Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 01-28-2013, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I agree that per se the fact that the "sacrifice," the offering of the blood, takes place in heaven does not establish by itself that the death did not take place on earth, and hopefully I never implied that. Such a conclusion is established by other considerations, or at least made likely. To mention just two, I have made the point that if the death did occur on earth, it would have virtually forced the writer to make it a part of the sacrifice, since such a vivid historical event could hardly have been ignored. Thus Jesus would have to have been seen as a priest on earth. But if everything comes from scripture, and if the writer wishes to focus on the actual "sacrifice" in parallel with the sacrifices of the earthly high priests, then he can ignore the crucifixion itself without much chance of protest, either in his own mind or those of the readers.

The second reason is that the contrafactual implies that Jesus is/was not on earth, for a given reason. And if that given reason taken in a present sense is contradicted by the supposed opposite of that reason existing in the past, this would render the statement of a present sense contradictory and pointless.

And as I tried to convey by offering ludicrous questions (how was it carried to heaven? how was it converted to spiritual blood?), it gives rise to a number of problems. Any activity on earth by Jesus, and especially something as crucial as the actual shedding of earthly blood on an earthly cross, would have gone against his whole Platonic outlook of blood needing to be spiritual, of superior sacrifices needing to be performed in heaven as opposed to earth, and so on. In the context of an historical Jesus and historical crucifixion, the utter absence of any reference to such a venue and earthly activity would be incomprehensible. I don't think this is imposing something on the mind of the writer. It is simply common sense.

As I say in JNGNM (p.238):

Quote:

...This is really the crux of the matter. If a crucifixion on Calvary had taken place, it is hardly conceivable that this would not have been brought into the picture and made part of Christ’s priesthood—and thus Hebrews’ whole presentation would of necessity have been different. In fact, other opportunities would have presented themselves. For example, one of the roles of the priesthood is to slaughter the animals which provide the blood for the sacrifice. Why would this element be ignored if the slaughter of Christ had taken place on Calvary, inviting a comparison and parallel between these two priestly acts (Christ performing it on himself) in keeping with all the rest? Even if the primary focus were kept on a blood-atonement sacrifice made on the heavenly altar, such things would have justified including an openly earthly dimension as part of Christ’s priesthood.

But then the writer would have been overwhelmed with all those pesky complications. Wasn’t the blood human and not spiritual? Wasn’t a human act in the material world by definition “imperfect”? Since Calvary was a key event in salvation and thus of the New Covenant, wasn’t it taking place at the same time and in the same venue as the old earthly acts of atonement under the Old Covenant? Didn’t the exclusive territories the writer is at pains to delineate in fact overlap? Even if he could have found ways out of these complications and others like them, he would have had to outline his solutions, to show some recognition that he was aware of the conflict. On the other hand, the likelihood is that he would simply have avoided such a conflict by not fashioning his particular christological picture in the first place.

EArl Doherty

Doherty continue to amaze me with his inventions from imagination.

The very Doherty who claims people read things into Epistle Hebrews MUST, MUST, MUST read the Gospels in the Epistle to Presume Hebrews represent early beliefs about Jesus.

Without the Gospels the very term "early christianity" would be historically meaningless.

Effectively, the Anonymous Epistle Hebrews without any known date of authorship, without Provenance and no text found and dated to the 1st century by itself is wholly useless to argue the belief of Christians in antiquity.

Where does it say in All Hebrews that its author was a Christian or that he wrote before the Jewish War.

If the Hebrews Jesus never came to earth then may be the author represented the Earliest Anti-Christian Polemic.

Doherty's problems will always continue because he cannot provide any corroborative sources of antiquity for his claim and must read the Gospels, and indeed the Entire Canon into Hebrews.

