Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 01-27-2013, 04:57 AM

Quote:

I am not aware of any known sect that believed as Earl says. If the Church of the Sub Lunar Christ (Crucified) is the root of all Christianty, how did it disappear without a trace of external confirmation?

The same way thousands of sects disappeared throughout human history without any external confirmation. Fortunately, they left copious internal documentation of their early beliefs, as Earl has documented.

Quote:

They said it several times (minimum 8 times, for the seven Pauline & Hebrews), in different ways, but each time, because you find things to generate doubt against a normal reading of these occurrences, you conclude they never said it.

There are no such occurrences in Hebrews, as I already noted years ago when we danced this dance.

Vorkosigan
PS Bernard, if you're down to eight arguable references in 8 letters, you've lost the argument.

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 08:12 AM

The problem with the argument once again is that people have just jumped to the assumption that Jesus is the Logos. This was a controversial issue in antiquity. If we look at Irenaeus's citation of John 1:14 in only two books - Demonstration of the Apostolic Teachings and Book Three of Against Heresies - it is incredible to see how obsessive he is about establishing what he calls 'the right belief' or right interpretation of the contents.

If the idea that Jesus was the Logos was well established why would Irenaeus need to make constant reference to the idea? The point then is that we have only proof that the Logos was established as the heavenly high priest or high priest in heaven (= Philo). We know for certain that Clement of Alexandria did not identify the Jesus as the Logos (R P Casey CLEMENT AND THE TWO DIVINE LOGOI J Theol Studies (1923) os-XXV(97): 43-56). The same has already been demonstrated with respect to the Valentinians. I don't understand the utter lack of intellectual sophistication in this debate between Muller and Doherty. It's pathetic.

It is unlikely that Doherty or any other human being is going to be one hundred percent wrong or right about anything. His downfall here was the simple-minded assumption that Jesus was the Logos. Again the fact that Irenaeus has to spend so much time arguing that Jesus was the Word and the Word actually appeared on earth points to the fact that he was putting forward a minority position. Here are the references to the 'controversy' regarding John 1:14 in Against Heresies Book Three:

Quote:

neither was Christ one and Jesus another: but the Word of God--who is the Saviour of all, and the ruler of heaven and earth, who is Jesus, as I have already pointed out, who did also take upon Him flesh, and was anointed by the Spirit from the Father--was made Jesus Christ [AH 3.9.3]

For all things had entered upon a new phase, the Word arranging after a new manner the advent in the flesh, that He might win back(6) to God that human nature (hominem) which had departed from God; and therefore men were taught to worship God after a new fashion, but not another god, because in truth there is but "one God, who justifieth the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith." [ibid 3.10.2]

But salvation, as being flesh: for "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."(16) This knowledge of salvation, therefore, John did impart to those repenting, and believing in the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world. [ibid 3.10.3]

For they say that he, the Lord and Creator of the plan of creation, by whom they hold that this world was made, was produced from the Mother; while the Gospel affirms plainly, that by the Word, which was in the beginning with God, all things were made, which Word, he says, "was made flesh, and dwelt among us." But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Aeons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus [ibid 3.11.3]

for "not by the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but by the will of God was the Word made flesh;"(1) and that we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ another, but should know them to be one and the same. [ibid 3.14.2]

being ignorant that His only-begotten Word, who is always present with the human race, united to and mingled with His own creation, according to the Father's pleasure, and who became flesh, is Himself Jesus Christ our Lord, who did also suffer for us, and rose again on our behalf, and who will come again in the glory of His Father, to raise up all flesh, and for the manifestation of salvation, and to apply the rule of just judgment to all who were made by Him. There is therefore, as I have pointed out, one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus, who came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements [connected with Him], and gathered together all things in Himself. [ibid 3.14.6]

Their doctrine is homicidal, conjuring up, as it does, a number of gods, and simulating many Fathers, but lowering and dividing the Son of God in many ways. These are they against whom the Lord has cautioned us beforehand; and His disciple, in his Epistle already mentioned, commands us to avoid them, when he says: "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Take heed to them, that ye lose not what ye have wrought." And again does he say in the Epistle: "Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God, but is of antichrist." These words agree with what was said in the Gospel, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." Wherefore he again exclaims in his Epistle, "Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ, has been born of God;" knowing Jesus Christ to be one and the same, to whom the gates of heaven were opened, because of His taking upon Him flesh: who shall also come in the same flesh in which He suffered, revealing the glory of the Father. [ibid 3.18.6]

