Bingo the Clown-O

But he did say that they had something in common.

Will you admit that he said that they had something in common?

EarlDoherty

Good grief! What does it take???

Of course they have something in common! Like all spy novels have something in common. What the hell is that supposed to prove?

Thank god I'm going out now and don't have to feel drawn to checking up every few minutes here on what the latest drivel is.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Again, you promote propaganda. There is NO statement whatsoever in Epistle Hebrews that Jesus was Never on Earth, that Jesus did NOT come to earth in the Flesh and that Jesus was NOT crucified on earth but in heaven.

You are reading things into Epistle Hebrews that are NOT there.

No Apologetic writer that mentioned Epistle Hebrews argued that Jesus was NEVER on earth, did NOT come to earth in the Flesh and was NOT crucified on earth.

Most Scholars do NOT accept your claims about Epistle Hebrews and you Have NO dated manuscripts of Epistle Hebrews.

You have virtually NOTHING at all--neither Consensus, Evidence or Assumptions in your favor.

Hewbrews 1[/u] Your position that the Canonised Epistle Hebrews does NOT speak about an earthly Jesus that was cruified on earth is hopelessly illogical.

Chili

That is just idolatry that makes Hebrews feed for swine as he bolongs on top so that reason will prevail. This painting does not quite say this, but is the best that I can do for now:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...920419794.html

And notice Mary down below presenting him to say here he is: voila, we are done with him.

tanya

I need a sentence describing this "pretty good case". Finding none, I doubt your explanation.

This sentence ought to be a sticky. It is the essence of this thread, and clearly identifies an hypothesis available for rigorous scrutiny. Well done, thank you aa5874.

Are you serious? In which century did these two Romans compose their Latin texts? How about 6th and 8th centuries? Their documents, opinions, were presented HALF A MILLENIUM after the events took place.

Perhaps you are correct. If so, then you have introduced an opinion, whose I don't know, compatible with the notion that "Paul" wrote AFTER Luke. First the gospels, then the epistles. (gurugeorge, Jiri, spin, and many, many other forum members disagree with this concept: first Mark, then Paul) By the way, to WHICH "early source" do you refer?

No Earl, what is nonsensical, is your whining about aa5874's erudite suggestion that Hebrews most reasonably, (not absolutely) dates from second century, CE, because it is not attested to, before that time. This is an obviously logical stance, Earl, and if you don't appreciate that, then it is you, not aa5874, who needs a course in logic.

You are correct, Earl, that such attestation does not prove that the document was written at the same time. You err, however, in (a) insisting that aa5874 argues for that date of composition in absolute terms, whereas he has simply affirmed that 2nd (3rd?) century is the earliest date of citation, and (b) failing to offer so much as a single sentence explaining why you suppose, contrarily, that it was written before the second century. Obviously, "...no connection to anything else we know of..." doesn't cut it. Whether or not any "reputable" scholar agrees with me, or not, I could care less. I judge DATA, Earl, not opinions. Show me the beef, Earl. I don't need or want, the names of "reputable scholars". I want a first century document attesting to the epistle to Hebrews. Absent that, you have got bupkis.
aa5874 wins this argument, hands down.

Where's your basis for claiming a date of composition before second century, and please don't reference "migration outside its own circle"? This isn't a ladies sewing club, Earl.

Thanks to Jake and Bingo, for elaborating aa5874's position.

Gee, I dunno, Earl. Maybe it is because this is a forum, the purpose of which is to exchange ideas, opinions, and interpretations, and to introduce novel, potentially controversial suggestions, which may indeed run counter to the prevailing "scholarly" perspective....

Instead of complaining about my ignorance, Earl, why not devote a tiny bit of effort to address the question which others have also posed, in this thread, to elaborate, in a sentence or two, WHY you believe the EVIDENCE suggests a first century date of composition of epistle to Hebrews? Please summarize the EVIDENCE, Earl, not your opinions.