EarlDoherty · 01-28-2013, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to Doherty,

Quote:

And as I tried to convey by offering ludicrous questions (how was it carried to heaven? how was it converted to spiritual blood?),

This spiritual blood is an invention of yours, drawn from a wrong NEB translation of Heb 9:14 which read as such:
YLT "how much more shall the blood of the Christ (who through the age-during Spirit did offer himself unblemished to God) purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
No spiritual blood here. See my earlier posting: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....18#post7379218

Quote:

But if everything comes from scripture, and if the writer wishes to focus on the actual "sacrifice" in parallel with the sacrifices of the earthly high priests, then he can ignore the crucifixion itself without much chance of protest, either in his own mind or those of the readers

In Hebrews, the sacrifice is a bodily one:
"but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb 9:26b
In the twelve occurrences of "sacrifice(s)" in 'Hebrews', the word "sacrifice(s)" is never associated with blood offering. More, "sacrifice(s)" is distinct of offerings in Heb 10:5 & 10:8.

And for offerings, not only Jesus' blood is offered but also his body:
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]." Heb 10:10

Could blood offering be considered the Sacrifice? Then why bother with killing animals or being crucified. Just extract a bit of blood from a small cut, present that to your god, et voila, you performed a sacrifice!

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard, your counters are getting more and more bizarre.

So "sacrifice" doesn't mean the offering of his "blood." Never mind that the writer more than once says that Christ offered his own sacrifice, that it was in the heavenly sanctuary (the tent made by the Lord), and that passages like 9:12 and 14 say that he went into that sanctuary with his own blood. But because you cannot find the two words linked together in any particular passage, this enables you to say that the sacrifice was not blood? (If one can even figure out what it is you are trying to say.)

And as far as 10:5 and 10:8 goes, the former is quote from a Psalm. (Did you not realize that?) It uses the term "body". The latter is a comment on that passage, and thus carries over the word "body". Of course, you would have known that if you had actually read me. This kind of argumentation is typical of you and is beyond "niggling". It is simply off the wall, and why you are so difficult to debate with.

And what the heck is an "age-during Spirit"?

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 01-28-2013, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I agree that per se the fact that the "sacrifice," the offering of the blood, takes place in heaven does not establish by itself that the death did not take place on earth, and hopefully I never implied that. Such a conclusion is established by other considerations, or at least made likely. To mention just two, I have made the point that if the death did occur on earth, it would have virtually forced the writer to make it a part of the sacrifice, since such a vivid historical event could hardly have been ignored. Thus Jesus would have to have been seen as a priest on earth. But if everything comes from scripture, and if the writer wishes to focus on the actual "sacrifice" in parallel with the sacrifices of the earthly high priests, then he can ignore the crucifixion itself without much chance of protest, either in his own mind or those of the readers.

The second reason is that the contrafactual implies that Jesus is/was not on earth, for a given reason. And if that given reason taken in a present sense is contradicted by the supposed opposite of that reason existing in the past, this would render the statement of a present sense contradictory and pointless.

And as I tried to convey by offering ludicrous questions (how was it carried to heaven? how was it converted to spiritual blood?), it gives rise to a number of problems. Any activity on earth by Jesus, and especially something as crucial as the actual shedding of earthly blood on an earthly cross, would have gone against his whole Platonic outlook of blood needing to be spiritual, of superior sacrifices needing to be performed in heaven as opposed to earth, and so on. In the context of an historical Jesus and historical crucifixion, the utter absence of any reference to such a venue and earthly activity would be incomprehensible. I don't think this is imposing something on the mind of the writer. It is simply common sense.

As I say in JNGNM (p.238):

EArl Doherty

Doherty continue to amaze me with his inventions from imagination.

The very Doherty who claims people read things into Epistle Hebrews MUST, MUST, MUST read the Gospels in the Epistle to Presume Hebrews represent early beliefs about Jesus.

Without the Gospels the very term "early christianity" would be historically meaningless.

Effectively, the Anonymous Epistle Hebrews without any known date of authorship, without Provenance and no text found and dated to the 1st century by itself is wholly useless to argue the belief of Christians in antiquity.