For, in what way could we be partaken of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God. Those, therefore, who assert that He appeared putatively, and was neither born in the flesh nor truly made man, are as yet under the old condemnation, holding out patronage to sin ... Thus, then, was the Word of God made man, as also Moses says: "God, true are His works." But if, not having been made flesh, He did appear as if flesh, His work was not a true one. But what He did appear, that He also was: God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of man, that He might kill sin, deprive death of its power, and vivify man; and therefore His works are true. [ibid 3.18.7]

To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: "I said, Ye are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; but ye shall die like men." He speaks undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that might receive the adoption of sons? [ibid 3.19.1]

And Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching:

6 (p.39, l.10) BP1
12 (p.52, l.2) BP1
30 (p.80, l.8) BP1
31 (p.81, l.8) BP1
37 (p.91, l.9) BP1
39 (p.94, l.3) BP1
53 (p.112, l.21) BP1
92 (p.159, l.17) BP1
94 (p.161, l.4) BP1

TedM · 01-27-2013, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The problem with the argument once again is that people have just jumped to the assumption that Jesus is the Logos....
It is unlikely that Doherty or any other human being is going to be one hundred percent wrong or right about anything. His downfall here was the simple-minded assumption that Jesus was the Logos.

But can't Doherty be wrong about the Jesus=Logos idea but still right about the idea that Jesus never lived on earth and Hebrews supports that? Or, can't he be RIGHT that Jesus=Logos but in reality it wasn't popularly expressed that way by fellow believers who more simply just thought Jesus came from heaven and went back to heaven? I don't see how the Logos issue is necessary for this discussion.

aa5874 · 01-27-2013, 09:22 AM

Quote:

I am not aware of any known sect that believed as Earl says. If the Church of the Sub Lunar Christ (Crucified) is the root of all Christianty, how did it disappear without a trace of external confirmation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The same way thousands of sects disappeared throughout human history without any external confirmation. Fortunately, they left copious internal documentation of their early beliefs, as Earl has documented.

Vorkosigan, you have presented a most blatant logical fallacy---"thousands of sects disappeared without a trace therefore Earl's Sub-Lunar sect must have existed and disappeared".

What utter absurdity.

Now, where is the actual evidence that a sub-lunar sect left Epistle Hebrews??

Why would the Church of Rome Canonize the writings of their theological opponents??

The NT Canon is NOT the product of sub-lunar sects but the product of the Church whose writers PUBLICLY declared and documented in writing that Jesus the Son of God, God and Creator, was in Galilee in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius being baptised by John and was crucified under Pilate after a trial with the Sanhedrin and was buried by Joseph of Aritmathea.

EarlDoherty · 01-27-2013, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephan

I don't understand the utter lack of intellectual sophistication in this debate between Muller and Doherty. It's pathetic.

It is unlikely that Doherty or any other human being is going to be one hundred percent wrong or right about anything. His downfall here was the simple-minded assumption that Jesus was the Logos. Again the fact that Irenaeus has to spend so much time arguing that Jesus was the Word and the Word actually appeared on earth points to the fact that he was putting forward a minority position.

Actually, Stephan, I have to thank you for this observation even though it is unclear. Because it has opened a good door. Putting your remark “the simple-minded assumption that Jesus was the Logos” into the context of our debate on Hebrews, you sound like you are begging the question. How do you define “Jesus” in that remark? With you comparing it to quotations from Irenaeus and others of that period, it sounds like you are saying “the historical Jesus was the Logos.” That was indeed a debate of the latter second century, beginning with Justin. Why? Because Christians prior to and still outside the new orthodox circles based on the Gospels only had a “Logos” figure to believe in. Paul’s Christ Jesus in heaven was essentially the Logos, even though he and similar circles did not use that term. The “Logos/Son” of most of the 2nd century apologists (whose object of worship was not a sacrificial one but simply an emanation of God who revealed God and thereby enabled salvation), did use the term “Logos” for the most part. So commentators like Justin and Irenaeus, adopting the Gospels as history, were exercised to translate that longstanding Logos religion (from Paul all the way to apologists like Theophilus and Athenagoras) into an historical religion based on the Gospel Jesus, the Word who had appeared incarnated on earth and undergone an atoning sacrifice. In essence, considering the length of the movement (over a century) and even its current expressions at the time of Justin and Irenaeus, they were putting forward a minority position. That position before long, of course, became the majority one.

