Bingo the Clown-O

Yep.

Cut it out Earl.

Sheshbazzar

The idea you presented in the bolded portion above intrigues me.
Did these Church Fathers believe that a 'supernatural being' in the guise of the name 'Iesous' came down and -inhabited- the body of Oshea? or this 'supernatural being/name/Iesous' entered or put on and wore Oshea's human flesh like it were a garment to be put on and taken off?

I have always been taught, and led to believe that these former 'Joshua's' of the OT were only fully human 'types' of The coming Messiah.
This is the first that I've encountered where it is suggested that one (or more?) of these 'types' was actually transformed into a supernatural being or a embodiment for a supernatural being.

Does this in your view, indidcate that after Oshea became 'Yah-oshea'- 'Yehoshua', that this man himself became an embodied supernatural being or the living embodiment of a supernatural being? Joshua the son of Nun actually -being- the physical embodiment of a supernatural being?
(Seems like Joshua the son of Nun would not then have had any need for miracles provided by Elohim, himself being the embodiment of Elohim)

Do you have any specific texts from the Church Fathers that you believe were intended to convey such a concept? If so I'd be most interested in pursuing this idea further.

EarlDoherty

And I have shown that it does. I showed it in the Appendix which Jake urged me to post here, and which clearly neither he nor anyone else has actually read. (So what's the point of bothering?) If he had, he would not have made that "niggling" posting about the writer referring to the Sinai tabernacle and not the ongoing Temple cult, as though it signified anything. A complaint such as I made in response to that posting was not ad hominem. It was a legitimate complaint that Jake's (and others') responses here are usually shallow, show no real knowledge of the document in question, and refuse to read my writings on the subject, even when they are handed to them on a platter.

The reason why he and others here, along with Robert Price, can be considered wrong about this question is to be found in the arguments I put forward in that Appendix. Here is a sample (I've bolded the passages which make my point directly):

Until Jake (or maryhelena, or anyone else) actually engages with my arguments, rather than simply having recourse to accusations that my complaints about their lack of doing so are ad hominem, the situation will unfortunately continue. And I am still awaiting Jake's substantive rebuttal to my "hair-splitting" response to Ted, as well as any counter-argument he wishes to make to my Appendix on Hebrews which he pleaded with me to post and then has ignored. Clearly, he is not capable of such responses, but prefers instead to argue over whether I am "shrill" or not. No scholarship is needed for that, apparently.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Earl

Your position has JC crucified in a sub-lunar sphere and offering the value of that sacrifice, the blood, in the heavenly tabernacle.
Resulting in the setting up of a New Covenant; the Old Law Covenant with it’s literal sacrifices becoming obsolete.

Since a sub-lunar crucifixion can have no dating structure - the time period between this crucifixion and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is undefined. Thus, the Jerusalem temple would still be functioning simultaneously with the new heavenly, spiritual, New Covenant. In other words, from that perspective, the Jerusalem temple is functioning in an illegitimate manner. It’s sacrifices no longer have any value. There is a period of time from when the Jerusalem temple sacrifices became valueless and that temple is destroyed. (70 c.e.) A period of time when that Jerusalem temple functioned illegitimately.

However, the text makes no mention of the Jerusalem temple. It only makes reference to the tabernacle that Moses built.

The question then arises as to whether there was a historical time period in which that Jerusalem temple could be viewed as being illegitimate. Thereby allowing ideas of a heavenly temple and a heavenly sacrifice to develop.

(my above post suggests that this was from 37 b.c.)

Hebrews 8.4 is not referencing the Jerusalem temple. It is using the tabernacle of Moses as a parallel with the heavenly tabernacle. Why? For the parallel that the writer of Hebrews wants to make - that Jesus would not be a priest if he was on earth - that required that a tabernacle, a legitimate sanctuary be paralleled. (Since the Jerusalem temple, from a Hasmonean perspective, could be viewed as illegitimate.)

And why could Jesus not be a priest if he was on earth? If the Jesus of Hebrews was crucified on earth then he could not be a priest and offer his blood as a sacrifice. Why? Simple, human blood is not an acceptable sacrifice under the Law. It has no value. The Hebrews Jesus could not be a priest on earth. It is only in a spiritual context, where a symbolic blood offering is made, that such a ‘blood’ sacrifice can have a spiritual, an intellectual, a heavenly, salvation value.

What this is suggesting is that in the NT we are dealing with two Jesus stories. The Hebrews story of Jesus as a high priest offering a blood sacrifice, an offering, in a heavenly tabernacle, that is able to have a salvation value. The Jesus of the gospel story undergoes a crucifixion, an earthly crucifixion, that is valueless. Or, as Dawkins once wrote: “Among all the ideas ever to occur to a nasty human mind (Paul’s of course), the Christian “atonement” would win a prize for pointless futility as well as moral depravity”.

Earl, the Jesus of the gospel story and the Jesus of Hebrews are not synonymous entities. These two NT figures serve vastly different purposes. They function in two different contexts - and need to be interpreted within their specific contexts.