Thanks, Stephan, I like it. Well thought out. Interesting. But, only tiniest criticism, is that IF aa5874 is correct, and Earl wrong, as I believe is the case, then, Hebrews is not particularly useful in elaborating the "Foundations of Christianity", and then, your whole paragraph is a blind passage without exit, as we seek to discover a path through the labyrinth of earliest Christianity.

Your points are not ignored, and they are interesting. They are informative. They are educational. You are a good communicator, when you wish to be. Problem, in this thread, is that you are focused on the wrong issue.

aa5874 has (correctly, in my opinion) identified the short ending version of Mark, as found in Codex Sinaiticus, as the document which underlies the "Foundations of Christianity", as we know it today. Hebrews is, in my unlearned opinion, irrelevant to that question, notwithstanding Earl's opinion to the contrary. You need to focus, Stephan, your tremendous skills and talents, on either supporting, or refuting ( either would be useful) aa5874's stand. The gauntlet is there. Pick it up, and offer it humbly, as if having been accidently dropped, else, fling it in his face, as you wish.

Ignoring aa5874, as some are want to do, is simply acknowledgement that he has hit the nail on the head, again.

You complain of being "ignored", yet, you continually ignore those who would challenge your ideas. I can't count, the quantity of submissions to this forum which have challenged you, and been met with silence on your part. What's good for us ganders, is also good for you geese....go back, please, and look at some of your threads from 2012, and even earlier. You will find dozens of threads, with interrogatories ignored by you, as if the questions had never been posed.

Earl may receive a lot of criticism from me, and others, but at least, to his credit, he does, often, reply to those questioning his interpretation.

In my opinion, some of the best members of this forum, from that point of view, responding to others' questions/criticisms/suggestions, include Philosopher Jay, Andrew Criddle, Mountainman, aa5874, sotto voce, maryhelena, and Roger Pearse.

Stephan, you are without doubt one of the best educated members of this forum, but, you should go look in the mirror, if you seek an answer to your question about ignoring rejoinders of interesting dimension.

stephan huller

No, =======, the last surviving reference to the text was made at these dates but we know the original texts existed from other sources. It's like you have sex with with some infected with an STD and the symptoms only show up months or even years later. You didn't get STD today, it was when you decided to have sex with that woman/man with no teeth you met at the Greyhound bus station way back. Sheesh!

jakejonesiv

No. AA did quite a nice job at establishing that we have no evidence for the existence for the epistle to the Hebrews before the mid to late second century. That is a silence that demands an explanation.
Who ignores it? It is a piece of evidence to be weighed. To do otherwise is nonsense.

In fact, I know that better than you.
Earl, you have a habit of creating unknown communities whenever it is convinient for you. But, for sake of argument, if that is the case then the "Hebrews community" was too insignificant and isolated to have any discernable effect on the development of broader Christianity. This is for all practical purposes the same thing as composition after the mid second century. It is the same thing because, to use your own words, it has no connection to anything else we know of. It may as well have fallen out of the sky on golden tablets in 170 CE than to have been written before 70 CE.


LOL! Earl, I am not going to be insulted into buying your book! And no, I have not read everything you have written, after all you are not Robert M. Price or Hermann Detering. But still, I respect your work and have defended you many times, even here on freeratio.org.
In the past, our area of agreement (I estimate at about 80%) has been enough for us to get along in a civil manner. But now, only 100% agreement appears to be acceptable to you. That is a bit too dogmatic for me.

That is fine Earl, but I have asked a reasonable question and you may as well give a full answer here. Even if I bought your book, not every reader of this forum can afford it. Why hide your answer?

Earl, that is just more ad hominem. For a moment there I thought you were Jeffrey Gibson.

No Earl, this time it is you who have not done your reading. Otherwise, you would where the question came from (RMP) and why it disconfirms a pre 70 CE date. And you would also know that your answer is a complete digression.



All the Best to you Earl Doherty.

