EarlDoherty

So now you're bringing in "the creator" and what he had to do as some supposed 'logical' support for your argument? And YOU are presenting this hypothesis here on BC&H, of all places, on an essentially atheist discussion board? The absurdity of that is beyond belief!

All it needed was for a group of people, a few individuals in the beginning, to become convinced by their reading of scripture that certain things had happened in the supernatural higher world (where lots of things went on among divine entities) involving a Son of God who underwent death and rising to redeem humanity, and then get other people to believe them. And believe they did, something hardly infeasible in the philosophical and salvation atmosphere of the period.

Does Paul ever require faith that a human man in recent history was the Son and Messiah? Show me a passage anywhere in the epistles which makes that declaration and requirement. Show me anywhere in the epistles it says anyone "saw and heard" the actual life and death of their Christ Jesus. When Paul says, "We believe Jesus died and rose again" why does he not appeal to those who saw and heard both? Why is it a matter of faith? Why never give us a time and place? Why say it was the demon spirits who crucified the Lord of Glory? Why tell us he got his gospel from scripture? Why tell us that if he is wrong in preaching the resurrection of Christ, he would be contradicting God's own revelation? Why does Hebrews never give any attention to the crucifixion and make it a part of Christ's sacrifice?

You are utterly hopeless, s.v., you live in your own cloud cuckoo land (like others on this board) and your imaginings have no basis in the texts and are openly contradicted by them. You have no chocolate cake on your table, but you can conjure up one in your mind and boy, does it taste great! No doubt it makes a great combination with your sparkling new clothes. A theologian to the bitter end!

Earl Doherty

sotto voce

Steady!! My kindly teachers insisted on something else: "Finish the book!" they growled, with much fury and menace; affected, of course. Now lookee here:

'The universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.' Heb 11:3 NIV

So it's not me that's bringing in, it's you that's leaving out salient, nay crucial fact. Is there inability to counter the claims of Christianity by means of hermeneutic fact and logic here?

I'm just indicating what the Bible says. Is that such an inconvenience?

Note the word 'Bible' in there.

That wouldn't be the Hebrew Scripture, though. Try Zoroastrianism.

'When the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, so that we might receive the full rights of sons.' Gal 4:4-5

'To be sure, he was crucified.' 2 Co 13:4 NIV

'I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.' 1 Co 2:2 NIV

'If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.' Ro 10:9 NIV

This was of course a transcendental, spiritual birth, crucifixion and raising from the dead.

'He received honour and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.' 2 Pe 1:17-18 NIV

Because he wrote to people who had accepted those as facts. They would not have been recipients without that agreement.

Because, unlike Constantine, the Bible God does not coerce.

'Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.' Heb 12:2 NIV

Not quite utterly. I listened to my quaint old teachers.

GakuseiDon

I'd recommend you read other works as well, to get a wider understanding of the thinking of that time. John Dillon's "The Middle Platonists" is probably the best overview of the writings of the Platonists on either side of time Hebrews was written.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "Platonic-like" heaven, or how "allegorical tales" can occur there (if you mean that the tales are actually set in a "Platonic-like" heaven). But if we look at the myths of the Platonists in the first few centuries CE and how they interpreted them as allegories, those allegorical tales were set up earth.

Thus the Attis myth occurred near the river Gallus in Phrygia, though it is allegory for the forces of nature and spirit. The Isis and Osiris myths were set in Egypt, though as allegories they were thought to represent the actions of moisture, drought and regeneration (via flooding) of the Nile. If Acharya S and Dr Robert Price are correct that the solar mythology paradigm explains the origin and character of much of the Old Testament narrative (including Isaac, Esau, Enoch, Moses, Samson and Elijah) , then even there we see that the myths are set on earth.

So as you read through Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", consider where Hebrews sets the myth of Jesus of Nun, and where the true setting of the allegory points to. If Hebrews follows the thinking of the time, then the myth is set on earth. But in that case, what of Doherty's reading that Hebrews rules that out? Where is the myth set then? But if the setting is heaven, then what is it actually allegory for? For events set in a **higher** heaven? While anything is possible, it introduces a complexity that would be unprecedented in ancient writings as far as I know (though I'll stress I am an amateur, so I would not want anyone to take my word for this.) I don't see how allegory fits into the theme of Hebrews, and I think Doherty would agree with me there. But I welcome your discussion on this after you've finished Doherty's book.

