Gamera

And how do you know who wrote it on the gate and why? And if you don't assume Augustus existed, how would you place the epigraphy to the time of Augustus.

I have a gate that has this text on it "Northen Gate Company." Does he own my house?

Indeed why would the emperor of Rome of all people in the world have to put his name on his gate? Are you apologists suggesting that the mailman didn't know the address of the emperor? This sounds very suspicious.

Try again.

spin

As I said, it will be interesting to see just how much you are prepared to jettison in your effort to bolster your position in a vain reductio ad absurdum.

Non sequitur.

Did the gate exist before there was a northern gate company?? Oh, I forget, you won't be able to answer that.

As you have no criterion on which to draw for the suspicion -- because any evidence you might like to rely on for the suspicion you will have to jettison --, your suspicion is baseless. In fact, it would seem that you can't say anything about the past.

I can imagine that in the end you'll fall to Berkeley and not be able to say that anything outside yourself exists.


Why?

Can you remember why you are posting here?


spin

LGM

I believe the Epic of Gilgamesh is closer in time to the great worldwide flood then the Genesis account. Most reasonable historians must therefore accept that that account is true and the Genesis one is false.

Keep up the amusing generalizations.

Gregg

LOL. It's a "modern concept" that imperfect earthly things have perfect heavenly counterparts, or that events in the spiritual realm have effects on the world of matter?

Who needs pagan mystery cult beliefs? Read the Ascension of Isaiah, read Hebrews. I mean, read Hebrews! G'Don, it explicitly says that Jesus' blood offering (which for the author of Hebrews in no way resembles Calvary or even Paul's vision of Jesus' crucifixion) would have no permanent effect had it taken place on Earth. What more evidence do you want?

Or look at Paul, if you will. Take out references to "Christ crucified" and "betrayal" and "breaking bread" (things which you will probably insist cannot happen in a spiritual dimension) and where does Paul talk about Jesus' earthly ministry? As I've mentioned before, he completely cuts Jesus' ministry out of the picture. The good news was revealed by God directly to him through scripture and vision, and the ministry of salvation is his ministry (and that of apostles like him to whom the Truth was revealed in much the same way). No man revealed it to him. If Paul, like the author of Hebrews, believes that the sacrifice took place in the heavens, the logical inference is that he believes things that happen "up there" affect things "down here." As in Heaven, so on Earth.

Have you considered the possibility that we are not applying "modern" concepts to the ancient world, but rather that modern fantasy ... from H.P. Lovecraft to Lord of the Rings to Twilight Zone to Star Wars ... has rather made it easier for the modern, rational mind to grasp in some fashion the ancient worldview?

GakuseiDon

Nope. The modern concept is that pagan stories about the gods set on earth actually occured in another dimension. Look, I'm either right or I'm not. Won't someone actually please start looking at the evidence on this either way?

Gregg, you have Doherty's book. What references does he give on this for the pagan side? Cite them, and let's have a look to see if they really do support him.

I've asked for examples below as well. Mind you, I don't want a "multitude of examples", just a couple will do, to support Doherty's view of pagan beliefs.

What is "the spiritual realm", and what is "the world of matter", according to the people of Paul's time? Can you give some cites to show how they thought that "the spiritual realm" affected "the world of matter"?

I have. Which part should I read?

The citation, please.

What do you make of this:
http://www.bede.org.uk/price3.htm

According to Hebrews, Jesus 1) came "into the world," 2) "took part" "in all things" human in "flesh and blood" form, 3) was of the "the seed of Abraham," 4) was born of "the tribe of Judah,"

Hebrews 5:7-8: " In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered."

What is a "spiritual dimension", and can you give me references for it please? Can you give any examples of people "breaking bread" in a "spiritual dimension"? Does Doherty give any examples? Or should we just not worry about it?

OTOH, if Hebrews seems to be talking about a flesh-and-blood Jesus without referring to his ministry, perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised that Paul doesn't either.

Can you give me some examples of things happening "up there" affecting things "down here"? Or, at least can you give me Doherty's examples.

No, but I'm willing to look at it. Can you give me some references that demonstrate this please? Or, at least can you give me Doherty's examples.

I think you can see my pattern here. Again, I'm not after a "multitude of examples". But if there is nothing that backs Doherty up on specific points that he makes, then perhaps that should lead to further questions.

driver8

Bravo. :notworthy: This world is in dire need of truth.

Steve Weiss

That is if one accepts that there is such a thing as truth, which many (skeptics and subjectivists) do not. The fact that many accepted "truths" are invalid when they are submitted to a critical examination does not mean that there is no truth. To state that a claim is false means that it departs from the truth and that there is a truth to measure the false against. In other words, one says that a claim is incorrect because the truth is....x. Errors in reasoning often occur because one may be very sloppy in accepting as a starting point a premise which has not been validated. Only falsehood can follow from a false premise no matter how perfectly one follows logic.

Gregg

No, this isn't the "modern concept." I don't understand where you're getting this. Doherty only suggests that the pagan mystery cults may have evolved from seeing the sacrices/activities of the gods from having occurred in a primordial past on Earth to a more Greek Platonist model of seeing them as having occurred in the spiritual world. He also suggests that the average cult initiate may not have held such a sophisticated view.

