gstafleu

Right, it doesn't matter what the statement means, it still means the same. And they pay you for this? Good racket, more power to you! Have you considered becoming a Zen Buddhist?

A monk saw a turtle in the garden of Daizui's monastery and asked the teacher, "All beings cover their bones with flesh and skin. Why does this being cover its flesh and skin with bones?" Master Daizui took off one of his sandals and covered the turtle with it.

Gerard Stafleu

James Madison

Yes, they pay me good money to refute the type of arguments you make here. Just as the sex of the parties has no relevance in terms of the statement being ambiguous, neither does your irrelevant and illogical focus upon the notion of "the statement does not tell us WHAT is to stop." It does not matter "what" is to be stopped, since they make no reference to it, but merely to "Stop before you hit the car." Your feeble and brutally twisted logic was a futile exercise to make something ambiguous when it is not ambiguous.

Do you have any more earth shattering locial reasoning arguments to make for my entertainment?

Amaleq13

No. Your mistake is interpreting the evidence with the assumption that your conclusion is correct. That is circular reasoning that is unlikely to ever inform you that you are incorrect.

Do you think it is wise to base your hypothesis on such a limited consideration of the evidence? I don't. Sounds like a great way to skew your interpretation of the rest of the evidence to match your hypothesis.

No, it would be a terrible way to try to understand the evidence. Why not read the entire letter without preconceptions?

You say "yes" but then ask for something completely different. :huh:

You and I both know there are no passages that explicitly describe Christ descending "to earth" so why try to play this game? I never said there were. You and I both also know that there are several passages the explicitly describe Christ as becoming like humans and explicitly state that this was necessary so that the sacrifice would be effective. And that is what I said.

1. Christ descended and took on the human form.

2. Hebrews describes two locations and they are Heaven and Earth.

The implied location is apparent to anyone lacking your preconceptions as is the absence of any suggestion of the location you would prefer.

Have you ever met anyone unfamiliar with Doherty who had such a question in mind after reading Hebrews? It is a fabricated question based solely on the conclusion you want to assume. It is certainly not a question someone has after reading the letter with no such presuppositions. There are two locations mentioned and a

I can show you what I said I could show you but not what you changed it to be.

You are aware that Doherty's thesis involves Christ descending, right?

Want me to guess why you can't address what I've actually written and feel compelled to change it to something else?

gstafleu

Well, strange as it sounds I actually think we have made some progress here: we now both agree that 'there are no passages that explicitly describe Christ descending "to earth"'. Good.

I think we also both agree that there are passages that explicitly put Christ in heaven, the super tent e.g. and 7:26, where it says of Christ that he "has become higher than the heavens."

The becoming-like-human passages don't seem to be accompanied by an explicit location. Rather, they seem to be surrounded by passages that are located in heaven, like e.g. "when He had by Himself purged our sins" in 1:3, which is positioned between Christ's creational activities and his sitting at the right hand of god.

You infer from the fact that he became like humans that he therefore, like humans, had to be on earth. There is no explicit text saying so (unlike the explicit text we have for his heavenly phase), but it can be derived from the idea of becoming like humans. Agreed, it can.

I on the other hand don't make that inference. I notice the lack of any explicit location in the flesh scenes, and wonder why they left it out when it was explicit in the heavenly scenes: the least that can be said here is that it apparently wasn't as important as the flesh and blood to the author (and if that is so, why are we making such a big deal out of it?). (So your point 2 above is incorrect, Hebrews only describes one location, the heavenly one, it (possibly) implies the second, earthly, one.) Next, I conclude that, given the lack of anything explicit about being on earth and the presence of many clear (and, I think, undisputed) references to his heavenly phase in the text surrounding the flesh scenes, it is not unreasonable to think that the flesh scenes should then also be placed in heaven.

I think we should let the argument stand here.

Gerard Stafleu

Jeffrey Gibson

Would you please do two things:

1. define what you mean by "heavenly being"

2. tell me what it is that you see in Hebrews 1:1-4 that indicates that the author sees the Son's "sitting at the right hand of 'the greatness in high places'" was not temporally preceded by -- and a result of -- something the Son did on earth in obedience to the divine will?

Jeffrey

GakuseiDon

I don't think we need to. There are also other references, like Christ arising "from the tribe of Judah", that have been mentioned earlier, that appear to make sense in an earthly setting.