Where does it say in All Hebrews that its author was a Christian or that he wrote before the Jewish War.

If the Hebrews Jesus never came to earth then may be the author represented the Earliest Anti-Christian Polemic.

Doherty's problems will always continue because he cannot provide any corroborative sources of antiquity for his claim and must read the Gospels, and indeed the Entire Canon into Hebrews.

It is me who is reading the Gospels into Hebrews???

Aa, your postings are getting more and more incomprehensible. This is just a note to reiterate my intention to ignore you.

Earl Doherty

rlogan · 01-28-2013, 05:49 PM

An over-arching logical fallacy being employed by historicists is that if a Chapter of "Gone with the Wind" or what have you is written with the literal context implying the characters are real that the characters must have indeed been real.

This is the kind of facile "logic" behind all this pretentiousness of deep scholarship. It's actually much worse than the example of Gone with the Wind because in that novel there are no utterly ridiculous, fantastical claims and characters.

On the face of it, Henrews is preposterous as a historical reference. The ostensible purpose is to place Jesus in the appropriate position relative to fictional angels, the fictional Moses, as a fictional "exact representation" of God - how stupid do we have to actually be? It is only the centuries of brutal police-state dictatorship over thought and historical/cultural inertia thereafter that grants phony legitimacy to its historicity.

It is clearly a liturgical device masquerading as a letter, following the example of every other pious fraud in the collection of epistles. One sentence in the entire piece provides a g-string of verisimilitude: "I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been released. If he arrives soon, I will come with him to see you." Otherwise what? I will come without him? Won't come at all? If you are coming then why are you writing a letter? Why is this theoretical piece of such wide application - so wide as to be exactly what it is used for ie every person on earth, yet is allegedly written to "Hebrews" who are scattered over an entire Kingdom and beyond... So the author is coming to visit where, exactly? Tim's house? In Hebrew land?

How gullible do you have to be in accepting this as an actual letter dating to the first century rather than the as-usual "Oh look what I found in the basement" Biblical standard?

Hebrews is a parade of fictional Hebrew Bible characters through Noah, Abraham, and etc. all of whom we are to emulate with our faith . It was through faith that the fictional Noah was saved from the fictional flood with a fictional Ark full of fictional animals and so we too must have faith in the exhortations of this fictional book of Hebrews, yet another chapter in an entire Bible that is from the first to the last page a work of fiction.

So we have the spectacle of allegedly intelligent people, parsing the precise Koine Greek interpretation of a single word in a book that is the equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard's bizzaro-world of Xenu, to do battle over historicity.

Earl's approach is fraught with the same kind of difficulty one has in trying to explain Scientology. It is fiction, so getting into the exact details of where Xenu landed with the space ship and planted the hydrogen bombs; how this translates logically into engrams interfering in our ability to be "clear" - this is a tar baby of circumlocution I would never take on. Blah blah blah. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Oh look, I used the word "pin". So Angels are real.

Bernard Muller · 01-28-2013, 05:56 PM

to Doherty,

Quote:

the writer more than once says that Christ offered his own sacrifice, that it was in the heavenly sanctuary (the tent made by the Lord),

Can you provide the quotes?
In the heavenly sanctuary, he is offering his blood, as resulting from the (earlier) Sacrifice. Offering of blood is not a sacrifice. It is never stated like that in 'Hebrews'.
And where do the "the sacrifice of himself" (9:26) and "the offering of the body of Jesus Christ" (10:10) take place?

Quote:

9:12 and 14 say that he went into that sanctuary with his own blood

Yes, but where is the Sacrifice?

Quote:

And as far as 10:5 and 10:8 goes, the former is quote from a Psalm. (Did you not realize that?) It uses the term "body". The latter is a comment on that passage, and thus carries over the word "body".