One cannot deny that the Paulines and Hebrews present a heavenly Logos. Hebrews 1:2-3 has Logos written all over it. As does the christological hymn of Colossians 1:15-20 and even Paul’s 1 Cor. 8:6. They come right out of the stream of thought of Philonic Alexandria and the Wisdom of Solomon, with the added dimension of making that Logos a sacrificial figure, though still within the precincts of the heavenly world. So in regard to our discussion on Hebrews it is very unclear how your phrase "simple-minded assumption that Jesus was the Logos" is to be applied.

You are going to have to clarify exactly what you mean and what your objection against me constitutes, because I don’t quite understand it (I haven't been able to understand it for quite some time, actually). In regard to Hebrews, yes, Jesus in heaven IS the Logos, although this writer does not use that term, and he moves away from much of the standard styling of the heavenly Christ as the Logos because he is focused on a different interpretation of the heavenly Christ—perhaps taking a different cue from Philo, or else this is simply a largely separate development by this cultic group—namely, Jesus as High Priest, a portrayal which is not a feature of the great bulk of the epistles and makes Hebrews somewhat unique.

And does any of this qualify for intellectual sophistication?

Earl Doherty

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 10:07 AM

the debate lacks intellectual sophistication because it is often shrill

EarlDoherty · 01-27-2013, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

the debate lacks intellectual sophistication because it is often shrill

Intellectual sophistication can exist even in a shrill atmosphere.

I think our few exchanges have not been shrill. So I am awaiting your clarification in regard to my previous posting. Surely you are willing to offer one?

Earl Doherty

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 10:17 AM

I am not talking about you and me. I am saying, there is this tag team 'to get you' for merely making an observation about Hebrews. Why should anyone expect you to 'have all the answers.' You asked a very important question and have been forced into this 'lock down' because of it - and its all unproductive. If we really wanted to find the truth it would simply be about whether or not there is ancient support for the idea that the Logos never came to earth. Yes there is. But I was getting frustrated that no one was picking up on that and instead were continuing to fight over 'whether you are right' or not.

I think if you or someone else were to say - here is what the heretics said. Valentinus and his cohorts are reported to have said Jesus was not the Logos and the Logos presumably was the high priest who stayed in heaven. The Marcionites did not think that Jesus was the Logos. Clement did not think that Jesus was the Logos. I think you have a bridge to wider acceptance. But as I have said many times before, all this fighting is unproductive. You were partly right and if I hadn't had this discussion with you, if I hadn't thought about what you have been working on for some time, I would have missed it. So for that I have to thank you.

At the same time, I think I came up with a very fertile line of reasoning for you to pursue. I guess I was frustrated that you were fighting with Muller rather than thanking Huller.

EarlDoherty · 01-27-2013, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I am not talking about you and me. I am saying, there is this tag team 'to get you' for merely making an observation about Hebrews. Why should anyone expect you to 'have all the answers.' You asked a very important question and have been forced into this 'lock down' because of it - and its all unproductive. If we really wanted to find the truth it would simply be about whether or not there is ancient support for the idea that the Logos never came to earth. Yes there is. But I was getting frustrated that no one was picking up on that and instead were continuing to fight over 'whether you are right' or not.

I think if you or someone else were to say - here is what the heretics said. Valentinus and his cohorts are reported to have said Jesus was not the Logos and the Logos presumably was the high priest who stayed in heaven. The Marcionites did not think that Jesus was the Logos. Clement did not think that Jesus was the Logos. I think you have a bridge to wider acceptance. But as I have said many times before, all this fighting is unproductive. You were partly right and if I hadn't had this discussion with you, if I hadn't thought about what you have been working on for some time, I would have missed it. So for that I have to thank you.

At the same time, I think I came up with a very fertile line of reasoning for you to pursue. I guess I was frustrated that you were fighting with Muller rather than thanking Huller.

Sometimes it can be a challenge to understand another person's meaning when it's spread over several postings. I did not clearly understand that you were 'on my side,' as it were, although at some points it seemed so. If I can boil down what you are saying, I agree (as I described in my last post) that commentators like Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria very much point to the fact that the concept of a Logos/Jesus in heaven (and entirely in heaven) was a feature on the landscape of early Christ belief, and thus my reading of Hebrews (and the epistles as a whole) as concerning a Logos who stayed in heaven is rendered more reasonable in that light. For that, I do indeed thank you.

