Toto

I was really trying not to be patronizing. Why do you think that was patronizing - how would you rephrase it so as not to be patronizing?

Assume I have read everything you wrote about Hebrews and agree with Amaleq13. What am I to make of your last post to him?

Layman

Toto, when you accuse debate participants of having their own unique logic that no one else can follow then you are being patronizing. Obviously, if that is your attitude then there simply is no way to express it without being patronizing. That's my point. You seem to lack all capacity to dispassionately review an argument.

Why avoid the question? This is all the more patronizing. Toto, try and assume for a minute that I actually wanted you to answer the questions I asked of you?

Not that it matters. Your response appears to be answer enough.

Frankly, Toto, if you viewed the exchange dispassionately you would probably understand my frustration. But since you still insist that Robbins' has proven a literaty genre of sea voyages that explains the "we passage" I have even less faith that you will make a fair assesment of the discussion to date. Nevertheless, let me share with you a portion of my frustration.

Amaleq accuses me of misleading people by equating the "Son" with "Jesus."

Here is my original comment:

Hebrews 1:1-2 describes Jesus as God's spokesperson on earth just as the prophets of old were God's spokespersons on earth. The prophets were the medium then. Jesus is the medium now.

Amaleq responds with his accusation:

It is entirely disingenuous to change Hebrews’ “Son” to the name “Jesus” so as to create the illusion of a reference to the living Jesus rather than the Sacrificed/Raised Son.

Now observe taht I did not "change" anyone's name in the relevant text. When I cite Hebrews 1:1-2 I quoted it accurately. But since the "Son" is "Jesus" and "the Lord" and "Christ" and "Jesus Christ" I thought it best to use on term throughout.

I respond to a point Bede made:

"God, after he spoke long go to he father in the prophets in many portions and in manyways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son" Not only is God speaking though Jesus in the same way he spoke through the ancient, very human, prophets, but he is doing so "in these last days," which places him in the same period of history as the author.

Then Amaleq escalates the rhetoric:

Why do you keep changing the actual word used in Hebrews to "Jesus"? As I pointed out earlier, this gives the appearance of a deliberately misleading attempt to make your argument seem more convincing.

Again note that I did accurately quoted the relevant passage and did not change it at all.

I, truly baffled, respond:

Early Christians used many titles to refer to Jesus. Do you think that verse 1 is NOT referring to Jesus? Jesus is not "His Son"?

If you are denying that Jesus is the Son, then who do you think the Son is? If you recognize that Jesus is also the Son, what is your point?

A moderator steps in and says to tone down the charges of misleading.

I then point out that Heb. 4:14 equates the "Son" with "Jesus" and ask what the big deal is.

Amaleq is unsatisfied and still attacks me:

Not in the sense of the living, teaching Jesus of the Gospels and that is how it seems to me you are trying to use the name. The author of Hebrews uses "Jesus", "Jesus Christ", "Christ" and "Son" to describe the same figure. This figure, again ignoring Doherty's thesis, originally existed in Heaven, was incarnated and sacrificed, then raised up into Heaven to wait for The End. Your preference for changing the author's actual term to "Jesus" gives the appearance of an illegitimate attempt to make it seem to be a reference to the Gospel Jesus. This may not accurately reflect your intent but it seems a simple thing to avoid by retaining the words the author actually uses when interpreting a particular passage.

I tell him Bull, it's obvious what I'm referring to and there is no confusion.

A moderator steps in again to ask me to tone it down. I respond:

Mike, I understand completely and appreciated the opportunity to clarify.

My point was that it was so clear that Jesus is called so many things (Son of God, Son of Man, Christ, Lord, Jesus Christ--in the Gospels as well as the Epistles), I can't imagine anyone being mislead by my-hardly unique--use of the name Jesus. I actually believe it would be more confusing to refer to him by different names throughout the same discussion as if they were references to different personages.