If the Jesus of Hebrews was on earth he would not be a priest offering a sacrifice at the illegitimate Jerusalem temple. If the Jesus of Hebrews was on earth he would not be offering a sacrifice at any temple - not even the tabernacle of Moses. The sacrifice of human blood is an abomination.

Hebrews 8.4 is not referencing the gospel Jesus story. That gospel story has to be interpreted within its own context. Hebrews 8.4 is not a 'smoking gun' against the JC of the historicists. Only history has the potential for that - not otherworldly philosophizing...

EarlDoherty

Well, glory be! We finally have someone willing to admit that, as far as the writer of Hebrews is concerned, there was no Jesus on earth!

I fully agree that Hebrews does not reference the gospel story. (I am assuming that your admission is not limited to 8:4, but the entire epistle.) It then becomes encumbent to figure out where the Gospel story came from, and that is something I have provided an answer for. For the ministry dimension, it essentially came from the Q ethos as representative of a preaching movement in the first century. For the dying and rising dimension, it probably came from the influence of, or even syncretism with, the Christ cult, though I have allowed the possibility (and only that) that it was simply part of the allegory Mark created without connection to the Christ cult of Paul.

But none of that demonstrates in any way that Paul's cult and that of the epistles in general was based on an historical Jesus or any other particular historical figure. Quite the contrary, the epistles constantly tell us that the figure of Christ the Son and what he did was derived from scripture, and the primary characterization of this Christ and Son was based on Greek and Jewish Logos/Wisdom philosophy and soteriology. There is virtually zero indication that he was inspired by any historical tradition. Just because crucifixion was a cultural characteristic says nothing about the derivation of Paul's Christ.

I have just reproduced for Jake that section from my Appendix which demonstrates that it does refer to the Jerusalem temple (the bolded parts). It refers to the still-existing sacrificial cult which is on its way to disappearing. That is a reference to the Jerusalem temple! I was right that neither you nor Jake even read the thing.

Then shortly afterward, you narrow that down to Hebrews 8:4, claiming that this verse does not reference the Jerusalem temple. Of course it does. It is a reference to the ongoing practice of the priests offering sacrifices on earth, in contrast to Jesus who had to perform his in heaven. That is probably why the writer chose to use the imperfect tenses rather than the aorist, because the cult is still ongoing. Your convoluted business about not having an identifiable time frame for the occurrence of Jesus' sacrifice in heaven does not render the writer's intention to be saying that the earthly priests were doing their sacrifices at the same time as Jesus' act in heaven. There is no sign of any such thing anywhere in the text, and what would be the point of trying to slip in such a thing so obscurely in that solitary verse?

No, Hebrews 8:4 is not a smoking gun against the historicity per se of the Gospel story. It is a smoking gun in favor of no HJ in the minds of a vast amount of Christian literature lying outside the Gospels and seeming to have no connection with them.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

No, No, No!!! You have already admitted and argued that Hebrews 8.4 is ambiguous.

Ambiguity is NOT a smoking gun but admits confusion.

RParvus

Stephan,

I am skeptical about whether those Corinthian passages “which have been interpreted by scholars as being directed against supposed gnostic tendencies” did in fact have gnostics in view. The author of the 1 and 2 Corinthians comes across as far more gnostic than his opponents. In light of that, it could have gotten sticky for 1 Clement had it tried to use the questionable passages. Moreover, many of them appear to deal more with the speculative side of Gnosticism. And so they would not really have been of much use to undercut Marcionism. Marcion’s brand of gnosticism—as far as is known—eschewed many of the speculative elements characteristic of other gnosticisms.

No, I think that the author of 1 Clement was probably wise to limit his borrowing from 1 Corinthians to its admonition against schism. In the eyes of the proto-orthodox, Marcion was not only a heretic; he was the greatest schismatic in the early church. “I shall rend your church” was the threat that Epiphanius put on his lips. 1 Clement, as I see it, fabricated an earlier fictitious rending of the Corinthian church—a rending that it teasingly describes right at the beginning of the letter as “so alien and strange to the elect of God”(ch. 1)—in order to providentially warn the faithful of his own day about the rending of the church by Marcion, the proponent of a new “alien and strange” God.

RParvus

Stephan,

If by the time of Irenaeus chapter 13 of Hebrews had already been added to the epistle (to make it appear Pauline), his problem with it may have been the same one that many others had: Hebrews is clearly not Pauline. That is the explanation Steven Gobarus later gave for Irenaeus. True, others tried to get around the Pauline authorship problem in various ways. Some suggested, for example, that Paul provided the ideas for it to Luke or some other author who did the actual writing. But perhaps Irenaeus was reluctant to go that route. If my scenario regarding the origin of 1 Clement and Hebrews is correct, Irenaeus may have realized he didn’t need Hebrews to refute Simonianism anyway. 1 Clement can do that. Even though 1 Clement was the later of the two writings, by undercutting Marcionism—which was in effect a subsequent development and extension of Simon’s doctrine—it also exposes Simon’s errors. Irenaeus, in his praise of 1 Clement, probably saw both Simon and Marcion as included in the blasphemous group “who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things.”