I quoted 9:26 and 10:10 for reference to the body of Jesus. Neither are quotes from the Psalms.
I mentioned 10:5 & 10:8, but it was not for "body".
Maybe you meant 10:10 by 10:8. But the author of 'Hebrews' was free not to quote a Psalm mentioning Jesus' body. And certainly he could have changed his own wording, other than "the offering of the body of Jesus Christ". And then there is "the sacrifice of himself" (9:26).
That proves the author was thinking of a bodily sacrifice, and not an offering of blood as a sacrifice.

Cordially, Bernard

TedM · 01-28-2013, 08:02 PM

It appears that the 'offering of blood' was considered to be PART of the sacrifice, but SO TOO was the actual death of the animal. From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...2984-sacrifice

Quote:

Acts of Sacrifice.

Every sacrifice required sanctification ("ḥakdashah"), and was to be brought into the court of the sanctuary ("haḳrabah"). In the animal offerings the following acts were observed: (1) "semikah" = laying on of the hand (or both hands, according to tradition); (2) "sheḥiṭah" = killing; (3) "ḳabbalah" = gathering (receiving) the blood; (4) "holakah" = carrying the blood to the altar; (5) "zeriḳah" = sprinkling the blood; (6) "haḳṭarah" = consumption by fire.

It would seem then that strictly speaking Jesus had taken on a priestly role when he offered himself up for crucifixion, whether that was on earth or the 'lower heavens'.

Does this affect your Platonic parallel analysis, Earl, for the sacrifice to have BEGUN outside of the heavenly tabernacle? Or do you think the author of Hebrews had a different perspective on what constituted the 'sacrifice'?

TedM · 01-28-2013, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

If 8:4 had said something like, he couldn’t be a priest on earth (whether past or present) because an earthly sacrifice would not have been good enough, or because his role is over, or whatever. But he didn’t. His essential point in this verse is that Jesus did not operate on earth because earth is the scene of the traditional high priests’ activity.

I"m ok with this. But, that was true in the present too! Jesus would not operate on earth in the present because earth is the scene of the traditional high priest's activity.

Why would this be gibberish for one and not the other when it is true for both? Your answer I think is that 8:3 is linked to the past: Earthly priests were appointed to offer sacrifices. Jesus offered (past tense) himself, once and for all. Unfortunately for your case, the tenses in 8:3 are NOT in the past, but are in the present: Every priest IS appointed..it IS necessary that this high priest also HAVE something to offer. (More on 8:3 below)

Quote:

The simple meaning is that Jesus’ presence and priesthood on earth would have conflicted with the activities of the ongoing high priestly cult, not because it was superior to them but because each belonged in their own territory, and that separation of territory was required by his Platonic principles.

That would be true in the authors' present too, though!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted

Looking just at what 8:4 says, I think the problem is that it doesn't say why Jesus would not be a priest. Instead it only IMPLIES it. By saying 'since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law', the implication is very VERY simple:

Jesus would not be a priest on earth because he did not/does not offer gifts according to the Law.

Ted, this is not the implication. I will literally translate from the Greek:

”If, therefore, he were / had been on earth, he would not be / have been a priest, there being those who offer gifts according to the law.”

To put it in clearer English: “…he would not be / have been a priest, because there are / were already priests here offering their sacrifices according to the law.” ...The phrase “according to the law” is simply adding a descriptive to those sacrifices. It does not in any way imply that this is the crux of the matter.

Adding the word 'already' gives a meaning that may distort the intention. According to your emphasis the reason Jesus wouldn't have been a priest on earth is because earth already had (or has) priests, as if he somehow wouldn't fit!

It may have nothing to do with them ALREADY being here. It may have to do with the earth being the LOCATION of existing offerings according to the LAW, and not the heavenly offering that is the real deal. I suspect you agree with me here..

As such 'According to the Law' is much more than a 'simple' relatively unimportant descriptive. It's a descriptive of an inferior offering. I stand by my interpretation above. Yours is too dismissive of the importance of the phrase 'According to the Law'. Earth = inferior LAW/copy Heaven = superior/real deal.

