Clivedurdle

I come to complete the law, not one jot or title......

Let's assume it is a platonic religion, with parallels occuring in the real - heavenly - world - tthat are copied here on earth - the shadow world.

Xianity achieves and yearns for a new heaven and earth - now I see as in a glass darkly - isn't this a desire for the cave of our existence to become the real light of the world of platonic ideas?

Generally I do not understand why it feels we are imposing modern understandings of earth and air on these writings. Why are we confining spirits to the air? Luther did not, Jewish thought did not - blasphemy allows spirits to enter your mouth, God walked in the camp - they had to bury their stools to stop him treading in them! Gods and women could have children!

I see it as all completely interchangeable, with accretions and evolution of ideas - like holiness and separation getting extended to different elements. Is that a Persian Zarathustran import?

It has to be a heavenly sacrifice cos the earthly ones are already happening (could Hebrews be earlier than 1 CE?).

It is incredibly alchemical and magical. Magic has a basic idea that carrying out a ritual here has some form of causal effect on the gods. Christ's sacrifice is a reverse of this magic, and in some ways quite radical as it is attempting to evolve a just god who is concerned about humans and sacrifices himself for us!

It also repeats the same action in all the spheres and elements - very powerful magic!

TedM

Earl, here is my response to your defense of your position regarding Hebrews 8:4


GRAMMAR

Your source, Ellingworth says that the NEB translation of a past tense which excludes an orthodox interpretation is possible. However, a translation of a current tense, which is consistent with orthodoxy, is also possible. The analysis therefore needs to go beyond the grammar, and look at the context:


CONTEXT

If the actions the writer describes of Jesus as High Priest are any indication, then the LOCATION of his death is not an important piece in defining his position as a high priest in heaven, since it isn‘t even indicated in chapters 8 and 9..


According to these two chapters what Christ does in heaven as High Priest is this:

9:12 offered his own blood, “thus securing an eternal redemption�
9:14 “offered himself without blemish to God�
9:21 sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels used in worship
9:23 purified the “heavenly things�


After the acceptance of his offer, he now
8:1.sits at the right hand of God
8:2 acts as minister in the sanctuary
8:6 he mediates
9:15, 9:12 mediates a new covenant, “so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred� (again, it doesn’t say where the death occurred)


As we can see, chapters 8 and 9 do not say where the sacrifice itself (which was the shedding of his blood in death) takes place. There is no mention of the prayers and supplications of 5:7 or the enduring of hostile sinners and the cross of 12:2-3--both references that sound more like they happend on earth than heaven. It only says that it was offered in heaven. Big difference. On earth the sacrifice and the offering are two distinct events. We therefore cannot conclude from these chapters that the sacrifice of Jesus took place in heaven and should therefore be called a ‘heavenly sacrifice’. All we can conclude is that there was a 'heavenly offer and acceptance'.


True. It is silent on whether earthly-sounding events occurred on earth, in heaven (strange since there were hostile sinners there(12:3) ), or in another realm of some kind. To me, the most reasonable choice is earth, even if there are parallels which can be drawn from scripture and philosophy.


This is no problem for the orthodox view, because Jesus didn’t take on the role of High Priest until after he sacrificed his life and ascended to heaven. I will skip other comments you make along these lines, to save space.


I agree that is pointless. The counter argument you quote was not stated as I would have stated it. To me, the key to understanding the purpose of the first part of 8:4 is the explanation given in the last part of 8:4 “since there are priest who offer gifts according to the law. The old covenant of a high priest offering gifts to God according to the law was replaced by Christ, who now offers the gift of eternal life. Christ abolished the need for that, so if he were here on earth there would be no need for him to act as a priest under the law. He states this in 8:13: “In speaking of a new covenant he(the prophet) treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.�.

I would state the context as supportive of this re-writing of 8:4: If Jesus, who has already made the sacrifice, were now on earth, he would not be a priest who follows the law because the law is now abolished through his offering in heaven as a priest who is forever after the order of Melchizedek.



The only reason given in 8:4 for his not functioning as a HP on earth is that he wouldn’t function the way that they currently do: offering gifts prescribed by law. This is no problem for the orthodox view.


But, he explains why he says Jesus wouldn’t be on earth as a priest: He doesn’t say it is because he could only be a priest in heaven and could never reside on earth. He says it is because the priests were offering sacrifices according to the law.


Still, no problem for the orthodox view.


Again, no problem for the orthodox view, since the offering of his own blood occurs AFTER the death in the unspecified location..


I still agree.


