναμιν ἐπεχείρησε τοιοῦτον ἀποτελεῖν. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ζῴου φύσις ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα αἰώνιος, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τῷ γεννητῷ παντελῶς προσάπτειν οὐκ ἦν δυνατόν: εἰκὼ δ᾽ ἐπενόει κινητόν τινα αἰῶνος ποιῆσαι, καὶ διακοσμῶν ἅμα οὐρανὸν ποιεῖ μένοντος αἰῶνος ἐν ἑνὶ κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ἰοῦσαν αἰώνιον εἰκόνα, τοῦτον ὃν δὴ χρόνον ὠνομάκαμεν.

Quote:

[37c]And when the Father that engendered it perceived it in motion and alive, a thing of joy to the eternal gods, He too rejoiced; and being well-pleased He designed to make it resemble its Model

(cf. Apollon.Cit.2, 3 συγκρίδεις ἀρχιτεκτόνων γέγοναν μεθʼ ὑποδειγμάτων SEG33.1040 (Cyme); Plb.3.17.8; Lxx Si.44.16, Lxx Ez.42.15: in Inscrr;,πρὸς ὑπόδειγμα ἀρετῆς CIG2769, 2774, 2775d (Aphrodisias); καλὸν ὑ. τῆς ἰδίας προαιρέσεως καταβαλλόμενοςBMus.Inscr.925b22 (Branchidae, i b.c.): BGU747 ii 14; 2.Pet.2.6; see also E. Kenneth Lee. "Words Denoting ‘Pattern’ in the New Testament" NTS 8 (1962) 166-173.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo Quote: Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson Then it might be prudent of you to stop posing as one, which you do when you make the sort of claims you do about the meaning of Greek texts and where in other Greek literature we can find their sources and their thematic parallels. I am posing, am I, Jeffrey ?

Quote:

The terminology of participation thus has, at least in this context [Heb 3:1], some of the connotations associated with the Platonic notion that things in the material world of change and decay have their reality by “participation” in an ideal realm.Participation terminology, perhaps reflecting this Platonic usage, also appears in religious contexts—pagan, Jewish, and Christian—to describe the relationship of human beings to the divine. Participation, however, is used here not as a descriptive, ontological, or epistemological category, but as a moral and religious imperative, and it is contingent upon fidelity.

Quote:

Hebrews and Platonic writers distinguish what is “true” or “real” from perceptible forms. Plato maintained that people on earth could perceive the visible “shadows” of transcendent realities, but not the realities themselves (Republic 514A–515D). Hebrews uses similar expressions when contrasting the “true” heavenly sanctuary in which Christ ministers with its earthly “shadow” (Heb 8:2, 5) and when calling the Law’s prescriptions for a priesthood and sacrifices the “shadows” of Christ’s ministry (10:1). More complex is Hebrews’ contrast of the heavenly sanctuary with its earthly “antitype” (antitypos, 9:24), since it is not clear that antitypos had Platonic connotations when Hebrews was written. By the third century, Plotinus used antitypos for perceptible reality (Enneads 5.3.6.17), but Plato did not do so, and Philo used it for what is “resistant.” Moreover in 1 Pet 3:21 the word has a temporal rather than a spatial quality: “prefigurement” (Hurst, Epistle, 17–19). Conversely, the terms paradeigma and archetypos, which Plato and Philo use for heavenly patterns, do not appear in Hebrews. Hebrews uses hypodeigma, but for the earthly representation rather than the heavenly archetype (NOTE on 8:5). Moreover, Plato and Philo use “image” (eikōn) for perceptible shadows of immaterial archetypes, but Hebrews uses “image” in the opposite sense (NOTE on 10:1). Hebrews lacks the Platonic term mimēma (“copy”) and the contrast between the noēta (“intelligible”) and aisthēta (“perceptible”) worlds, but some assume that Hebrews alludes to these distinctions when it says that “from what cannot be seen, that which is seen has come into being” (11:3). However, the sentence actually identifies God’s word rather than archetypes as the unseen source behind the present universe (NOTE on 11:3). Hebrews does correlate a heavenly sanctuary with its earthly representation (8:1–6), but the author shows remarkable fluidity in developing the imagery, so that the Tabernacle sometimes represents earth and heaven, and sometimes stands for two ages (§22 COMMENT). Hebrews does not clearly distinguish the created heavens from a transcendent heaven. Some have pointed out that Christ has already passed “through” the visible heavens (4:14) so that he is now exalted “above the heavens” (7:26), having entered a sanctuary that is “not of this creation” but beyond it (9:11). This could suggest that Christ is now in transcendent heaven itself (9:24). Nevertheless, this distinction breaks down as the author refers to those who enjoy eternal life “in the heavens” (12:23), to God’s voice speaking “from the heavens” (12:25), and to “heaven” being shaken along with earth (12:26). Moreover, Hebrews associates heaven with what is undefiled (7:26), yet can also suggest that if the lower realm needs purification, then the higher realm does as well—an idea that sits awkwardly with a Platonic worldview (NOTES on 9:23). Hebrews says that one relates to what is unseen by faith (11:1). In Platonic thought one relates to the unseen through the “mind” (nous) and the power of reason; faith belongs to a lower order. Hebrews does not mention the nous but stresses faith in two ways. First, the unseen realities of which the author speaks are made known through divine revelation—including promises, commands, and warnings (e.g., 8:5; 11:7, 8)—and revelation is received by faith. Second, a barrier to the unseen realm comes from a defiled conscience (9:14; 10:29), an idea that has no real counterpart in Platonism. Since the conscience is defiled by human unfaithfulness, cleansing the conscience means evoking faith (§23 COMMENT b). A clean conscience fits God’s promise to write his laws upon the “mind” (dianoia), which is synonymous with the “heart” (8:10; 10:16). Heart and mind do not have so much to do with higher versus lower aspects of human life, or with internal versus external matters, but pertain to obedience that involves the whole self (NOTE on 8:10). Koester, C. R. (2008). Hebrews: A new translation with introduction and commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk) (98). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.