What my interpretation means though is that the present tense is compatible: Jesus would not have something to offer NOW under the earthly LAW because what he offered and/or offers now is superior. With nothing to offer NOW on earth, he wouldn't be a priest NOW on earth.

Quote:

But your effort to “all we can get out of this” is far more complex and contorted against the simple reading of the text than mine would be.

I think I just showed that your reading of the text IS too simple. The idea that he wouldn't have been a priest on earth simply because others were ALREADY here just doesn't cut it.

Quote:

Why stick in a banal thought like Jesus the High Priest had to be given something to do, just as the earthly high priests are kept busy?

By saying that each had duties which involved offerings it set the stage for a comparison in 8:4 between what the earthly priests WERE or ARE offering vs what Jesus HAD or HAS TO offer--on earth. It works either way and is not 'banal' for either way.

Quote:

Even the thought of enumerating respective sacrifices (not “duties”) must relate to the past, since Jesus’ sacrifice took place in the past and cannot be repeated.

But neither verse 3 or 4 say anything about a non-repeatable offering. This is something you are reading into the passage, and while I changed my mind to agree with you, the vagueness of the passages gives me pause: Why does the author include verse 3? and why does he use the vague phrase 'have something to offer." I continue to find the wording 'something to offer' a bit odd. Why doesn't he say 'so it is necessary that this high priest also offer a gift and a sacrifice'? Here's a possible explanation:

Verse 3 really doesn't lead into verse 4 very well, especially if 4 is referring to the past, both in context and the verse 3 present tense grammar: That is he doesn't say ANYTHING about what he HAD already offered in verses 4 or 5 or 6. That doesn't at all support your claim that verses 3 and 4 are both referring to the past. But he DOES say what he NOW HAS to offer in verses 2, and 6: a current, more excellent ministry. Verse 2 refers to him in the present as a minister in the heavenly tabernacle now that he has taken a seat to the right of God. Verse 6 concludes 'But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry'.

A reasonable explanation then is that verse 3 is more closely tied to verse 2 than verse 4. It is saying he, as priest, has 'something to offer' NOW. The preceding verse (context) supports a present tense, and the grammar supports a present tense. As such, it provides another argument in favor of verse 4 ALSO being in the present: He wouldn't be a priest here at all even though he has 'something to offer' too, because his offer is more excellent ministry, a better covenant, and heavenly. The priests on earth serve a 'copy' according to the Law, which is inferior.

Yes, I know I'm reverting back, but there IS more than one way to view the material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted

Either interpretation is supported. Verse 3 only serves to say that priests must offer something. Earthly priests must offer something. This High Priest must offer something. That's all. It doesn't imply that the author has shifted his thinking to the past. Nor does it imply that the author is thinking about the present. It's just a statement of duties.

No it is not. The whole context (as you yourself wish to claim) has to do with superiority.

I do agree that the larger context has to do with the superiority of the new covenant. But, wouldn't you agree that for a given passage the MOST important context is to be found in the surrounding verses, as well as the grammar used in those surrounding verses? Verse 1 unambiguously refers to the present, stressing his presence as high priest in heaven NOW as 'the main point'. It sets the tone for the following verses. Other than the brief history lesson about tabernacle shown to Moses in verse 5, EVERY unambiguous tense used in 1-6 is in the present. I count TWELVE of them Earl. That's a pretty strong localized context, if you ask me.

Quote:

It can only make sense in the context of the past, when Jesus’ sacrifice did take place.

I think I've shown that is absolutely false. It's a very difficult verse, but I've shown that there are a number of reasonable alternatives--perhaps MORE reasonable--that are supportive of a present tense interpretation.

Quote:

I don’t know how much longer I am going to respond to all these unworkable suggestions.

We may be at an impasse here, so if you want to quit, I'm fine with that. Thanks for indulging,

Ted

EarlDoherty · 01-29-2013, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It appears that the 'offering of blood' was considered to be PART of the sacrifice, but SO TOO was the actual death of the animal. From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...2984-sacrifice

Quote:

Acts of Sacrifice.

