stephan huller

no OUR high priest was named Jesus after the line of Melchizedek

TedM

Are you intentionally being unclear?

If not, what are you talking about?

If so, I'm not interested in playing a game of trying to connect the dots in your head, and was right to ignore your original comments.

stephan huller

Whatever. You're only here to proselytize and 'raise doubts' about the critics of Christianity anyway. I've watched your thickedheadedness in action over the months here.

I am not interested in debating the question of whether Hebrews was written with a supernatural Jesus in mind. It seems obvious as:

(a) it is the only text which mentions Melchizedek
and
(b) there was a prominent Chrsitian sect or even sects who held Melchizedek to be an important supernatural being

What other text could have been the source of the Melchizedekian interest in Melchizedek? I can't think of one. So it should be obvious that - despite whatever Catholic manipulations to the text have been made since the second century, the original conception was that Melchizedek = the Logos and Jesus was a power or the glory of that being (at least according to the author).

Here for instance is what Epiphanius says about the Melchizedekians:

It should be apparent to all but the big blockheads at this forum that Jesus's relationship with the Logos among the Valentinians is exactly the same as that represented here with respect to Melchizedek. Hence Melchizedek is just another way of representing the Logos

stephan huller

I am not on anyone's side - not even my own. I am just interested in figuring out the truth. To this end, because there was a controversy going on about your book, I was led to a greater understanding of how Jesus was originally understood as something other than the Logos. That was productive. I am not interested in determining whether you are completely right or completely wrong and treat you like a reprobate because I disagree with you. That's just egoism. Your ideas are interesting and so they are worth discussing in a civil tone. I don't even have a problem with people attacking your ideas. I just try and make the best of every opportunity to learn something knowing that I am likely more ignorant than I care to admit or even know.

stephan huller

I should quoted the passage more fully from Epiphanius:

Yes so with that logic in mind it is impossible to consider Jesus the Logos is that status has already been conferred on Melchizedek.

TedM

I question. I challenge. I learn. You may interpret however you wish.


How does that relate to the issue of 8:4?

Your condescending attitude is not helpful. Nor your game playing with the thread. You seem a lot more interested here in Valentinians than you do Hebrews. How is this helpful for 8:4? Melchizedek came to EARTH, so why not Jesus?

I think your search for 'truth' gets in the way of the honest attempts of others to understand issues that are not of concern to you. That's rather inconsiderate in my view.

Bernard Muller

To Vorkosigan,
Did you check my piece on Heb 7:14, on the thread about Heb 8:4? This is one example (Doherty has not yet commented on it). Other ones in Hebrews are 2:14 & 2:17.

Maybe 8 or a bit more (that's the most obvious and simple ones) is not many, but neither Hebrews or the Pauline letters are about commenting about the earthly Jesus. They are aiming at more lofty considerations. Regardless, their authors wrote items, which through a normal reading, imply Jesus had been a human being on earth. Of course, mythicists have brought doubts on those: they have to, by definition: If you present a flat earth proponent with pieces of evidence showing the earth is round, he/she will always find something to, at least, bring doubts to that "roundist" evidence.

Generated doubts are not killer arguments. And that does not mean these items, as understood through a normal reading, are obliterated, rendered unexistent.

PS: even Doherty admits he is dealing with generating (only) doubts:
Cordially Bernard

stephan huller

This is like talking to mountainman. Irenaeus is an ancient witness. You are a modern interpreter. So too Muller and Doherty. Me too. The ancient witnesses are worth more and Irenaeus says that the Valentinians - with a slightly different version of John 1:14 say that the Logos did not come to earth. I originally disagreed with Doherty on multiple fronts. One of them was that the idea that Jesus did not come to earth is silly. But now I found someone who supports half that proposition. The Logos did not leave heaven, Jesus did. This because Jesus was not the Logos - a view held by lots and lots of Christians not just 'the Valentinians.'

My point is that Doherty is still wrong about Jesus not coming to earth in my opinion or at least this argument I am developing would have more respect among scholars. The point of Melchizedek is that Hebrews speaks of Jesus in relation to Melchizedek in the same way as we just saw with respect to the Logos. The question of whether Melchizedek formerly came to earth is not material here. Few people doubt that Melchizedek = the Logos. It was our inherited intellectual laziness which simply tacked on the bit about Jesus = the Logos (thus Jesus = Melchizedek). But - as Epiphanius notes - some heretical groups read Hebrews and noted based "on the literal wording of, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," they believe that Christ has merely come and been given the order of Melchizedek. Christ is thus younger than Melchizedek, they say. For if his place were not somehow second in line, he would have no need of Melchizedek's rank."

What is so unclear about this? Why does everyone like to have 'Ted's beliefs' versus 'Doherty's beliefs' arguments but these substantive statements of facts engender silence or ignore?

stephan huller

Pagels on which texts the Valentinians used based on the existing evidence. From the Gnostic Paul:

Bernard Muller

to Doherty,
So much modesty! Unfortunatly your education is including the use of wrong translation as evidence (ref: NEB for Heb 9:14) and unevidenced assumptions (such as Melchizedek being associated with the tribe of Judah and the author of Hebrews knowing and using legends about Melch in heaven.
You did not answer my last two posts to you, one about Heb 7:14, the other about Heb 9:14. Shall I think I won the day?

Cordially, Bernard