Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 04:19 PM

The bottom line for me is Doherty's position would have been stronger and taken more seriously if he could have found an ancient witness or witnesses to back him up. By modifying his position to agree with the so-called heretics he may have achieved this - albeit at the expense of appealing to the know-nothings who want a 'simple explanation' for everything - i.e. 'Jesus never came to earth.' You might get booked on Oprah with that banner but it's less likely to be true because it has no ancient witnesses to support it.

aa5874 · 01-27-2013, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The bottom line for me is Doherty's position would have been stronger and taken more seriously if he could have found an ancient witness or witnesses to back him up. By modifying his position to agree with the so-called heretics he may have achieved this - albeit at the expense of appealing to the know-nothings who want a 'simple explanation' for everything - i.e. 'Jesus never came to earth.' You might get booked on Oprah with that banner but it's less likely to be true because it has no ancient witnesses to support it.

Doherty must have known that he needed ancient witnesses to back him up. He must have known that before he wrote his books.

Why did he not first locate sources of antiquity to support his position???

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 06:37 PM

well i guess theoretically as speaking it is possible that all our sources are completely wrong about something or simply wrong. It is preferable to have an ancient witness but not absolutely necessary. If someone hadn't uncovered the Letter to Theodore would anyone talk about a "Secret Mark" outside of tatoos in private places?

aa5874 · 01-27-2013, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

well i guess theoretically as speaking it is possible that all our sources are completely wrong about something or simply wrong. It is preferable to have an ancient witness but not absolutely necessary. If someone hadn't uncovered the Letter to Theodore would anyone talk about a "Secret Mark" outside of tatoos in private places?

Well, those who argue against Doherty have ancient sources to support their Jesus On Earth so he must act swiftly to secure his ancient sources before his books are used for some kind of parts or places.

I am just an ordinary guy without a PhD and I have secured my ancient sources to argue that Jesus in the Canon was the Son of God, God the Creator, born of a Ghost, who was claimed to be baptised by John in the 15th year of Tiberius, was crucified under Pilate after a trial with the Sanedrin in Jerusalem and buried by Joseph of Aritmathea.

TedM · 01-27-2013, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

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?

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?

Because as interesting as they may be for understanding how people perceived Jesus as it relates to the Logos, it appears UNRELATED to the question being asked: Did Jesus come to earth according to the author of Hebrews? If that's not true you have failed to demonstrate it. Until you demonstrate how the issues you have brought up relate to the question being asked, it appears only to be a distraction, which I assume is why people are ignoring it.

I queried you about it in sincerity yesterday--I tried to give you a voice here while everyone else ignored you--but you ignored my questions. And today I tried again to interact with your ideas, but what did I get in return? Insults.

If you want to discuss how the Logos relates to Jesus, you certainly can open a thread about it.

aa5874 · 01-27-2013, 07:37 PM

Doherty does not seem to realize that the Jesus of the Canon was God Incarnate.

In "Against Marcion" Tertullian used the NT Canon to argue that Jesus was NOT a Phantom and that he was crucified on earth.

In "Against Celsus" Origen used the Canon to argue that Jesus was NOT fathered by a man but by a Ghost and was crucified on earth.

In De Principiis" Origen argued that Jesus neither Spirit Nor Man but God Incarnate.

Origen's De Principiis

Quote:

The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow:—

First, That there is one God..............Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— “For by Him were all things made” — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit: that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up (into heaven).

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Because as interesting as they may be for understanding how people perceived Jesus as it relates to the Logos, it appears UNRELATED to the question being asked: Did Jesus come to earth according to the author of Hebrews?

But it only seems to be a separate question because you don't seem to have the mental capacity to think outside of the box. As long as you define Jesus as the familiar man who appeared in the gospel narrative, you've already answered your own question. But when we look at Hebrews it is clear from Epiphanius that early groups used the text to say that Jesus was a 'younger power' associated with a higher power named Melchizedek. Melchizedek according to Philo was the divine Logos (Alleg. Interp. 3.79–82). I have concluded that there was an early tradition which - while concluding that Jesus came to earth that a higher power usually associated with Jesus remained in heaven without coming to earth. The question then comes down to who is the author of Hebrews referring to here:

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.” 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.

Is the 'ministry of Jesus' service done on behalf of the Logos (= Melchizedek), the high priest who remains in heaven?

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Paul of Samosata's Christology: Jesus, a fully individuated human being, anointed and inspired by a Logos that remains in heaven. (Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity http://books.google.com/books?id=kgR...ven%22&f=false)

Another example of a compatible early theology. See also http://books.google.com/books?id=ZP6...ven%22&f=false

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 09:02 PM

More to those who only want to hear themselves speak and not listen to history. The idea of a divine Logos who doesn't leave heaven and a divine Jesus who does, is so widespread it boggles even my mind. You can see how influential this concept really was:

Quote:

Philoxenus preferred to say that the divine nature of the Logos had remained in heaven, but that the divine hypostasis of the Logos had descended from heaven. It was this divine hypostasis that, in the words of the confession of Jacob of Edessa, "came down from heaven and became flesh from the Holy Spirit and from Mary the Theotokos, flesh with soul and reason." (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 2 p. 57)

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 09:07 PM

Another apparent variation on the same conception:

Quote:

Justin (Martyr) quotes Genesis xix. 24. to prove that the Old Testament recognizes two distinct Lords; one who descended on earth to hear the cry of Sodom : the other who remained in heaven, who, Justin goes on to say, is the Lord of the Lord on earth, as being Father and God, and is the cause of His (the Lord on earth) being both powerful, and Lord, and God "

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

01-27-2013, 04:19 PM	#51
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The bottom line for me is Doherty's position would have been stronger and taken more seriously if he could have found an ancient witness or witnesses to back him up. By modifying his position to agree with the so-called heretics he may have achieved this - albeit at the expense of appealing to the know-nothings who want a 'simple explanation' for everything - i.e. 'Jesus never came to earth.' You might get booked on Oprah with that banner but it's less likely to be true because it has no ancient witnesses to support it.

01-27-2013, 06:37 PM	#53
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	well i guess theoretically as speaking it is possible that all our sources are completely wrong about something or simply wrong. It is preferable to have an ancient witness but not absolutely necessary. If someone hadn't uncovered the Letter to Theodore would anyone talk about a "Secret Mark" outside of tatoos in private places?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.