Every sacrifice required sanctification ("ḥakdashah"), and was to be brought into the court of the sanctuary ("haḳrabah"). In the animal offerings the following acts were observed: (1) "semikah" = laying on of the hand (or both hands, according to tradition); (2) "sheḥiṭah" = killing; (3) "ḳabbalah" = gathering (receiving) the blood; (4) "holakah" = carrying the blood to the altar; (5) "zeriḳah" = sprinkling the blood; (6) "haḳṭarah" = consumption by fire.

It would seem then that strictly speaking Jesus had taken on a priestly role when he offered himself up for crucifixion, whether that was on earth or the 'lower heavens'.

Does this affect your Platonic parallel analysis, Earl, for the sacrifice to have BEGUN outside of the heavenly tabernacle? Or do you think the author of Hebrews had a different perspective on what constituted the 'sacrifice'?

The simple answer to that, Ted, is that if this writer (regardless of what the Jewish encyclopedia says, and I don't doubt its accuracy) had meant to make the cross part of the sacrifice, he would have presented it that way. He does not. He is so anxious to present every parallel he can think of, and yet he doesn't make that obvious parallel? (Just as he neglects every other parallel which would involve an earthly Jesus, such as Jesus' words at the Last Supper.)

In fact, when offered the opportunity (13:11-13) to make Jesus' suffering and death a parallel to something, what does he do? Does he parallel it with the slaughter of the animals, as the Jewish Encyclopedia (and you) would suggest? No, he makes the very unsuitable 'parallel' of Jesus suffering outside the gate as corresponding to the burning of the animals' body!!! Even mainstream scholars admit that this parallel is completely unsuitable.

I'll address other things later. Right now, I have to get out to do things before a freezing rain storm hits.

Earl Doherty

MrMacSon · 01-29-2013, 11:58 AM

This, for me at least, sums up attempts to interpret these texts -

(reproduced with some minor grammatical changes, and a spelling correction).

THIS is a must read ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

An over-arching logical fallacy being employed by historicists is that, if a Chapter of "Gone with the Wind" (or what have you) is written with the literal context implying the characters are real, the characters must have indeed been real.

This is the kind of facile "logic" behind all this pretentiousness of deep scholarship. It's actually much worse than the example of Gone with the Wind because in that novel there are no utterly ridiculous, fantastical claims and characters.

On the face of it, Hebrews is preposterous as a historical reference. The ostensible purpose is to place Jesus in the appropriate position relative to fictional angels, the fictional Moses, as a fictional "exact representation" of God - how stupid do we have to actually be? It is only the centuries of brutal police-state dictatorship over-thought and historical/cultural inertia thereafter that grants phony legitimacy to its historicity.

It is clearly a liturgical device masquerading as a letter, following the example of every other pious fraud in the collection of epistles. One sentence in the entire piece provides a g-string of verisimilitude:

Quote:

"I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been released. If he arrives soon, I will come with him to see you".

Otherwise what? I will come without him? Won't come at all? If you are coming then why are you writing a letter? Why is this theoretical piece of such wide application - so wide as to be exactly what it is used for ie. every person on earth, yet is allegedly written to "Hebrews" who are scattered over an entire Kingdom and beyond... So the author is coming to visit where, exactly? Tim's house? In Hebrew land?

How gullible do you have to be in accepting this as an actual letter dating to the first century rather than the as-usual "Oh look what I found in the basement" Biblical standard?

Hebrews is a parade of fictional Hebrew Bible characters through Noah, Abraham, and etc. all of whom we are to emulate with our faith . It was through faith that the fictional Noah was saved from the fictional flood with a fictional Ark full of fictional animals and so we too must have faith in the exhortations of this fictional book of Hebrews, yet another chapter in an entire Bible that is from the first to the last page a work of fiction.