The moderator agreed:

Finally, Amaleq relents, but with a bizzarre explanation as to why he made such a big deal about it:

I admit that Hebrews uses the terms to describe the same figure. There is only confusion if you are trying to assert that this is also the same Jesus described in the Gospels.

When you paraphrase a Hebrews passage that gives "His Son" as using the name "Jesus", it seems to me that you are trying to read the Gospel into the letter. It wouldn't be the first time I've run into that sort of "shell game" being run by anti-mythicists and there didn't seem to be any good reason for you to change the title to the name. If that was not your intent, as I already indicated, then the point can be dropped and I apologize for the confusion.

Except this was the first time Amaleq suggested that the point be dropped.

Now Toto, I simply have no time for these kinds of games--or this kind of over-suspicion. I never ever claimed that Hebrews 1:1-2 actually said "Jesus" and certainly never suggested that such a usage meant this was the Jesus of the Gospels. Yet it took repeated posts and the intervention of two moderators to get Amaleq to knock it off.

As I said then: You accused me of dishonesty and then reinforced that accusation but now admit I did nothing of the sort and you were reacting to a shell game played by others?

Again, this is why I do not have much patience with you Amaleq. It's taken several posts and Moderator intervention to get you to withdraw the accusation and try and move on.

Another example from the same thread.

One of Amaleq's arguments was that assuming I Hebrews was referring to a living human Jesus, but one lived at no particular point in time:

At best and assuming Doherty’s “heavenly spheres” thesis cannot be supported, you have shown that Hebrews describes a living Jesus existing on earth but not that the author placed this Jesus in any specific point in history.

Bede responded to this point and noted that if Hebrews refers to a living Jesus he does place him during a specific time period. I responded Bede's comments and added further evidence that if Hebrews refers to a human Jesus he does place him during a specific time period:

Not only is God speaking though Jesus in the same way he spoke through the ancient, very human, prophets, but he is doing so "in these last days," which places him in the same period of history as the author.

Also, Hebrews places himself and his readers in the categry of second generation Christians. Meaning that they have learned about Jesus from those who knew him. "[H]ow will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it as confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs an wonders an by various miracles..." Heb. 2:3-4a.

Finally, by decribing Jesus' crucifixion he's placing the death of Jesus unde Roman rule, which further narrows the time frame.

That's just off the top of my head. So, if the au Jesus, he describes him as having recently been on earth. And he is at most one generation removed from those who knew Jesus and heard him personally.

Amaleq's response I once again found bizzare, accusing me of circular reasoning by assuming my conclusion:

Your conclusion assumes what you are trying to prove (i.e. an historical Jesus).The author does not tell us that a living "Jesus" has taught anything. Instead, the author tells us that God has spoken to them in His Son. I do not deny that it is possible he was using some convoluted language to describe a living ministry of Jesus but it is not logically valid to assume this to be true in order to support your interpretation. That is circular reasoning.

But the entire point that was being responded to was Amaleq's own assertion that ASSUMING Jesus was human the author of Hebrews does not refer to him as existing at any particular point in time. This was HIS assumption.

So I responded:

Talk about being shifty. We were obviously responding to YOUR statement that ASSUMING Hebrews refers to a human Jesus he does not give any time frame for that human Jesus.

He went on like that for a few more posts but I've lost the will to relive the thread.

In addition to this Amaleq's responses tend to be little more than comments like "I disagree, he means ____" which lacks substantive discussion. Even when he refers to secondary or primary literature--which is rare--he tends to leave out referencs and pinpoint cites.

Nothing about my frustration flows from "Christian logic." Nor have you responded to my question that you point out my uniquely Christian arguments that no one else could possibly understand. I would like to see that.

Layman

Jacob A.,

Are we going to continue the discussion on Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria? I am interested in hearing your explanation as to all of their statements appearing to affirm a historical Jesus--after you claimed they made no such statements.