Jake Jones IV

stephan huller

I think the lesson is that a 'tout comprendre' is impossible. The public wants everything to be facile but the reality is far different. There are just too many gaps in our knowledge about a critical period to say 'this or that' is the truth. There are of course completely wrong answers, things that don't work or can't possibly work. It is dangerous to speak of absolutes when we know so little.

aa5874

I totally disagree. Romulus is considered a Myth with FAR less information than Jesus, the Son of God, born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

There are probably more stories about Jesus the Son of God that was crucified in Jerusalem under Pilate, raised from the dead and ascended than any other story of antiquity.

There are thousands of writings from antiquity where it is argued that Jesus was the Son of God and produced by a Ghost or acted non-human.

Why was it so easy to admit Romulus was Mythology yet the Son of God admittedly born of a Ghost is considered human??

Lots of people really don't want the truth.

There is such a vast amount of evidence that the Foundation of Christianity is from the 2nd century and NONE from the 1st century.

Not one piece of dated recovered manuscript, biblical or not, about Jesus is from the 1st century--None.

No author of the very Canon claimed they Saw Jesus at any time in his Lifetime.

Apologetic sources mentioned the Jesus story from Conception to Ascension WITHOUT ever mentioning the Pauline letters.

In the very Canon of the Church itself, No author corroborated that the Pauline letters were composed in the 1st century.

The author of Acts wrote about Saul/Paul without a single letter from Paul or the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

It is the very Simplest of matters--the Jesus character is a Myth Fable that was invented and developed AFTER the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius or after c 115 CE to explain the Fall of the Temple.

ALL the evidence was handed down to us in a PLATTER.

The OT was BOLTED to the NT.

We have "Church History" that documented virtually ALL the bogus writings.

There could be no easier matter to resolve.

The evidence is all there. The Foundation of Christianity is the short gMark--NOT Epistle Hebrews.

We have FOUR versions of the gMark story in the short gMark, the Long gMark, g Matthew and gLuke.

In the 2nd century People of antiquity Believed the gMark story that the Jews did Deliver up the Son of God to be Killed, that the Kingdom of God was at hand, and that he was coming back a Second time in the clouds of heaven as stated in the book of Daniel.

jakejonesiv

This is as good a place as any to discuss Earl Doherty's alleged "smoking gun," namely Hebrews 8:4. "For if He were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;"


Now Earl claims on his authority as the world's leading mythicist and appeal to JNGNM chapter 16 that that this verse is a smoking gun that tells us that Jesus, in the mind of this writer, was never on earth.


Now that is a bold assertion that I might consent to as possible. But that is not at all what ED means! Earl does not claim that it is a possible interpretation, but that it is the ONLY meaning possible!


But could not the text mean that Jesus was not on earth in the writer's present, without precluding that he had been on earth in the past? Indeed scholars, including skeptical and radical scholars, read the text in just that manner. Is this possible?


According to Earl, absolutely not! Earl Doherty has written, "There is not even a theoretical comparison to be made for the present. The idea would be ludicrous, and the writer would have had no reason to offer it." and "*A present tense makes no sense*".


Well! That is pretty definitive. Smoking gun! Time Bomb! Everyone else is wrong, case closed.


But there is reason to doubt Earl's conclusion from a historical persepctive. If there is one thing we can be certain about in the second, third, or fourth centuries CE, it is the Church Fathers had a nose for sniffing out heresy. And make no mistake, a Jesus who had never been to earth would be one of the greatest heresies around!


But when we look for Hebrews 8:4 in the Church Fathers, we can scarcely find a citation at all. And when we do find citation, there is no hint that it indicated Jesus had never been on earth. How can we have a smoking gun, when no one in antiquity can be shown to have understood it in Earl's idi·o·syn·cratic fashion?
Talk about silences that demand an explanation, this one is the equal of any of the 200 silences that Earl finds in the Pauline Epistles. http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/sil20arg.htm


So what can we conclude from this vast Sound of Silence? Either the Church fathers didn't understand Greek as well as Earl Doherty, or (gasp) Earl has erred.


Now, it is possible that Earl Doherty is the only person in history to have divined what was in the mind of the writer of Heb 8:4. The reader can answer that for themselves.


BTW, I hope that Earl will not use his considerable rhetorical skills to cast me as the most worthless specimen of humanity for daring to post these questions.


Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV