Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 01-30-2013, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Quote:

And I have already pointed out that the writer uses the term “body” in 10:10 because he is commenting on the Psalm quoted in 10:5, which uses the term “body.”

The author, who practiced a lot of cut and paste, could have dropped "body". He did not. He could have been justified to do so, because, for Ps 40, the Hebrew bible does not mention "body". Only the LXX version does.
As for 10:10, this is neither a repeat of 10:5, or even a paraphrase of it. It is an explanation on what "will" would mean for the audience of the epistle, and through what:
"And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (RSV)
Cordially, Bernard

FWIW there is limited ancient evidence (first hand of D) for reading hAIMATOS blood instead of SWMATOS body in Hebrews 10:10.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv · 01-31-2013, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

.... Everything is from scripture. The author "knows" these things are "true" because they are contained within scripture, ...
Earl Doherty

Right!
And in the scriptures (the Septuagint in the case of Hebrews) we find the referents, Iesous=Jesus=Joshua. Joshua son of Nun, and Joshua the High Priest. It is amazing that one could miss that.

Jake

aa5874 · 01-31-2013, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

The problem is, Ted, the writer of Hebrews never gives us anything about his Jesus which he identifies as happening on earth. "Speaking through the Son" fails to offer a single saying of an earthly Jesus. Everything is from scripture.

That is your ISOLATED opinion. The author of Hebrews implies Jesus Christ was on earth when he spoke to the Hebrews. Surely, it is implied that the PROPHETS spoke to the Hebrews on earth.

But, again Doherty shows his confusion.

Doherty has already claimed or argued that Epistle Hebrews was composed BEFORE the Gospels so there could NOT be any Scripture about the teachings of Jesus except Epistle Hebrews was composed AFTER the teachings of Jesus were already composed or that the Son of God did exist in the LAST DAYS.

Surely, the author got his information about the words of Jesus either from Jesus, those who heard Jesus or those who wrote about him in the LAST DAYS.

1. Hebrew Scripture represents the words of God from the Prophets

2. Hebrew Scripture was NOT written in the LAST DAYS.

3. The Son of God spake in the LAST DAYS

4. The words of the Son of God are found in the GOSPELS.

5. The GOSPELS were known by the author of Hebrews.

Hebrews 1

Quote:

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds...

The very first verses of Hebrews have DESTROYED Doherty.

The author of Hebrews WROTE after the Gospels and implied Jesus was on earth in the LAST DAYS.

EarlDoherty · 01-31-2013, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Oh geez. To distrust the first-hand eyewitness reports of people simply because they have believed in the truth of Christianity is to not recognize the source of their belief. People can hold ignorant beliefs without themselves being irrational in many other respects.

It isn't irrational to believe in angels if the source is a conviction that the Bible is true. Many who believe simply are IGNORANT (NOT IRRATIONAL) of the problems that many of us here DO know with regard to the Bible. The preachers and apologists have been very good at selling the 'reasonable evidence' of the Bible. It is a highly coherent message. It begins with the beginning of the world, and it ends with the end of the world. In between you have prophecies that clearly came true (it is said), and you have a theology of sin (and who denies the evil in the world), and the only reasonable solution to it; If man can't overcome his own evil, God did it for him, through sending his own spirit in the world through his Chosen People that demonstrated their inability to even follow God's laws for purification. He was a perfect substitute for the pattern of animal sacrifice. This theology is widely taught throughout Christianity and it simply makes sense if you buy into certain basic assumptions: God created the world. Man sins and therefore pays a price. God has provided a solution. And then you have the strong belief that there were 12 disciples and that history attests to their willingness to die terrible martrys deaths for their faith in the resurrection of Jesus.

For those that don't research this stuff it makes a lot of sense historically, and emotionally. It explains why we are here, because it seems highly irrational that we are here as an accident and for no reason.

So, to claim that those who believe this are IRRATIONAL people, is really not accurate. What would be more accurate is to claim that they have bought into a false but highly creative and clever creation of religion by many of the brightest minds the world has ever known.

Wasn't it Vork who said that the Gospel of Mark was the greatest piece of literature ever written? Wasn't Isaac Newton, one of the brightest minds of all time, a Christian?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

It would be unwarranted and not healthy for let's say 30% of the population to distrust a 70% who believe that any day now they are going to be raptured to heaven and leave the rest of us behind to the clutches of Satan? Or that same 30% to distrust a politician who says he isn't concerned about global warming because Jesus' Second Coming is imminent?