You say that all this "fighting" (and it's not only against Muller) is not productive. But in a way it is. It demonstrates that most if not all of the opposition to my interpretations is weak, logically deficient and often embodies fallacies like begging the question or reading the Gospels into the epistles. It is also, whether productive or not, unavoidable. If these challenges are raised, even if deficient, they must be answered, otherwise the challengers will consider they have won the day. My sense of humanity and fairness requires that I educate them that this is not the case.

Earl Doherty

TedM · 01-27-2013, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

When we go back to Hebrews chapter 8 it does not appear to me at least - with a quick review - that the heretical idea presented with respect to the gospel is incompatible with what is written in Hebrews if we assume with Philo of Alexandria that the Logos is the heavenly high priest. Notice that the heavenly high priest is never explicitly identified as 'Jesus':

Quote:

Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”[a] 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises

Stephan, I'm trying to catch up to what you are saying, but I think I somewhat tuned you out when I read the quote above, because you seem to be arguing that the author of Hebrews didn't equate the high priest with Jesus, but instead with the Logos. Yet the following verses clearly dispel that notion:

Quote:

3:1Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;

Quote:

4:14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

Quote:

6:20where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

and several others..

SO, if you were saying that maybe the high priest in Hebrews wasn't Jesus, but was the Logos who remained in heaven, that's clearly not right, unless you are arguing for interpolations.

That's a difficulty I have when reading your posts sometimes Stephan. It simply isn't clear to me if you are noticing some interesting connections but haven't formulated any kind of argument or conclusions, OR if you have formulated an argument or conclusions but prefer to let us readers figure them out from clues you have given us.

The above is an example. You then posted a bit later:

Quote:

Does anyone doubt that Philo's conception of the Logos was passed on to the author of Hebrews? But does anyone really believe that this high priest's name was Jesus? How then can we be sure that the heavenly high priest was so conceived by the author of Hebrews?

The high priests name in Hebrews WAS Jesus. SO why wouldn't we be sure that the heavenly high priest conceived by the author was the one he says he was? Are you suggesting interpolations or not?

Please clarify what it is you think needs to be examined with respect to these early discussions of the Logos and the high priest with respect to the author of Hebrew's portrayal of Jesus as that high priest and possibly as the Logos too.

Philo: Logos=high priest not identified as Jesus, not on earth.
Paul: Jesus is like the Logos. Jesus was on earth or a place like it.
Hebrews: Jesus is like the Logos and IS the high priest. Jesus was on earth or a place like it.
John: Jesus is the Logos, 'The Word became flesh.. and dwelt among us'. Jesus was on earth
1John: Jesus is like the Logos 'Word of life..was manifested'. Jesus was on earth?
Valentinus: Jesus is not the high priest or Logos. Jesus was on earth?
Marcion: Jesus is not the Logos. Jesus was on earth
Clement: Jesus is not the Logos. Jesus was on earth
Justin: Jesus is the Logos. Jesus was on earth
Irenaeus: Jesus is the Logos. Jesus was on earth

Is this going to help us?

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

01-27-2013, 10:07 AM	#36
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	the debate lacks intellectual sophistication because it is often shrill

01-27-2013, 10:17 AM	#38
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I am not talking about you and me. I am saying, there is this tag team 'to get you' for merely making an observation about Hebrews. Why should anyone expect you to 'have all the answers.' You asked a very important question and have been forced into this 'lock down' because of it - and its all unproductive. If we really wanted to find the truth it would simply be about whether or not there is ancient support for the idea that the Logos never came to earth. Yes there is. But I was getting frustrated that no one was picking up on that and instead were continuing to fight over 'whether you are right' or not. I think if you or someone else were to say - here is what the heretics said. Valentinus and his cohorts are reported to have said Jesus was not the Logos and the Logos presumably was the high priest who stayed in heaven. The Marcionites did not think that Jesus was the Logos. Clement did not think that Jesus was the Logos. I think you have a bridge to wider acceptance. But as I have said many times before, all this fighting is unproductive. You were partly right and if I hadn't had this discussion with you, if I hadn't thought about what you have been working on for some time, I would have missed it. So for that I have to thank you. At the same time, I think I came up with a very fertile line of reasoning for you to pursue. I guess I was frustrated that you were fighting with Muller rather than thanking Huller.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.