Since the author believed the separation existed at the time he was writing, there is nothing odd about making a point about the separation at that time using a hypothetical (what if Jesus were here today?). The author has a purpose beyond just showing a dichotomy that exists now: He is heading towards saying that the earthly priests are no longer fulfilling a vital function--Only the heavenly High Priest is needed for the forgiveness of sins:

8:13 “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete�

10:9-11 “He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.�

As stated in 9:23 the heavenly sacrifice is “better�.

And, sufficient 9:26-28 “But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Your dichotomy seems to be ignoring the author’s intention and emphasis on how an old covenant is obsolete now. You write as though there is an ongoing earth-heaven priestly function. At the time the author was writing priests still did exist, but the author is making a point of showing how the old was replaced by a ‘better’ version in heaven. As such there is nothing odd about beginning the discussion with saying that because the earthly priests were still under the old covenant, Jesus wouldn’t be one if he came to earth today from his heavenly seat. In other words, he had already replaced their roles! That this is the intent is supported by the verses following, as given above.


It wouldn’t have been impossible. Again, you seem to be implying that the act of sacrifice itself happened in heaven, where sinners resided. Is that the position you are taking here? If not, then this argument fails.


How can you say this? The cross fits in perfectly with the sacrificial theme of the rest of the book: “looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated on the right hand of the throne of God.�

How can this reference to enduring the cross and being shamed by it just before victory in heaven be anything OTHER THAN the sacrifice? Of course it is related to the sacrifice!


Back to the old argument from silence--the problem is that it sounds earthly from other references, and it is problematic to say it happened in heaven where the tabernacle was, because that means sinners were there in heaven, and there is no indication that all of the earthly-sounding references happened in another sphere, which was ‘earth-like‘


Yet the very next verse after mentioning the cross and the shame mentions Jesus having to endure “from sinners such hostility against himself.� Sinners, cross, death. In a more perfect counterpart?



He offered up a clarification when he said that Jesus had to be like man in every respect for his purpose to be fulfilled. I think there would be a much greater need to clarify why sinners, crucifixion and death existed in heaven where God resides, or that the various earthly-sounding events weren’t on earth at all! If his audience already knew of Jesus being crucified on earth, there was no need to clarify that the death took place on earth instead of heaven. The fact that he never mentions a cross or death in heaven or an ascension from some other earthly sphere to heaven is a greater silence.


I’ve given a purpose. To contrast the current state of affairs: An imperfect earthly covenant that had no need for Jesus (since they didn't take away sins) to the more perfect heavenly covenant through which sins are forgiven by his one-time sacrifice.


No, it isn’t. It declares that he ‘would not’, not ‘cannot’, offer a sacrifice under the law. Reasons for this have already been discussed--his gift was above the law--his perfect self--, and it abolished the need for gifts under the law, so Christ would not be a priest if he came back to earth today either.



If Jesus’ sacrifice was an earthly one, he could do his ‘respective thing’ on earth? No, he couldn’t because his ‘respective thing’ was to be resurrected, which happens in the spirit world, go to heaven, and have his offering be accepted there, and then to be seated next to God. Those things can‘t happen on earth. Plus, your statement seems to presume that the old and new covenants are supposed to coincide. They aren’t. The old was abolished or at least it was now in the process of being abolished..



That’s exactly the attempt I am making. It doesn’t make 8:4 contradictory, because there is nothing contradictory about saying ‘IF Jesus were come to earth today from his position in the heavens, he wouldn’t be offering gifts that earthly priests offer, because there is no longer a need to do so� because that is an idea he repeats in several other places in the same chapter as well as in Chs 9 and 10.

ted

jakejonesiv

To be fair to Earl, it should be pointed out that The Ascension of Isaiah does support Earl's understanding of flesh existing in the heavens above the earth.. Isaiah was permitted to ascend all the way to the sixth heaven while retaining flesh. It is only upon entrance to the seventh heaven that Isaiah had to put on the heavenly garment (body).

Chapter 8
14. And he said: "Hear, furthermore, therefore, this also from thy fellow servant: when from the body by the will of God thou hast ascended hither, then thou wilt receive the garment which thou seest, and likewise other numbered garments laid up (there) thou wilt see.
15. And then thou wilt become equal to the angels of the seventh heaven.

...

CHAPTER 9
1. AND he took me into the air of the seventh heaven, and moreover I heard a voice saying: "How far will he ascend that dwelleth in the flesh?" And I feared and trembled.
2. And when I trembled, behold, I heard from hence another voice being sent forth, and saying: "It is permitted to the holy Isaiah to ascend hither; for here is his garment."

...