It isn't healthy for the rational minority to have misgivings about the irrational majority who believe in angels and demons, heaven and hell, crucified gods, creation 6000 years ago, a world wide flood, believers vs. infidels, a paradise with 72 virgins which helps motivate suicide bombers, demons who cause sickness because the Son of God himself (sorry, Himself) believed in and conversed with them, who believe science is all wet and that miracles against nature are possible, who have used burning stakes to get their point across, who are hell bent on tailoring laws and human rights according to what a motley collection of primitive writings reflecting 3000 year old views of the world and human nature have to say?

I am damn mistrustful.

Earl Doherty

Ted, when an entire body of religious doctrine, essentially derived from 2-3000 year old primitive writings, contradicts modern science and modern standards of rationality and knowledge about the universe, it becomes irrational. It is beside the point whether all previous generations before our modern era of knowledge and rationality found Christian doctrine acceptable, including Isaac Newton.

And I can't believe that you are repeating that old chestnut about the 12 apostles all suffered death for their beliefs in Jesus. Ted, where have you been? That is the ultimate in apologetic misinformation.

I can't see continuing this discussion. Besides, it's totally off-topic.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 01-31-2013, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

To Doherty,

Quote:

What is “the sacrifice of himself” set against? Look at verse 24. “Nor is he there to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the sanctuary year by year with blood not his own.” IOW, the high priest on earth is not offering part of himself as the atonement act. Whereas Jesus is doing precisely that: “…to abolish sin by the sacrifice of himself.” The “himself” is simply pointing out the contrast between the two.

But "Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly" (9:25) is connected very closely to "for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly" (9:26), which means offering of himself is sufferance. Offering of blood does not involve sufferance, but crucifixion does.

Quote:

And I have already pointed out that the writer uses the term “body” in 10:10 because he is commenting on the Psalm quoted in 10:5, which uses the term “body.”

The author, who practiced a lot of cut and paste, could have dropped "body". He did not. He could have been justified to do so, because, for Ps 40, the Hebrew bible does not mention "body". Only the LXX version does.
As for 10:10, this is neither a repeat of 10:5, or even a paraphrase of it. It is an explanation on what "will" would mean for the audience of the epistle, and through what:
"And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (RSV)
Cordially, Bernard

Why does it not come as a surprise to me that you cannot follow threads and associations in a text across the vast distance of 5 verses? 10:5-7 quotes the Psalm in which Jesus' is perceived as saying "...thou hast prepared a body for me...I have come, O God, to do thy will." So when he gets to verse 10, and says "It is by the will of God that we have been consecrated, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all," you say that this has nothing to do with, and does not reflect back on, the quote of the Psalm???

And what earthly point do you think your are making when you say that "body" is not in the original Hebrew but is found in the LXX? Which version do you think the Greek writer of Hebrews was using, as indeed were all the early Christian writers who wrote in Greek?

As for "suffering repeatedly", where, in the theoretical remark about making an offering (of his blood) repeatedly, do you think Jesus would have gotten the blood to make those repeated offerings? From a storage depot where they stored up a supply of blood from his first crucifixion for future uses? If he was to make repeated offerings of blood in the heavenly sanctuary, he would have needed to repeatedly suffer death in order to supply blood for those repeated offerings.

Do you ever think anything through to a greater depth than one quarter of an inch?

Earl Doherty

TedM · 01-31-2013, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Ted, when an entire body of religious doctrine, essentially derived from 2-3000 year old primitive writings, contradicts modern science and modern standards of rationality and knowledge about the universe, it becomes irrational. It is beside the point whether all previous generations before our modern era of knowledge and rationality found Christian doctrine acceptable, including Isaac Newton.

And I can't believe that you are repeating that old chestnut about the 12 apostles all suffered death for their beliefs in Jesus. Ted, where have you been? That is the ultimate in apologetic misinformation.

Earl Doherty

I know but am telling you that people today are ignorant of the modern historical perception. Distrust of modern science is rational to some extent (scientists constantly discover they were wrong about their theories, and even paleontology can't provide the hundreds of thousands of expected smooth missing links of gradual evolution). In the case of Christianity the historical knowledge required to reject it isn't known by the average person, and the scientific knowledge is unconvincing on the surface. The martyrdom of the disciples is considered strongly attested and is one of the strongest pieces of 'evidence'. Again, I'm telling you about PERCEPTIONS, not reality. Perceptions based on their common sense understanding along with teachings of 'authorities'--modern authorities.

The arguments to dispute Christianity are largely unknown to 95% of the population. Thus, it is not irrational for them to not reject it.

maryhelena · 02-01-2013, 01:39 AM

The discussion over Hebrews 8:4. seems to be going nowhere - so here is an alternative perspective...