I am also still interested in seeing your evidence that there was an argument between the emerging Historical Jesus proponents and the Jesus Myth orthodox? As I pointed out. Marcion left a huge historical footprint because he argued that Jesus, though existing on earth, was not really human. The Church Fathers responded strongly and obviously. Tertullian went so far as to do a line-item response to Marcion's corruption of the existing texts.

Surely those that went farther than Marcion and argued that Jesus did not exist on earth in any way would have aroused similar opposition. What is your evidence for this opposition? Most specifically, since you claimed that the Jesus Myth was alive and well in the second century, what is the second century evidence of this kind of opposition?

Toto

I have never "insisted" this and you have evidently not read the last threads on this question.

Amaleq dropped the point and has not mentioned it since the first thread on this. Why are you still bringing it up?

I stepped in because of your statements: "Talk about being shifty. . . . I don't think you can have an honest discussion if you are going to use tactics like this." I specifically advised against "shifty" and "dishonesty" - your words. As I recall, things were boiling over in several threads and the moderators were trying to keep a lid on things.

After Mike intervened in regard to your intemperate language and said in another post to Amaleq13 that he didn't understand the point, Amaleq13 rephrased his objection. Perhaps if you had been more temperate, this would have happened earlier.

You are aware that there was an independent, non-Christian strain of thought that we read about in Philo that described a "Son" of God, who was an intermediary between God and the world? This entity was not a human.

Bede says "Actually, the first sentence of Hebrews clearly states that Jesus was a recent contemporary of the writer. So Layman's case is complete: to Hebrew's author, Jesus was a human and he lived recently." You agree enthusiastically. I don't see any indication in the first sentence of Hebrews of that: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." There is no clear indication here that the Son was an existing person, as opposed to a spiritual entity. References to "heir of all things" or the logos-like "through whom he made the world" do not sound like a recently existing person. You can cite a lot of evangelical Christian writers who claim that this shows Jesus was recently existing, but it's not there in the plain language. That's why I wonder if there is some unique Christian perspective.

Is that enough? I don't want to spend more on this. Doherty's thesis was groundbreaking, but I hope that you don't think that if you chip away at it that you will destroy the mythicist case. Doherty accepts most of standard liberal Christian dating of the NT and works very hard to explain away a lot of language that could be easier explained as later interpolations or forgeries.

Amaleq13

Layman,


It is interesting that, when you "summarize" my argument, you choose two ultimately irrelevant tangents rather than my actual arguments of the last couple posts.

It is also quite fascinating to find you criticizing me for not making enough references to "primary literature" (how much more primary can you get than relying almost entirely on the text of Hebrews, itself?) and of not offering specific citations to support my opinions. This is fascinating because this comes from the same guy who recently accused me of merely "parroting" what I read online and in books. Nice work getting me both for relying on the work of others too much and not relying on them enough. If I took your ad hominem attacks seriously, I would be confused.

Frankly, I don't find it necessary to do much more research than just reading various translations of the text, itself, to find excellent reasons to reject your interpretation. For example, I noticed that the author likes to quote from Psalm a lot so, when trying to understand his use of "gate", I did a search. I found two uses of the singular "gate" and one was in reference to being made fun of by drunks. The other, whatdoyouknow, features a "gate" that is said to belong to "the LORD" and through which only the righteous may enter. Is it reasonable to suggest this could only be a coincidence? What, specifically, is flawed about this methodology especially given the apparently appropriate results? Other than it prevents you from asserting that the author must have been referring to the "gate" of Jerusalem, I mean.

I was mistaken to accuse you of deliberately misleading when you chose to summarize Hebrews 1:1-2 with the name "Jesus" rather than "Son" as the text actually reads ("a Son" according to YLT). Since you honestly believe that the author of Hebrews believed in a Gospel-like Jesus who was a prophet and taught, you don't see anything wrong with changing the title to a name. That isn't an attempt to deliberately mislead and I have apologized for the erroneous suggestion. (Ah, Christian forgiveness is so wonderful to behold!) Your interpretation of Heb1:1-2 is actually only an example of you reading your conclusion into the evidence as you paraphrase it. I'm still not sure how bringing up this subsequently dropped tangent is relevant to the final form of my argument.

