Kapyong

Gday,
Thanks Jay,

OK -
Jesus was a "man" born in heaven.
Jesus was "born" a heavenly "Jew".

Requiring all that to happen on earth is later belief - Paul doesn't actually say it. I agree with most of that - but don't see why it had to be on earth.


OK,
so God sent his son, a heavenly being, a heavenly yet still Jewish being, to redeem the Jews by descending below the Moon.

What is it that requires an earthly setting? Apart from normal expectations? I think Paul was a religious loony, a crazy visionary - why can't all this happen in the Air Below the Moon?


K.

ApostateAbe

No. If Paul wrote that Jesus's mother was Mildred, then that is what I would accept that Paul believed. Since Paul is ambiguous about the identity of Jesus's mother, I would take a guess based on external evidence that he would believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus.
In fact, I did know that and I have known it for a long time.
Sure, but I am just answering your questions, not making arguments. If I wanted to make a case that Paul probably believed that the mother of Jesus was Mary, then I wouldn't assume my conclusion, but I would make an inference from evidence of Christian religious myth that existed within adjacent times and societies of Paul (the gospels).

aa5874

"Paul" is AFTER the Jesus story.

We have a story of "Paul" in Acts where "Paul" was converted to the Christian Faith After Jesus ascended in a cloud and persecuted the Christian Faith after there were at least 8000 converts.

And, "Paul" claimed Jesus was crucified, buried and raised the THIRD day according to the Scriptures, that there were apostles before him, that there were people in Christ before him and that he did persecute the Faith that he now preached.

And further, the Pauline revelations BEGIN after he claimed Jesus was raised from the dead.

One cannot make up stories about "Paul" in the NT.

"Paul" appears to fundamentally corroborate the story in Acts and both Acts and the Pauline writings place Saul/Paul in a basket by a wall in Damascus.

How in the world could "Paul" claim to have stayed with apostle Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days if there was no Jesus story?

Galatians 1.18-19 does not make sense if "Paul" was before the Jesus story. "Paul" wanted to give the impression that he met people who KNEW Jesus

All we have in the NT is a BOGUS early dating and BOGUS EARLY authorship of virtually all the writings to accomodate "apostolic succession".

aa5874

In Hebrew Scripture it is the reverse. It is the patrilineal line that counts.

This is so obvious. Jesus was GOD'S own Son.

Why is everything about "Paul" upside down and back to front?

The Jesus story is about a character the Child of a Ghost, the Creator and the Word that was God that was crucified on earth under Pontius Pilate, that was raised from the the dead and ascended in a cloud.

After the ascension, After the day of Pentecost, and after there were converts, "Paul" began to preach the Faith he once destroyed.

The story is rather simple.

The Pauline Epistles are about the REVELATIONS that "Paul" supposedly received from the resurrected Jesus.

Thre is no need to change the Pauline stories about his revelations.

Solo

That's strange, Earl. You admit that the writer already said it, and will repeat his piece,....so you yourself can see that "Jesus as the high priest in heaven argument" is somewhat repetitious.

For the record I said nothing about "complementary duties" that the earthly high priest and Jesus as a high-priest in heaven perform. Maybe the word you wanted to use was analogous. At any rate, the whole Heb 8 indeed bespeaks of the analogy of the "copy and shadow" and the "real deal".

It's not that the translations are not correct - (not just NEB renders the verse that way, BTW) it is just that taking them literally makes no sense given the context. The intent of the verse plainly is not to deny that Jesus never was not earth, as such reading is belied by e.g. 2:14, 2:17, 5:7, 9:26-9:28, 12:2-3, 13:12.


Not so. The writer of Hebrews though not Paul, certainly seems at home with Paul's schema and appears to be attempting to marrying it to the Zechariah 3 vision of Joshua (Jesus) rehabilitation / investiture in heaven (alluded to in Heb 3:1) which may well have been the midrashic connection to the earthly Jesus' demise and his subsequent assigned role as a heavenly intercessor. In other words, Jesus was killed and his martyrdom became the rallying cry of the Jerusalem messianists, who made him an intercessor for a messiah in heaven. The writer of Hebrews seems to have been trying to retrofit this high priest function into Paul's Christology.

Earl, do you really think one has to be desperate to find that the writer of Hebrews believed Jesus sacrificed himself on earth and was rewarded for his trouble by being made a high priest in heaven ? Do you really not see that discerning what someone believed ages ago, does not imply you believe it yourself ?


It is grammatically possible. It is just very unlikely that this is what was meant given the context for the reasons given above. If it is any consolation I don't believe F.F. Bruce either; he said (in Peake's Commentary on the Bible) the denial relates to the lack of Jesus' Levictical credentials.



Scholarly has nothing to do with it.