8. And there I saw Enoch and all who were with him, stript of the garments of the flesh, and I saw them in their garments of the upper world, and they were like angels, standing there in great glory.

Now comes the good part where Jesus descends in docetic form.

13. Nevertheless they see and know whose will be thrones, and whose the crowns when He has descended and been made in your form, and they will think that He is flesh and is a man.
14. And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.
15. And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.
16. And when He hath plundered the angel of death, He will ascend on the third day

Also, in fairness to Earl, Ascension of Isaiah does not say that Jesus descended all the way to the ground. I do not agree in all respects with his theory, but it seems way more right than wrong. That being said, Ascension of Isaiah can't trump Ephesians 4:9-10.

Jake Jones IV

krosero

If your position is that non-philosophers tended to take the stories literally, I have always thought so, too (and so would most historicists, I imagine). And yes, when the ancients thought of events above the human realm, they pictured these events as resembling, in some fashion, those below. I'm not sure exactly whether your questions above are directed at me or are just re-statements of your views, but at any rate, I agree that spiritual events were taken seriously and literally (i.e., they were thought to really have happened), except by those educated persons who dealt in allegory.

You should know first that you may have misunderstood my argument. Certainly in English, it can seem that Paul is mentioning the gospel of God, and then seeming to add, as a separate or follow-up thought, that God's Son was born of David. I guess this is what you mean when you say that the two thoughts are detached in certain translations. I am not so sure how detached they were, though, in Paul's mind. For one, I can't pronounce upon the Greek involved. Two, I know that Paul regarded God's gospel, as well as the descent of his Son from David, as God's will. To what degree Paul considered the relationship with David part of what he calls the gospel may be hard to fix precisely, and it may not be important. It was all related in his mind as part of the significant things of God's plan. The Christ was prophesied; the descent from David, too, was prophesied.

My argument is that I hear Paul talking about a promise, and an implicit fulfillment. We were promised certain things in the scriptures (a gospel), and now I come to preach this gospel; I am telling you that his Son has come. It was promised; it happened.

He was certainly telling his audience that scripture was fulfilled. He named the gospel as something foretold in the prophets, and he associated with the gospel (or included within the gospel) the prophesied descent of the Messiah from David.

That is my argument: that Paul had learned of the fulfillment of a promise.

If all you mean is that Paul got the idea of the Davidic descent of the promised Messiah from scripture, then I agree with you. He did not make up the idea himself; and the idea existed in the scriptures that he used all his life.

But this is so uncontroversial, that it seems you must be saying more. It is a staple of mythicism that Paul got the idea, not of the promise, but of the successful fulfillment, from the scriptures: that is, scripture told him that certain events had come to pass. That must be your claim here: that Paul is telling us "flat out" that he got from scripture the idea that the David-descended Messiah had come in the form of Christ Jesus in the sphere of flesh.

If that is your claim, then I return to my questions: what are your preferred translations, and what is your own translation? (This is in regard to the prophecy/fulfillment aspect, not the gospel/David separation that you spoke of).

No argument from me. Occasionally, in reading your book, I have even felt the thrill of entering a whole new world, so to speak. But then again, that thrill is provided by any successful creation -- whether it is true or false (or nonfiction or fiction). To know that you are breaking away from the lexicons in a true fashion, I would require you to do so as a linguist. When you have an idea that the lexicons are bound up in a mistaken paradigm, that is just an idea. Pressing the argument requires that you do so on linguistic terms. Show us, in short, on linguistic grounds, that the lexicons are mistaken.

This is confusing to me because my objections had to do with your idea of Christians deleting, not borrowing or "lifting", such a postulated use of KATA SARKA in pagan sources.

Exactly -- this is your claim, that Christians have prevented such records from coming to light. All my objections remain in my original post.

krosero

This is a very interesting way in which Hebrews does not fit Doherty's theory. Hebrews pictures the offering in the higher heavens, and the death itself below the heavens. (As Andrew says, the death occurred below the angels). For Doherty, that places the death not all the way down on earth, but in the air above the earth. So the more perfect copy, the more perfect offering, takes place in the higher heaven: it is a copy of the "death" that took place in the "fleshly" world of air above the earth. So the author of Hebrews is painting a picture in which things in the higher heavens, in platonic fashion, are more perfect copies of what happens beneath the dome of the sky. In that lower world, we see change and decay. For Doherty, that is how Christians saw the significance of the sacrifice of God's son: he came down to our "fleshly" realm by sacrificing himself in the sky, in the world of change and decay, just a heartbeat away from man.