"In many parts, and many ways, God of old having spoken to the fathers in the prophets, in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages" (YLT)

It is my poor, unsubstantiated opinion, that it is not reasonable to suggest that the only way one can read this passage is by assuming the author is talking about a living, preaching Gospel Jesus. Even though this "Son" is clearly equated with the Logos, I don't think we must understand the author to consider the "heir of all things" to be basically just like the prophets of old. I won't say that is "impossible" but it sure doesn't seem credible.

I think what Toto was trying to get at is that I don't consider reading Gospel details into Hebrews a legitimate method of figuring out what the author of Hebrews believed but you clearly do. I doubt much good can come from a discussion with such a fundamental difference in views.

Layman

I did not claim to be summarizing your arguments. I gave two specific examples of why it is so difficult to have a real dialogue with you.

And I'll add this. You tend to argue against things that no one said. Like this example. And like you accusing me of being misleading and disengenuous because of your purported experiences with other posters instead of anything I had actually done.

Often you don't even do that.

That's true. You strike me as a poster who sees an argument and goes to Doherty's site or Kirby's site to read as much skeptical stuff as you can find. Then you parrot it back.

The problem is that you come back and just free associate what you think you learned. You offer few if any citations to where you got your ideas from. They are without authority or much discussion. I admit that I remember you once referring to something Crossan wrote, but gave no citation or quote. I also remember you misconstruging my OWN article on Marcion back to me. Again, no attribution. When I called you on it you admitted that you had gotten information from it.

I'm sure you can find plenty of reasons to avoid doing research. It would explain a lot.

Actually, once mentions outside the gate and the other mentions going through a gate don't they? And where in Hebrews is the "Lord's gate" mentioned?

It does not even rise to the level of coincidence. But if you must go there, then yes, that's the most reasonable conclusion.

It does not rise to the level of poor methodlogy. As I pointed out:

http://www.bede.org.uk/price6.htm

It's an example of how you debate. And why debating with you is so time consuming yet so unproductive.

I did not just assume it. YOU SAID EVEN ASSUMING JESUS WAS HUMAN IN HEBREWS there was no reference to time. You are still getting it wrong and accusing me of circular reasoning when YOU made the assumption.

Yet another example of debating with you is time consuming an unproductive.

And this is a classic example of JM think. You don't look for the most reasonable or probable explanation, it is enough for you to argue that your own take is not impossible, no matter how unlikely. Hardly good methodlogy.

I spent much time discussing the background worldviews of the author. I talkied about Jewish eschatology, Jewish typology, Philo's platonism, the possible Essenic influence. But you don't care about any of that. All you care about is finding enough wiggle room somewhere to save the JM.

I did not say he was just like the prophets of Old. I'm saying God used him just like the prophets of old. God spoke through both of them to us. The phraseology is exactly the same. The context is Jewish eschatology which focuses on God's direct intervention in human affairs. The book is laced with Jewish typology which focuses on seeing how God spoke in the past with how He speaks now.

It sure doesn't seem you like you know what you are talking about.

Another distortion on your part. I never said anything about Heb. 1:1-2 referring to a human Jesus because the Gospels say so. Please prove this assertion.

I do sometimes, elsewhere, look at how specific Greek terms are used in other NT literature, but that's a matter of linguistics. To ignore how other ancient Greek writings used such terms, especially ones in the same religious tradition, is willful blindness and, apparently, devotion to the JM cause.

I doubt you are willing of producing much good discussion on the Jesus Myth.

mike_decock

[Mod Mode]

This thread has simply become unproductive and I don't see much chance at this point for the discussion to get back on topic so I'm going to lock it.

If anyone wants to add something substantive and relevant, just pm me or one of the other mods.

-Mike...