EarlDoherty

Dear Don,

If you've read Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (which you have), you will know that I have never labelled anything in Hebrews as allegory, which less for an earthly event. That's the cop-out of mainstream scholars who refuse to acknowledge that Hebrews' 'sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary' could be meant literally. After all, that would open the door to all sorts of things happening in the upper world. Like a crucifixion.

And you keep harping on the same old objection which I've dealt with I don't know how many times. Of course the myths of Attis and Osiris and Dionysos are set on earth. When those myths were formed, it was long before Platonic ideas of higher and lower worlds. But of course you know that. You also know my response to it in regard to what the mystery cults eventually made of those myths, because I've repeated it to you many times and it was fully argued in JNGNM. You simply ignore it. But that's your schtick. That's why I've labelled your style of argument against mythicism "devious." By now, everyone is quite familiar with it.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

From my Vridar series, Part 14:

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

My bold below:
:thumbs: Which is exactly what I wrote. Over to PhilosopherJay, after he completes your book.

What objection? :huh: I was addressing PhilosopherJay's comment that Hebrews might be allegory.

sotto voce

So we agree about the rest of my 'hopeless' destruction of your idea.

:wave:

EarlDoherty

Hardly. It's just that I only have so much time available to waste.

Apparently you'd rather make empty (and sophomoric) retorts than actually address and rebut my arguments.

Earl Doherty

sotto voce

As I wrote to someone else just now, coincidentally. Though with more positive result. Oh, well.

When people hit a brick wall of fact and logic, they turn to ad hom.

We'll have to take this as a white flag.

TedM

Rebuttal brought forward for Earl, who has not responded yet:

Earl, I'll address your reply in segments. The first has to do with the grammar. I don't know Greek, and I always use the NASB translation for reasons I no longer can recall , from a review I did several years ago that led me to conclude they were fairly accurate relative to others.

I didn't ignore it but I didn't address it because it seemed unnecessary because if the tense was 100% certain there would be no further discussion: The issue would be settled. I accept that the verse need not follow the general grammatical 'rule'.

Yes, that's all I was pointing out. The general grammatical rule argues against your interpretation. Based on grammar alone, there is a greater than 50% chance that the proper interpretation is that it refers to a 'what if' situation of Jesus coming to earth in the present. That's the implication of having a 'general rule', even if the rule is not 'secure', as you put it.



It's the one my NASB uses. Are you claiming that for all of the verses OTHER THAN verse 4 the tense used was meant to be past tense? Do any of the other translations use the past tense in all the places I noted? If not, then even though one may claim that that 'is' actually meant 'was', the grammar supports me for the entire context. It is what it is.

Here is the passage, and your comments about the intended tenses.:

It is possible. It is natural. However, if he was speaking in verse 4 in the past, it may have been more natural to use 'was' in verse 3, since there would be no need to include the present. Like this:

There is no need for verse 3 to use 'is' if it were talking about the past. Not knowing the Greek, I cannot say, but didn't they have a word to use for past tense events? Couldn't the author have used the equivalent of 'was'? If so, why didn't he use that?

I note, that you said: IF verse 4 was not talking about the present--but was talking about the scenario of Jesus having made his sacrifice on earth in the past, then there would have been no need for the writer to include the present in verse 3! The present would have been not only irrelevant, it would have been distracting to his point. Yet, you just claimed that he did. This actually would seem to provide further evidence on a grammatical basis for a present tense in verse 4.





Agree. Both of those could be referring to past or present, grammatically. I would submit that since the author was clearly speaking in the present in verses 1-2, if he intended to switch to the past for verses 4 it would seem likely that he would have used words to make that clear in those verses. The fact that he didn't word 3-4 that way suggested that he intended to carry forward with the same tense--ie the present tense.


If the writer was referring to Jesus' past sacrifice in verse 3, he doesn't say so. That would have been a good place to say: "3 For every high priest was appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it was necessary that this high priest also offer a sacrifice--himself". But he doesn't do that. All he says is "so it is/was necessary that this high priest also have something to offer". I agree that he isn't referring to present ongoing sacrifices of himself, of his own blood. That wouldn't make sense. But he doesn't mention a sacrifice at this point at all Earl. Why would the author not mention Jesus' past sacrifice at this point if that is what he had in mind?

Instead he refers to the vague 'has something to offer'. Why? What is he referring to? He doesn't say in that verse. But, he mentions his position as high priest. One could see that as high priest it would make some sense for him to have 'something to offer' on an on going basis.

Verse 2 refers to the present Jesus as "a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle". Verse 6 repeat this and mentions an ongoing role as minister/high priest:

In the prior chapter this was also stated:

These two verses are significant. They spell out what his ongoing role as high priest is.

SO, is being a 'mediator', or his 'making intercession' what he means when he says that Jesus 'has something to offer'? Why not? In his new role as high priest He is offering his services as mediator for the salvation of others.


With regard to this, you wrote:
Then why did he use the phrase 'has something to offer' instead of 'had sacrificed himself"? I don't think Jesus' past sacrifice was the 'thought of verse 4 at all, especially given the context of 1-6.


While it is true that elsewhere the author refers to Jesus' offer of himself as the sacrifice, we must not conclude that once that is done Jesus has nothing to offer as the new high priest. He HAS to--that's his role! The author uses the word 'offer' somewhat liberally in a couple other places:

Both of these quotes use the word 'offer' in the context of prayers to God. The second one even refers to those prayers as 'sacrifice'. Given this, why shouldn't we conclude that the author would not consider his continual intercession on behalf of those who trust him also to be his 'something to offer' up to God?




Regarding the above you say:
I don't think it would have sounded that way because the readers would have known that he was talking about the priests that existed at the time of Jesus' sacrifice. This sounds fine to me:



Verse 6 begins "But, now". That isn't a new thought. That is a connection with the old thought--the prior covenant still in practice by priests presently on earth mentioned in verse 5. I don't know how you can see no visible connection between it and verse 4 when you admit that verse 4 includes priests who were still presently giving gifts and sacrifices under the old Law. How can you not see the obvious comparison/connection and call it a "new thought with "no visible connection" in verse 6?:


It doesn't say that the reason Jesus could not have been a priest was "because there were already are priests operating on earth." That's no explanation. Why couldn't he too have been a priest just like them? The answer has to do in part with the TYPE of priest:

Present tense. And, since he offers 'something' in heaven as the heavenly copy, if he were here on earth he wouldn't be offering earthly sacrifices and gifts. It wasn't because there were already priests here operating on earth doing his job--it was because the priests here weren't doing his job!


I reject the requirement that the priests be in exclusive locations at the same time. A perfect parallel requires that Jesus lived and died in the heavens, but was also fully human. But, that has its problems, for what human lives and dies and is crucified by sinners in heaven? A heavenly man who is perfect on earth, and sacrifices himself here on earth but doesn't complete the offering until he is in heaven seems to work pretty well too. It may be that Jesus wasn't an 'active' high priest until he made his first offering--in heaven. IF that is the right interpretation there is no conflict with your Platonic approach with coexisting on earth with other priests since he had not yet taken on his high priestly duties--which would take place in heaven. In any case I don't think it is necessary to require a perfect parallel on every single level. Again if you require that you must require that the sacrifice be made in heaven too. That missing piece would really help your case.


I note too that you skipped over the fact that the first verse in chapter 8 is clearly talking about the situation AFTER the sacrifice had been made:

The section started out with the present. You are suggesting that the author went from the present in verses 1 and 2, to back to the past in verses 3 and 4, and then back to the present in verses 5 and 6. That's possible, but does it really make sense for him to do that when there is no problem whatsoever with interpreting both verses 3 and 4 as referring to the present? To do so would make a much more coherent passage throughout verses 1-6.

To summarize, your grammatical interpretation for verse 4 falls under the category of 'exception', it doesn't explain the failure to use a past tense when describing the priest's role in verse 3 if he were intending to compare their role at the time Jesus's sacrifice was made, it interrupts the obvious present tense as applied to Jesus' role in the verses just preceding and following 3-4, which if it were not to do so would make for a very coherent passage--all in the present tense.

I just don't see any justification on a grammatical basis given the context of the passage for concluding that the past tense was intended in verse 4.

I will review the rest of your post in a few days.