Best,
Jiri

EarlDoherty

It makes eminent sense given the immediate context, and that's the one that matters. "Context" does not include appealing to entirely separate passages in the work which may or may not support your contention that Hebrews envisions a Jesus who was on earth. In fact, my analysis of every one of those passages supports the mythicist case and agrees with the direct meaning of 8:4. You might as well say (and it has been by many) that "context" includes bringing in the Gospels in their portrayal of an historical man, which supposedly renders the meaning of the epistles as indicating knowledge of an historical man, too.

Much of the rest of your posting is simply gobbledegook to me. In what way does your Zechariah 3 business negate the meaning of 8:4? Once again, you fail to address the fact that the "if" clause of 8:4 is a contrafactual statement, which renders the meaning, if we adopt a past-tense sense of the verb as the NEB does (it's nice to know it's not alone, though I am unfamiliar with the others you refer to) it states quite clearly that Jesus had never been on earth. And I have made the argument that a present-tense sense is infeasible (which you would know if you were to read my new book).

Without making that rebuttal, Jiri, the rest is just smoke and mirrors and avoids the issue of what the text itself tells us.

Earl Doherty

Solo

It does not negate the meaning of 8:4, only your reading of it. I brought in the Zech 3 investiture of Jesus/Joshua to refute your claim that the "if he were on earth" in the verse in question cannot relate to Jesus function as a high priest on earth, to wit:

From the verses I quoted to you, by the reckoning of Hebrews, Jesus was on earth and he sacrificed himself there. Therefore, he could not 'perform his priestly duties' on earth. Zechariah 3 provides the midrashic mechanics by which Jesus in heaven was freed of Satan's mischief (evidently one that led to his martyr's death on earth), supplied high priest's paraphernalia and given powers to prepare the coming of the Lord's servant, the Branch. Sorry, if this sounds like gobbledygook to you.

First, as a general observation, it usually does not bode well for a theory if its author cannot marshall more support for it than a single voice (Paul Ellingworth in this case) nota bene one admitting that while it is 'grammatically possible' to read the verse as saying that Jesus 'had never been on earth' it immediately rejects such reading as one 'misunderstanding' the context in which it occurs.

Now what else do you have in support of the reading of the verse the way you propose ? It's eight pages, you say, but I have not found much that would convince me.

Actually there is nothing of substance in the analysis (JNGNM, p. 231-239) that would support your reading of the verse as denying Jesus lived on earth in the past.

You keep harping on the "impossibility" of 8:4 as relating to Jesus as the priest on earth in the present.

First, naturally, this view must be coloured as 'scholarly preconception' borne out of 'Gospel-based' assumptions. No support for this idea is offered; the reader is expected to accept this on atheist faith alone. It's supposed to be obvious but it is not. In fact, I venture most people reading the text without preconceptions would agree that the grammar is supplied by the context of the epistle independent of the belief system of its reader.

Skipping the Eiffel Tower follies which have no real bearing on anything in Hebrews, I note that you have already determined on page 233 - barely two pages into your analysis - that Jesus offered to sacrifice himself in the heavenly sanctuary. Based on what ? Paul Ellingworth ? Harold Attridge ? Their pro-Christian prejudice ? The answer seems to be : nothing at all. You simply assert it with no support, evidentiary, scholarly or other. In the logic of Baker Street irregulars, you eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Based on the vow of perennial poverty of options, the argument then goes nowhere fast. You find that Christ in the role of performing a sacrifice in the past and only in the past (italics yours, p.235) has no relevance to the issue whether he could be a priest on earth in the present. You conclude that there is no point in saying that if Jesus were on earth today he would have nothing to do. You are absolutely right except the small detail that that is not what 8:4 asserts.

You then offer that if Jesus' sacrifice did occur on earth in the past, there would be no reason for the writer to state that Jesus could not be crucified again on earth in the present and especially for the reason that there are now priests on earth performing their own sacrifices [sic]. (p.235). You then add thoughfully 'that would be gibberish'. But there is no real problem or issue except for the strawman which you would very much like to set up and somehow can't seem to be able to.

The writer of Hebrews clearly states, a) Christ's self-sacrifice for sins was offered once for all time (10:12-14), and b) he entered the Holy Place not by the blood of goats and calves but through (the sacrifice of) his own blood (9:12), thus defining the analogy and the difference between an earthly and heavenly priest, the sacrifice of the latter as preceding his entry in heaven, as a way of elaborating further the semantics of 8:4.

Incidentally, 9:12 should take care of your claim that Jesus' sacrifice did not take place until he got to Heaven (p.236)

Going from Eiffel Tower repairs to Ronald Reagan redivivus you discover yet another reason why Heb 8:4 should not be read by how it has been read by almost everyone. Somehow, you fathom a parallel between the Constutition of the United States and Hebrews' Constitution [sic]whereby the present reference to the earthly priest function would violate the rule that Jesus could not be crucified again earth, since.....Earl Doherty says Jesus already was crucified in heaven.