RParvus

Hello Earl,

I think Hebrews did not need to be rambling. Simonianism, since it was the earliest Christian gnosticism and the seed of the others, was less developed. The proto-orthodox heresy hunters usually dispose of it in a few paragraphs. But Marcionism, coming a century later, was more developed. Simon had been selective in his use of the Old Testament; Marcion dismissed all of it as being unrelated to the Father of Jesus. And by the time of Marcion a written gospel featuring a Jesus with a public ministry had appeared. Thus, an additional reason why Marcion’s system required more proto-orthodox response time. As you know, Tertullian devoted five volumes to Marcion’s “errors”.

So I am not surprised that the author of 1 Clement had to go, as you say, “all over the place.,” For, as I see it, he had a lot of ground to cover. He needed to cover not only the errors Marcion shared with Simon, but also the major of the supposed antitheses Marcion found between the God of the Jews and the Father of Jesus. Thus, for example, the author of 1 Clement had to show, contra Marcion, that the Creator God is both good and yet to be feared. This is not something he had to do in his anti-Simonian treatise (i.e., Hebrews). And he had to vouch, by word and examples, for the whole of the Jewish Scripture. Considering all that he had to cover, I am in admiration that he was able to do it in ONLY 65 rambling chapters! And do it all the while trying to avoid anything that would tip his hand!

Read 1 Clement and ask yourself: Who stood to benefit from such a portrayal of the post-apostolic Roman and Corinthian churches as proto-orthodox? You can, if you like, take it at face value and thank God—as did Irenaeus—that we have such clear testimony that these churches were thoroughly proto-orthodox and free from all gnostic taint. But I myself can’t help thinking: “If something is too good to be true, it probably isn’t.” Read the beginning of the letter where the trouble is described as “so alien and strange to the elect of God” (with its use of the same two Greek words that Marcion used for his God; See Blackman’s “Marcion and his Influence,” p. 74). Providential? Or coincidence? Or is it rather too suspiciously good to be true?


Just because an author tries to hide his agenda doesn’t mean he will succeed. Some forgers are no doubt better than others. Many of the more obvious forgeries have been found out (e.g., the Pastorals. See Bart Ehrman’s “Forgery and Counterforgery in Early Christianity” for many more examples). It would be nice if we could rest assured that all the early Christian deception had finally been exposed. But I myself don’t think we have yet reached that point.


I grant that the author of Hebrews knew no public ministry of the Son on earth. I think the first gospel with a public ministry (gMark) may have been written about the same time that Hebrews was (early 130s). But, as you know, the epistle is not absolutely clear about where the Son “came to” and “appeared,”and where his “weakness,” “suffering,” “testing,” “prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears,” and “death” took place. This is not surprising if, as I am proposing, Hebrews was written by the proto-orthodox as an early substitute for Simon’s system. Since both Simon and the proto-orthodox located the Son’s suffering on earth, that is not something that would have needed to be spelled out. It was not a point of contention between them. My suspicion, then, is that the “little while” (Heb. 2:9) that the Son was made lower than the angels may have been believed to in fact be a human little while, not a divine one. A few hours perhaps; long enough for the Son to come down, transform himself, and then surreptitiously change places with a failed messiah being led out by the Romans for crucifixion.

I explained in my original comment how I see Hebrews as countering Simon’s errors. It speaks of the Son’s flesh and blood; Simon denied this. And it speaks of the Son’s suffering; again, something Simon denied. And it speaks of the visible world as being created by the Father of Jesus; again, something Simon denied. And that the Law, though merely a shadow of the future covenant, was still basically good and put in place by God; again, something denied by Simon. And that what the Son of God came to free mankind from was its sins. And that, to do that, propitiation is necessary; again, things that Simon denied.

In fact, I would not be surprised if the infamous verse 8:4 too was written with Simon’s most blasphemous error in view. For, as you know, Simon was on earth and he claimed to be a new manifestation of the Son. The author of Hebrews may be arguing that the Son cannot be on earth. His reason: If he were on earth, it would mean that he was no longer exercising his perfect priesthood in heaven. And that, as he repeatedly insists, is a major no no. The Son’s entry into heaven was perfect and could only take place once. And since that is the case, the Son in the meantime can only sit and wait for the end: “But this one offered one sacrifice for sins and took his seat forever at the right hand of God; now he waits until his enemies are made his footstool. For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated” (10:12-13).

So we can be quite sure that anyone (like Simon of Samaria) running around on earth claiming to be the Son is a phony. And Simon’s claim “to fill up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ” (Col. 1:24) is likewise a lie. Anyone who thinks otherwise “has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace.” (10:29). May God forbid!

stephan huller

Me too. But Irenaeus certainly must have claimed that (in fact if I was given enough time I could probably demonstrate that)