stephan huller

Earl,

I didn't didn't know I was referencing you when I was answering Steve. But then again you would have naturally been led to assuming that because you are too personally involved in these matters. Remember it's not all about you but rather the what the material actually says. You have an interpretation of the material. But it isn't all or even partly about you. Just remember that before you start playing the crying game with me.

stephan huller

Here is the OP. I don't see your name anywhere in here. Remember you are not 'the idea.' It's not about you. You are merely its spokesman - its 'apostle' (like Moses, but only now for the idea that God doesn't exist or at least lives in a place no one can ever really see him). I don't need to reference you in a discussion about whether Hebrews supports the idea of a Jesus who didn't appear on the earth. That's why I responded to this post rather than those that are about your book.

outhouse

But you miss the whole boat with your quote mining.


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

The central thought of the entire Epistle is the doctrine of the Person of Christ and his role as mediator between God and humanity.


The epistle presents Jesus with the titles "pioneer" or "forerunner," "Son" and "Son of God," "priest" and "high priest."[1] It has been described as an "intricate" New Testament book.[2]

The epistle casts Jesus as both exalted Son and high priest, a unique dual Christology

Toto

outhouse - please look of the meaning of "quote mining" before you use it in every post.

outhouse

Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint.


So the question then remains?


Was the foundation of christianity taken out of context by OP, I say yes.




What do you say?



[and we flat caught MM and provided links showing a mistranslation]

EarlDoherty

Why do you assume that I thought you were referencing me? I had no reason to. I was answering both you and aa on the topic of the thread as you have expressed yourselves on it. My comments were directed at a general audience which included you, since I have good reason not to agree with your interpretation.

And you are right. It is not all about me. It is about the material and how it is to be reasonably and logically read. But I would still make the point that if people here, on a DB like this one of which I have been a part of for over a decade, are going to discuss interpretations of the material surrounding the mythicist issue, that they would take the trouble, before offering their own interpretations, to check and see what someone in my position has presented on the matter. That is not a crying game. It is a logical expectation--or it ought to be, and certainly on the part of those who directly undertake to criticize me. (I am not [yet] including you in that.)

And I see that you have nothing by way of comment, let alone rebuttal, about what I have presented on the matter being discussed in this thread. Why is that?

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

No, you don't need to "reference" me. You need merely be familiar with the ideas of one of the leading writers on these topics surrounding mythicism in the present period. You clearly are not. And if you are of the opinion that my discussion of the matter is merely "one interpretation", needing no attention, why not at least provide a specific example in rebuttal for why you feel justified that I should be dismissed or ignored?

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

You mean like Roo Bookaroo does in his disgraceful reviews on Amazon?

Anyway, I cannot see anything in your description of the foundations of Christianity which is at odds not only with a mythicist interpretation of Hebrews but with Steven Carr's "quote-mined" passage. You certainly haven't demonstrated that it is incompatible.

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe

outhouse was using the phrase correctly, in my opinion. I would use the phrase, "prooftexting," which has the same essential elements.

outhouse

And or Contextomy.