So, to conclude : from a formal side, it is not possible to assess your argument as it is seriously flawed. It assumes all along what you set out to prove and proceding with against a mountain of disconfirming evidence. If it proves impossiblke to ignore it or talked around it, the contrary evidence is naively disparaged as issuing from political or creedal agendas, if not directly as in case of GDon, as exhibits of wanton wickedness, on the part of those who raise them.

There is no 'smoking gun' in Heb 8:4, against the view that Christianity had an historical, if obscure, founder. But your choice of metaphor does speak volumes to the prosecutorial, intolerant approach to the texts which you have taken and which unfortunately will continue place a limit on your reach.

Regards,
Jiri

EarlDoherty

Jiri, if you cannot even perceive that the term “sacrifice” is being used in Hebrews to refer to Jesus’ act of carrying his blood into the heavenly sanctuary and smearing it on the altar there, and never to the largely-unaddressed act of the death which produced that blood (regardless of where it took place), there is not much point in trying to argue anything with you about this document. Heb. 9:12 is about that act of sacrifice; there is no conception that anything referred to as a/the “sacrifice” took place prior to it.

Evidently you have missed the entire essence of the epistle, which is the Platonic comparison between the acts of the two types of high priest, Jesus and the temple ones. The “sacrifice” of Jesus is placed in direct comparison with the usage of the blood by the temple priests in the Holy of Holies. The latter’s slaughter of the animals which produce such blood is not portrayed as part of the sacrifice, just as it is not in the case of Jesus. Heb. 13:12 does not say that the shedding of blood on the cross is what “made the people holy through his own blood.” That understanding would run completely counter to the epistle’s entire presentation, which makes the redeeming act, the sacrifice which supplants the Yom Kippur sacrifice in the temple, the offering of the blood in the heavenly sanctuary. Your reading of 13:12 would screw up the entire picture which the writer has carefully presented. Do you think the actual slaughter of the animals outside the inner temple is what purifies the people at Yom Kippur? No, it is the offering of the animal blood within the Holy of Holies. To conform with the comparison principles the writer offers at every turn, Jesus’ sacrifice and purification does not take place at the point of suffering and death, it takes place afterward, in the heavenly sanctuary. If you cannot perceive that, there is nothing further to be said.

For the most part, your posting is unintelligible as providing any counter to what I have to say in those 8 pages, which you clearly read but just as clearly did not understand.

It certainly does. I haven’t a clue as to what you are trying to say. And the first two sentences seem to contradict each other.

In all your ‘touching on’ points in my 8 pages, you don’t supply a single substantive discrediting of any argument I put forward. Other than simple dismissal.

Earl Doherty

Solo

That's quite a mouthful, Earl, but the sobering fact is that there is no mention of an heavenly altar in Hebrews (IIUC, that imagery before Talmud is unique to the Book of Revelation). So there would be no sacred object in the heavenly abode known to the writer of the epistle on which to smear Jesus' blood, if he indeed proposed to do that. But he did not. Again, your imagination and rhetorical flourish are getting the better of you.

I get the impression that you want to create max confusion around the function of Jesus as high priest in heaven, in order to avert attention from the clear indication of the text that Jesus' sacrifice (of himself) took place prior to his entry into the heavenly abode.

Forgive me for speaking plainly but this strikes me as a crazy proposition given that a couple of verses down, Heb 9:15-16 declare,

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

One would have thought you mastered the pre-Platonic proposition - which is generally handled by six-year olds - that to go to heaven Jesus had to be dead first.

Never thought of essence as something that could be partitioned, but what the heck..

Really ? Tell me about it ! That's what the verse says, doesn't it ?

He died in order to consecrate (hagiazō) people through his own blood.

This looks like another of your very clever dodges.

The technical procedure of the sacrifice is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. And the issue simply is this: did Christ (of the writer of Hebrews) have to die on earth for his death to be meaningful to the readers of the epistle ? I believe it is clear as day, he did.

'At every turn' ???.......Earl, you have to show us the places where this is actually offered by the text, not just try to bully people into admitting it says something quite the opposite of what it actually says.

Now, on the purification step, I have already told you -I believe that part did happen in heaven (as per Heb 3:1 referencing Zech 3). But the sacrifice ? Not likely at all !
In other words, heads you win, tails I lose ! :huh:
You are a great sport, Earl !
I told you, I find your argument technically flawed as it assumes from the start that the reading of "if..on earth" in 8:4 as relating to contemporaneous time of the author, is faulty. You fail to analyze the option on its merits, inventing instead all sorts of patently false or irrelevant reasons why this reading would not work.

As for the perceived lack of smarts, I can't help looking stupid to you, but trust that I understand enough of your style of argument to see you are hellbent on carrying on a sour-grapes soliloquies when caught in an indefensible position.

I feel strangely assured you have a clue, Earl; I am sure you are getting the message loud and clear !

TedM

well said, solo. Waiting with baited breath for the response...