[T2]Hebrews 5:7

New International Version (NIV)

7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.[/T2]

[T2]Hebrews 8:4

New International Version (NIV)

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.[/T2]

Doherty's no Hebrews Jesus figure on earth theory is wrong.

Whether flesh and blood or mythological, the Jesus figure is, in the NT, placed on earth. But there is also a heavenly Jesus. And, from a logical perspective, they are not the same Jesus. Especially so from an ahistorical/mythicist perspective. The 'earthly' Jesus and the 'heavenly' Jesus are two different literary constructs. It's only by reading the NT literally, with eyes closed to any semblance of logic, that one can assume that it's only one Jesus that is being talked about.

Quote:

There is no doubt at all that there is a is a mythical Jesus, and we already know where to find him. My point is simply that the plausible Jesus of the gospels is not that figure. This is where the process begins.

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...h-about-jesus/

Or to rephrase Hoffmann: There is a spiritual Jesus and there is a mythological Jesus. One is placed on the earth and the other is placed in heaven. With, at times, an overlap between them. Two interconnected entities that retain their core differences. Although the focus is on the heavenly Jesus, Hebrews also relates to a Jesus on earth. Indicating, of course, that the writer of Hebrews is aware of that gospel Jesus story.

The gospel story, taken at a basic level, is about a wandering preacher figure who got on the wrong side of some people - and ends up crucified. A plausible story? Yes. But it's a story that cannot be historically verified.

But the story does not end there. The crucified guy gets brought back to life re a resurrection. Not only that but he gets beamed up to heaven. But there is more ..episode two. That crucifixion on earth is given supreme, salvation, value. The crucified resurrected guy offers his 'blood' in a heavenly tabernacle sacrifice. A plausible story? No. It's not only not plausible on a scientific basis - it's not plausible on a moral basis.

Thus, logically, the NT story cannot, should not, be taken literally. Human crucifixion, has no value. To assign it a value is a sign of moral depravity. That being the case, the heavenly blood offering of Jesus is not the blood of Calvary, it is not the blood of the gospel crucifixion story. Yes, it's symbolic blood, it's spiritual - but symbolic of what? It can't be symbolic of human blood, it cannot be the offering of a human life. The answers need to relate more to how our intellect functions rather than passing the buck to theology.

As the JC historicists remove the mythology from the gospel story, so, likewise, the ahistoricist/mythicists should be removing the theology from the Hebrews and the Pauline epistles. Let the theology give way to philosophy. Lets not ascribe to those early Christian writers a disregard for moral integrity or a rejection of humanitarian concerns. No movement claiming a ‘salvation’ premise can be based upon the sacrifice of a human life - or any mythological recreation based upon such a sacrifice. Logic, alone, indicates that this was not the foundation from which Christianity sprung.

Doherty can hold on to his heavenly Jesus figure - but he has to give space for that earthly, mythological, Jesus figure. The ahistoricist/mythicist position needs to move away from such a narrow and unproductive Doherty position.

MrMacSon · 02-01-2013, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Whether flesh and blood or mythological, the Jesus figure is, in the NT, placed on earth. But there is also a heavenly Jesus. And, from a logical perspective, they are not the same Jesus. Especially so from an ahistorical/mythicist perspective. The 'earthly' Jesus and the 'heavenly' Jesus are two different literary constructs. It's only by reading the NT literally, with eyes closed to any semblance of logic, that one can assume that it's only one Jesus that is being talked about.

Quote:

There is no doubt at all that there is a is a[?] mythical Jesus, and we already know where to find him. My point is simply that the plausible Jesus of the gospels is not that figure. This is where the process begins.

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...h-about-jesus/

Or to rephrase Hoffmann: There is a spiritual Jesus and there is a mythological Jesus. One is placed on the earth and the other is placed in heaven. With, at times, an overlap between them. Two interconnected entities that retain their core differences. Although the focus is on the heavenly Jesus, Hebrews also relates to a Jesus on earth. Indicating, of course, that the writer of Hebrews is aware of that gospel Jesus story.

Isn't a spiritual Jesus also a mythological Jesus; isn't the Trinity a mish-mash of them, too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The gospel story, taken at a basic level, is about a wandering preacher figure who got on the wrong side of some people - and ends up crucified. A plausible story? Yes. But it's a story that cannot be historically verified.

A story that hasn't been verified thus far ... perhaps it can be by the provision of suitable information as evidence?