But a promiment theme in Doherty's theory is that Christ's death was one of those things that took place in that "spiritual" realm where copies of earthly events were to be found. So I wonder, now, which it is. For Doherty, is the crucifixion a descent to flesh and corruption, or is it an event in the "spiritual" aspects of reality where things mimic or resemble the corruptible ones on earth?

I ask especially because Doherty has invoked Ascension 7:10,

He seems to argue that this is an example of Platonic thinking: but here, the presumed spiritual copies are in the air, not in the heavens. So I wonder, now, whether we should think of Christ's death as a "low" and corruptible thing, or a "spiritual" counterpart to "fleshly" things on earth.

But I may be wrong on Doherty's conception of what Hebrews is saying; maybe he makes no distinction between the offering and the death, and he sees the single event as occurring in the higher heavens (against Paul's conception of it in the air); or he has some other interpretation. Without further clarification, the whole model looks incoherent to me.

krosero

Water and fire also come to mind.

Water -- real, drinkable and deadly water -- was released from the vault of heaven.

Ordinary fire travels upward, into the sky (as does heat from earthly fires). But perhaps more obviously, there was the fire of lightning. That would plainly have seemed to the ancients like a thing from the world of the air.

TedM

I think Earl is not making a distinction, since he refers to the 'heavenly sacrifice'. That's why I too asked whether heaven is supposed to have things like crucifixion, death, and hostile sinners.

ted

krosero

You're right. In his book he says that the writer of Hebrews "places the sacrifice of Christ in heaven itself" (Jesus Puzzle, 120).

When I first read that a few months ago, I was not aware of any distinction between heaven and the firmament. Now that I am, I have even more questions.

First, you raise strong objections: how can heaven contain death and sin? Doherty has been telling us (correctly) that the world below the dome contained death, sin, change, decay, flesh -- and demons who could have crucified Christ. Now, in Hebrews, a sacrifice in the flesh, atoning for sin, on a cross (presumably at the hand of demons, who actually lived only below the dome), occurs in a lower heaven, above the dome of the sky, above the world that Doherty himself has set apart from the unchanging, undecaying platonic world of heaven's perfection.

Does this make sense? And how does a deity traveling from a higher heaven to a lower heaven actually come to be regarded as offering prayers of supplications with loud cries and tears to the one who was able to save him from death, during those days that he was in the flesh (5:7)? He is said to be a high priest who can sympathize with all our weaknesses, because he was tested himself in every way (4:15). How does this happen in a lower heaven? At least in the sky, within the world of decay and change, there is a tenuous link, or tenuous proximity, to the world of man; and Paul's delight in God's descent to man has a tenuous plausibility. But a mere descent from God's throne to a lower heaven above the firmament?

Frankly, I think Doherty would be better off if he simply read Hebrews as within the Pauline tradition -- or the tradition of the epistles generally -- in which Christ was actually sacrificed somewhere in the world that we inhabit, below the dome. Why Hebrews would move the literal sacrifice up to heaven makes no sense. But it does make sense for Hebrews to speak platonically of an offering that took place in heaven before God, when an actual death occurred below -- in the world where death occurs.

If Hebrews has moved the world of pain, death, and sacrifice up above the firmament, then it just contradicts Doherty's own (sound) claim that the world below the dome was the world of change, decay and death.

And my question above remains: do we think of Christ's sacrifice as an event in contradistinction to (or lower than) heavenly perfection, or do we think of it as one of the heavenly "counterparts" that are in contradistinction to (or higher than) things below?

youngalexander

This cannot be correct, surely? The position of High Priest is not open to Jesus “since there are already priests who offer the gifts which the Law prescribes,�. The position of earthly HP has not been abolished, it is already occupied.

Yes, to be sure 8:13 "anything that is growing old and ageing will shortly disappear". The point is that it has not as yet done so! In fact, you establish this yourself later in the post.
The author of the epistle is expressing a logical thesis. Notice how you alter the sequence 8:13/10:9-11/9:23&26-27. Actually it is 9:26-27. However, when we do look at 9:28 “so Christ was offered once to bear the burden of men’s sins, and will appear a second time, sin done away, to bring salvation to those who are watching for him.� It is only when we follow with verse 10 that the old covenant is replaced by the new.

Are we not still awaiting the second coming? In short, your reconstruction of 8:4 collapses.

TedM

Actually, it reads to me like the 'heavenly sanctuary' it isn't in a lower heaven since 9:24 says "For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf." This sounds to me like the highest of all the heavens. All the more reason to doubt that the sacrifice itself is to be assumed to have happened there (ie sinners are not likely to be in the very highest heaven where God resides).


I agree.