Also, Heb 9:23-28:

"23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another-- 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation."

"Christ has entered heaven, and will appear a second time to those who eagerly wait for him" suggests that Christ wasn't in heaven at the time of the sacrifice. "Appearing a second time", combined with arising from the tribe of Judah, suggests that he went from earth to heaven, and will be returning to earth.

Clivedurdle

This is precisely why I asked when is Hebrews dated.

What evidence is there that author of Hebrews had heard the classic gospel message, and how developed was the Christology and the definition of sacrifice?

This can be read the other way round completely - the Calvary stuff as later - Hebrews is a fascinating proto xian document - actually very Diasporic Jewish.

And I would be very careful about all references to second comings. They may be later editings to explain why "it is finished" and why saints were dying, and how come the virgins were still waiting with their lamps - it is two thousand years now - what was it "I come quickly."

And returning to Earl's thesis, it may be a logical addition from within this mysterious religion - the sacrifice in heaven needs to be duplicated on earth in classic Platonic fashion.

Clivedurdle

We have been discussing common sense readings.

Imagine Matthew Mark Luke and John are not yet written. Imagine Nicea and two thousand years of church history has not happened.

What do we read here?

"Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands."

Sorry? The moneychangers story? Or might this be a reference to bodies as temples?

And look carefully at that last line.

He will appear a second time apart from sin for salvation.

What was the first time?

What does apart from sin for salvation mean?

Stage one of this Saturn 5 multi stage rocket is explciitly an appearance in heaven to be our scapegoat and wondrous mixed metaphors - sacrifice of the Blood of the Lamb.

Stage two is the second coming - the stuff of Revelation.

Which reminds me - Hebrews and Revelation must be read together as intricately connected texts.

They must be read as primarily Jewish apocalyptic documents that introduce Christ as the great High Priest and the classic holiness of the Jewish god, in a diaspora context.

This is the stuff of my Pentecostal background - the Gospels and Epistles were treated as useful add ons to the real meat of xianity - Hebrews and Revelation!

GakuseiDon

The part I wanted to highlighted was the idea that Christ entered heaven, with the implication that previously he wasn't in heaven.

The part I wanted to highlight was the idea that Christ will appear a second time to those who eagerly wait for him, with the implication that the first time he was with those people on earth.

The plain reading is of someone appearing on earth, then entering heaven, with the expectation of returning to earth again. I don't doubt that there are other possible readings -- e.g. that Christ was sent into people's hearts, then sent to heaven, and will be sent to people's hearts again. But then there are other passages that come into play, like "days of his flesh" and "tribe of Judah", that eventually need to be taken into consideration.

Jeffrey Gibson

It has to be before 96 CE since Hebrews is known to the author of 1 Clement.


whose author, BTW, has no doubts about an HJ and who does not think that Hebrews speaks of a mythical Jesus.

What do you consider to be the "classic" gospel message?

How "developed" does a definition of sacrifice have to be?

Besides that, the issue isn't the idea of sacrifice, it's (a) the tense of the participle ποιησάμενος, (b) the aspectual relationship of the circumstantial clause of which the particle is a part (καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος) with the finite verb ἐκάθισεν, which grammatically provides the main assertion of vv 3–4, and, given this, (c) what is therefore being asserted in vv. 3-4 regarding the temporal sequence between what is described in the circumstantial clause and the subsequent notice that the Son ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς.

How, given the syntax and grammar of καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος, ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς could "this" be "read the other way (a)round completely"? What features of the Greek would allow the event asserted in the circumstantial clause to be viewed as something that happens after the event described in the clause (ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς) that follows it and to which it is syntactically and grammatically subordinate?

And what are your criteria judging a work as "very Diasporic Jewish"? And why would Hebrews being "very Diasporic Jewish make your claim about how "this" could be read the other way round likely?

Could you please point me to something in Plato which establishes the "classic Platonic fashion" of things in "heaven" needing to be duplicated on earth?

Where exactly does Plato assert this idea? Indeed, does he even believe that there is a "heaven", let alone one that is like the "heaven" that the autor of Hebrews believes in, and that things like sacrifices can and do happen within it? In what work of Plato is this "fashion" articulated?

Jeffrey