So we have the spectacle of allegedly intelligent people, parsing the precise Koine Greek interpretation of a single word in a book that is the equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard's bizzaro-world of Xenu, to do battle over historicity.

Earl's approach is fraught with the same kind of difficulty one has in trying to explain Scientology. It is fiction, so getting into the exact details of where Xenu landed with the space ship and planted the hydrogen bombs; how this translates logically into engrams interfering in our ability to be "clear" - this is a tar baby of circumlocution I would never take on. Blah blah blah. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Oh look, I used the word "pin". So Angels are real.

Bravo, rlogan. Bravo!
.

TedM · 01-29-2013, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

On the face of it, Hebrews is preposterous as a historical reference. The ostensible purpose is to place Jesus in the appropriate position relative to fictional angels, the fictional Moses, as a fictional "exact representation" of God

While eloquent, I find this to be a bizarre perception. It is not a requirement that the angels, Moses, etc. have been 'historical' or real because the author isn't claiming that Jesus interacted with them when he performed the sacrifice.

The logical fallacy is concluding that the author had no knowledge of where the original believers in Jesus placed his crucifixion. There is no basis for concluding this.

It is a logical fallacy to assume that the letter is a 'pious fraud'. Prove it.

It doesn't matter even if it was a letter or not (although certainly the writer could have not intended to visit them without Timothy--the logic again was lacking by rlogan).

Quote:

Why is this theoretical piece of such wide application - so wide as to be exactly what it is used for ie. every person on earth,

This only shows more ignorance about the letter and its audience. I won't respond any further.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-28-2013, 05:49 PM	#144
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	An over-arching logical fallacy being employed by historicists is that if a Chapter of "Gone with the Wind" or what have you is written with the literal context implying the characters are real that the characters must have indeed been real. This is the kind of facile "logic" behind all this pretentiousness of deep scholarship. It's actually much worse than the example of Gone with the Wind because in that novel there are no utterly ridiculous, fantastical claims and characters. On the face of it, Henrews is preposterous as a historical reference. The ostensible purpose is to place Jesus in the appropriate position relative to fictional angels, the fictional Moses, as a fictional "exact representation" of God - how stupid do we have to actually be? It is only the centuries of brutal police-state dictatorship over thought and historical/cultural inertia thereafter that grants phony legitimacy to its historicity. It is clearly a liturgical device masquerading as a letter, following the example of every other pious fraud in the collection of epistles. One sentence in the entire piece provides a g-string of verisimilitude: "I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been released. If he arrives soon, I will come with him to see you." Otherwise what? I will come without him? Won't come at all? If you are coming then why are you writing a letter? Why is this theoretical piece of such wide application - so wide as to be exactly what it is used for ie every person on earth, yet is allegedly written to "Hebrews" who are scattered over an entire Kingdom and beyond... So the author is coming to visit where, exactly? Tim's house? In Hebrew land? How gullible do you have to be in accepting this as an actual letter dating to the first century rather than the as-usual "Oh look what I found in the basement" Biblical standard? Hebrews is a parade of fictional Hebrew Bible characters through Noah, Abraham, and etc. all of whom we are to emulate with our faith . It was through faith that the fictional Noah was saved from the fictional flood with a fictional Ark full of fictional animals and so we too must have faith in the exhortations of this fictional book of Hebrews, yet another chapter in an entire Bible that is from the first to the last page a work of fiction. So we have the spectacle of allegedly intelligent people, parsing the precise Koine Greek interpretation of a single word in a book that is the equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard's bizzaro-world of Xenu, to do battle over historicity. Earl's approach is fraught with the same kind of difficulty one has in trying to explain Scientology. It is fiction, so getting into the exact details of where Xenu landed with the space ship and planted the hydrogen bombs; how this translates logically into engrams interfering in our ability to be "clear" - this is a tar baby of circumlocution I would never take on. Blah blah blah. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Oh look, I used the word "pin". So Angels are real.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.