Quote:

But the story does not end there. The crucified guy gets brought back to life re a resurrection. Not only that but he gets beamed up to heaven. But there is more ..episode two. That crucifixion on earth is given supreme, salvation, value. The crucified resurrected guy offers his 'blood' in a heavenly tabernacle sacrifice. A plausible story? No. It's not only not plausible on a scientific basis - it's not plausible on a moral basis.

Thus, logically, the NT story cannot, should not, be taken literally. Human crucifixion, has no value. To assign it a value is a sign of moral depravity.

It was assigned a moral value, though, by virtue of the Christian message of sacrifice and salvation.

Quote:

The answers need to relate more to how our intellect functions rather than passing the buck to theology.

The answers relate to how intellects were influenced by Christian theology and its doctrine.

maryhelena · 02-01-2013, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Whether flesh and blood or mythological, the Jesus figure is, in the NT, placed on earth. But there is also a heavenly Jesus. And, from a logical perspective, they are not the same Jesus. Especially so from an ahistorical/mythicist perspective. The 'earthly' Jesus and the 'heavenly' Jesus are two different literary constructs. It's only by reading the NT literally, with eyes closed to any semblance of logic, that one can assume that it's only one Jesus that is being talked about.

Quote:

There is no doubt at all that there is a is a[?] mythical Jesus, and we already know where to find him. My point is simply that the plausible Jesus of the gospels is not that figure. This is where the process begins.

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...h-about-jesus/

Or to rephrase Hoffmann: There is a spiritual Jesus and there is a mythological Jesus. One is placed on the earth and the other is placed in heaven. With, at times, an overlap between them. Two interconnected entities that retain their core differences. Although the focus is on the heavenly Jesus, Hebrews also relates to a Jesus on earth. Indicating, of course, that the writer of Hebrews is aware of that gospel Jesus story.

Isn't a spiritual Jesus also a mythological Jesus; isn't the Trinity a mish-mash of them, too?

Myth can include stories about earthly events; hence can have a historical core. A spiritual Jesus is pure imagination, a timeless entity. Mind and matter and the inability of either to shape-shift.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The gospel story, taken at a basic level, is about a wandering preacher figure who got on the wrong side of some people - and ends up crucified. A plausible story? Yes. But it's a story that cannot be historically verified.

A story that hasn't been verified thus far ... perhaps it can be by the provision of suitable information as evidence?

No chance whatsoever.

Quote:

But the story does not end there. The crucified guy gets brought back to life re a resurrection. Not only that but he gets beamed up to heaven. But there is more ..episode two. That crucifixion on earth is given supreme, salvation, value. The crucified resurrected guy offers his 'blood' in a heavenly tabernacle sacrifice. A plausible story? No. It's not only not plausible on a scientific basis - it's not plausible on a moral basis.

Thus, logically, the NT story cannot, should not, be taken literally. Human crucifixion, has no value. To assign it a value is a sign of moral depravity.

It was assigned a moral value, though, by virtue of the Christian message of sacrifice and salvation.

No amount of theological mumbo jumbo can do that magic trick....what's that saying - one can fool some of the people all of the time, but one can't fool all of the people all of the time....

Quote:

The answers need to relate more to how our intellect functions rather than passing the buck to theology.

The answers relate to how intellects were influenced by Christian theology and its doctrine.

MrMacSon · 02-01-2013, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Isn't a spiritual Jesus also a mythological Jesus; isn't the Trinity a mish-mash of them, too?

Myth can include stories about earthly events; hence can have a historical core. A spiritual Jesus is pure imagination, a timeless entity. Mind and matter and the inability of either to shape-shift.

but the mythical portions are still fictional; like a spiritual notion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The gospel story, taken at a basic level, is about a wandering preacher figure who got on the wrong side of some people - and ends up crucified. A plausible story? Yes. But it's a story that cannot be historically verified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

A story that hasn't been verified thus far ... perhaps it can be by the provision of suitable information as evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

No chance whatsoever.

well, Miniscule chance, but still possible that evidence for a messiah named Jesus is unearthed ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Thus, logically, the NT story cannot, should not, be taken literally. Human crucifixion, has no value. To assign it a value is a sign of moral depravity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

It was assigned a moral value, though, by virtue of the Christian message of sacrifice and salvation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

No amount of theological mumbo jumbo can do that magic trick....what's that saying - one can fool some of the people all of the time, but one can't fool all of the people all of the time....

well, one could say it was assigned a so-called "christian moral value" ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

The answers relate to how intellects were influenced by Christian theology and its doctrine.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.