Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 01-27-2013, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

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?

Are you suggesting that there was Melchizedek the high priest (in heaven) AND Jesus the high priest? IF so, then 8:4 still refers to Jesus. If you are suggesting that the high priest in 8:4 is Melchizedek and not Jesus, then you need to supply some indication for that. I gave you plenty of verse that indicate the high priest referred to here is Jesus. Here's another:

Quote:

8:11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things [k]to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect [l]tabernacle

Where's Melchizedek in any of these passages Stephen?

I'm notorious for thinking outside the box, but I also try to call a spade a spade. I'm very willing to follow a line of reasoning but so far I haven't seen you connect any kinds of dots in any coherent manner at all. I'm all ears here. I'm wiling to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: I see you posted some more interesting links that show a distinction between Jesus and the Logos. To the extent that it doesn't relate to the issue in question--8:4, I respond as so: Who gives a shit? Go start another thread since AFAIK this issue simply isn't relevant to who the high priest is in 8:4. I've TOLD you who it is. I've supplied clear evidence.

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 09:22 PM

If you look at the Excerpts of Theodotus you see the beginnings of an explanation. Theodotos speaks of an 'essential Logos' who is the equivalent of 'the Logos who remains in heaven':

Quote:

But we maintain that the essential Logos is God in God, who is also said to be " in the bosom of the Father," continuous, undivided, one God. " All things were made by him"; things both of the spirit, and of the mind, and of the senses, in accordance with the activity proper to the essential Logos. "This one explained the bosom of the Father," the Saviour and [Isaiah said, "And I will pay back their deeds into their bosom," that is, into their thought, which is in the soul, from which it is first activated] "First Born of all creation." But the essential Only-Begotten, in accordance with whose continuous power the Saviour acts, is the Light of the Church, which previously was in darkness and ignorance. [Excerpta Ex Theodoto 8]

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Are you suggesting that there was Melchizedek the high priest AND Jesus the high priest?

That's how Margaret Barker interprets the material. She is not the only one:

Quote:

with Psalm 82.1; it is Melchizedek who takes his place in the heavenly assembly, whereas in the original Psalm it is God. The only possible conclusion is that Melchizedek, the heavenly high priest, was the LORD, the God of Israel ... The Letter to the Hebrews explained the role of Jesus as the new Melchizedek (Heb. 7.11), the one who had attained the priesthood by ascent, being raised up, not by descent from Aaron. [Great Priest p. 39]

Quote:

IF so, then 8:4 still refers to Jesus.

I have already pointed out that there is a wealth of material which understands another Logos to have resided in heaven and presumably worked the heavenly tabernacle while Jesus is here below. I don't see why there weren't groups who interpreted the material that way.

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 09:35 PM

More on Theodotus's understanding of Jesus's relation to the 'essential Logos':

Quote:

"And the Logos became flesh" not only by becoming man at his Advent <on earth>, but also" at the beginning" the essential Logos (ταὐτότητι Λόγος) became a son by circumscription and not in essence. And again he became flesh when he acted through the prophets. And the Saviour is called an offspring of the essential Logos; therefore, "in the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God" and "that which came into existence in him was life" and life is the Lord.

TedM · 01-27-2013, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

IF so, then 8:4 still refers to Jesus.

I have already pointed out that there is a wealth of material which understands another Logos to have resided in heaven and presumably worked the heavenly tabernacle while Jesus is here below. I don't see why there weren't groups who interpreted the material that way.

But I gave you 8:11. That would put two high priests in heaven at the same time -- Melchizedek and Jesus. Which one sat next to God? And, in any case, this has nothing to do with 8:4, which clearly is referring to Jesus and not Melchizedek.

I'm done with this. :wave:

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 09:43 PM

And when I mean you can't think out of the box, you seem capable only of reading what is in Hebrews as it now stands and demanding contemporaries 'give their opinion.' Yet as I have already demonstrated the Gospel of John was changed, the Letters of Paul so it would stand to reason (especially with Clement's statement) that so was Hebrews. The way you get around that is by (a) noting the heretical doctrine of 'the essential Logos' and Jesus as separate entities and (b) assume that they looked to texts like Hebrews and found them receptive to their ideas.

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 09:44 PM

Quote:

I'm done with this.

But your thinking is so utterly primitive. It's like opening a can of Chef Boyardee and assuming you know everything there is to know about Italian cuisine.

TedM · 01-27-2013, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

I'm done with this.

But your thinking is so utterly primitive. It's like opening a can of Chef Boyardee and assuming you know everything there is to know about Italian cuisine.

The reason you keep making such inane statements is that you erroneously think that I'm trying to figure out who the ancients thought Jesus was in relation to the Logos or Melchezidek and how that may have impacted the author of Hebrews.

I assume, perhaps erroneously, that if you had something relevant to this you would share it. So far you haven't done so, and I don't expect that you will. All I've gotten out of your postings is that some of the ancients thought that the Logos stayed up in heaven, some didn't. Some thought Jesus was the Logos, some didn't. Some thought Melchezidek was the Logos, some didn't. It's just a bunch of garbled references with no indication that you are able to arrange anything to form a thesis that is helpful for this discussion.

I've already dispelled the notion that the author of Hebrews thought that Melchezidek (your Logos) was the high priest in the tabernacle, so of what relevance is any more discussion of him? Rather than provide an answer you prefer to belittle my mental capacities.

I'll answer it for you: There is no relevance whatsoever to discussing Melchezidek. He isn't the high priest in Chapter 8. Case closed.

Quote:

And when I mean you can't think out of the box, you seem capable only of reading what is in Hebrews as it now stands and demanding contemporaries 'give their opinion.' Yet as I have already demonstrated the Gospel of John was changed, the Letters of Paul so it would stand to reason (especially with Clement's statement) that so was Hebrews. The way you get around that is by (a) noting the heretical doctrine of 'the essential Logos' and Jesus as separate entities and (b) assume that they looked to texts like Hebrews and found them receptive to their ideas.

Well, finally you speak honestly. Now you've shown your cards. Why do you take so long to do so? Why do you stand on your little mountain sneering down at the ignorants who are dealing with the texts we have, writing your obtuse comments, and providing the quotes for your grand conspiracy, while never revealing your 'genius' until you've sufficiently belittled those who politely try to interact with you, asking for clarification? Do you make dogs beg and rollover for their food, only to place it behind the closet door? Do you tickle kids till they cry? Do you admire Dr. Frankenstein? How about behaving decently for a change? Have you noticed that I'm about the only one who has entertained your closeted hypothesis the last two days? Do you really want to be heard or not?

You think that Hebrews may be able to reveal the truth by figuring out how much of it has been interpolated and how much hasn't. Perhaps Jesus never was in the original.. Perhaps it was all about Melchezidek, the Logos, the original Messiah found in the OT. Well, here's my answer. You may be right. Good luck. Now go start a new thread where the theory belongs.

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 10:40 PM

Quote:

I've already dispelled the notion that the author of Hebrews thought that Melchezidek (your Logos) was the high priest in the tabernacle, so of what relevance is any more discussion of him?

But who are you? I hate people who smugly claim 'I'd never do that.' Under the right circumstances there isn't much that any of us wouldn't do. To that end, if we are really interested in coming to terms with the truth, that we look at a problem from many different directions.

You see I really want to know the truth. I want to see the Christian experience from the eyes of our earliest sources and to that end I am forced to grapple with the heresies. Irenaeus doth protest too much. If he really represented the original interpretation of the scriptures he wouldn't spend so much time examining the other schools of thought especially if they were on the way out.

My point is that you start off with assumptions about Jesus. I am not just talking about him being a man but even down to his association with titles like the Logos. We all do that. So that is why it is so refreshing to go back to the surviving Valentinian sources and note that he is consistently described as a 'power' of the Logos rather than the Logos itself. Look at the opening words of the Gospel of Truth for instance:

Quote:

The gospel of truth is joy to those who have received from the Father of truth the gift of knowing him by the power of the Logos, who has come from the Pleroma and who is in the thought and the mind of the Father; he it is who is called "the Savior," since that is the name of the work which he must do for the redemption of those who have not known the Father. For the name of the gospel is the manifestation of hope, since that is the discovery of those who seek him, because the All sought him from whom it had come forth. You see, the All had been inside of him, that illimitable, inconceivable one, who is better than every thought.

This ignorance of the Father brought about terror and fear. And terror became dense like a fog, that no one was able to see. Because of this, error became strong. But it worked on its hylic substance vainly, because it did not know the truth. It was in a fashioned form while it was preparing, in power and in beauty, the equivalent of truth. This then, was not a humiliation for him, that illimitable, inconceivable one. For they were as nothing, this terror and this forgetfulness and this figure of falsehood, whereas this established truth is unchanging, unperturbed and completely beautiful.

The point is that if Jesus was not the Logos your entire weltanschauung by which you reconstruct Hebrews among other texts starts off on the wrong foot. Whether you call Jesus's 'boss' the Logos or Melchizedek, it is clear that Jesus is not the being he is associated with but rather only a subordinate power who was created essentially to go down to the world and be the 'presence' of the Logos.

stephan huller · 01-27-2013, 10:47 PM

And with respect to Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 8:4 for example, maybe his linguistic interpretation is correct but his greater conclusions (= Jesus never came to earth) miss the mark.

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

01-27-2013, 09:43 PM	#66
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And when I mean you can't think out of the box, you seem capable only of reading what is in Hebrews as it now stands and demanding contemporaries 'give their opinion.' Yet as I have already demonstrated the Gospel of John was changed, the Letters of Paul so it would stand to reason (especially with Clement's statement) that so was Hebrews. The way you get around that is by (a) noting the heretical doctrine of 'the essential Logos' and Jesus as separate entities and (b) assume that they looked to texts like Hebrews and found them receptive to their ideas.

01-27-2013, 10:47 PM	#70
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And with respect to Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 8:4 for example, maybe his linguistic interpretation is correct but his greater conclusions (= Jesus never came to earth) miss the mark.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.