And you are really getting hung up on this "dimension" thing. We are not talking about the ancients perceiving dimensions in terms of quantum physics or anything. We are talking about them believing in the supernatural, in things beyond the world of matter, that had more reality and permanence than things in the physical, temporal world. Can you really look at ancient beliefs from just about any religion or culture--Egyptian, Hindu, etc.--and deny they believed things like this? You want us to provide examples of the pagan cultists using Twilight Zone language ... well, it isn't going to happen. We're just trying to describe ancient thought-patterns in a way that makes sense to the modern mind.

I think I'll just stop using that word "dimension" since it causes such difficulty for you. Heavens, spirit worlds, place where the gods and demons live, etc. -- surely you won't deny that ancients of many cultures believed in a vast invisible realm beyond our human senses, usually located above and sometimes below the Earth, or even in the air around us, will you? Just don't call it a dimension!Am at work right now and don't have much time, so will have to look into this later.I'm not really sure the view you think Doherty has of pagan beliefs, IS the view he has of pagan beliefs. I don't think Doherty says anything is certain about pagan mystery cult views during the time period in question, although I don't have his book at hand and don't have time to check the web site right now. But I'll get back on this one.Well, let's see. Ancient people thought spiritual beings created the universe and everything in it. They thought gods gave humans morals and rules and taught them about fire and such. They thought gods fought on their behalf. They thought spiritual beings spoke in their dreams. They thought gods caused the changes of the seasons. They thought gods caused floods and volcanic eruptions and plagues.

Yet somehow it is some huge stretch to think that they could believe a god being sacrificed in heaven could effect their salvation on earth.And the writer of Hebrews clearly establishes that the Christ was never ON EARTH. You can't just quote the above parts while ignoring the part where he says the blood offering has no permanent effect unless it takes place in heaven.Again, let's forget that word "dimension." Put it out of your mind please. Do you deny that the ancients believed in the heavens, in invisible spiritual beings, in things not of "flesh" but still very real?

As to examples of people breaking bread in a spiritual WORLD, yeah. Paul says Jesus broke bread. From his silence on any earthly ministry for Jesus and his claim to have received the gospel purely from scripture and divine revelation, we can establish that Jesus did not have an earthly ministry. Therefore, Jesus broke the bread somewhere other than earth. Where else is there besides Earth? Well, there's the air, the space above the Earth, and the space below the Earth. We know from the zillions of different spiritual beliefs that people have come up with over the millennia that lots of folks have believed there were beings of various types running around up there, down there, even invisibly in the air around them (remember Martin Luther throwing a bottle of ink at Satan?). The Vikings believed in Valhalla, where their gods who they never actually saw not only broke bread, but ate bbq, drank, partied hearty, then went out and fought all day and got killed then came back to life to do it all over the next day. The Greek and Roman gods fornicated and mated with human women. I mean what do you WANT, G'Don?
No, I'm rather surprised. The One from whom the universe was made and through whom the universe is reconciled to God comes to earth and lives a human life, and nobody cares. Nobody evinces the least interest in that human life, except its ending. Not until, supposedly, some 50 years later, and then they apparently don't really know what went down so they base the entire earthly ministry on the Torah and build the passion and crucifixion line by line from scripture.Yes. Jesus' blood offering "up there" brings salvation "down here," just as the author of Hebrews says. Got it? Or are you going to post those other quotes from Hebrews again? You already know what the mythicist explanation is. The author of Hebrews clearly establishes that the blood offering takes place in heaven because if it took place on Earth it would have no permanent effect. Therefore, it makes no sense to assume that "coming into the world" and "days of his flesh" and so on refer to a birth and human life on Earth, especially coupled with the fact that no details of this human life appear in the NT epistles, and Paul literally writes any earthly ministry for Jesus out of the picture. Is it really that difficult to conceive of ancients believing that a god could take on the qualities of being human--"born of a woman" and so forth--without actually coming to Earth?

You keep asking for examples, but I'm not sure what you're expecting. It seems to me the writer of Hebrews explains it quite clearly. Had Jesus been on Earth, Jesus' blood offering would have no more effect than that of the priestly sacrifices in the Temple. Ergo, the sacrifice was not on Earth. But he also talks about Jesus seemingly as a human being. OK. Why should taking on human characteristics, without actually being born and living a human life, be difficult for an omnipotent god? Gods of all cultures and religions could do all sorts of things. What is the barrier here?

GakuseiDon

Then let's start looking at the evidence. Arguments by assertion are simply not useful, on either side. Sure, we can't rule out that they thought any one particular way, but we CAN say that the evidence supports one side rather than another. If you want to argue that "Surely pagans could have believed xxx", then yes, I will say, "Sure, perhaps you are correct, but what is the EVIDENCE for this?" These are the questions that AREN'T being asked of Doherty AFAICS.

Gregg, I wasn't the one that introduced the term "dimension". If you want to call it a "spiritual realm", then that is fine. As long as the term is defined from the writings of the day. It doesn't have to be strict, there doesn't have to be a multitude of examples, but it has to be something that can be examined to see if other claims are consistent with that.

Well, we can imagine it, so perhaps that is enough. How about: an earthly crucifixion has resonances in heaven? That the blood spilt on earth can be an offering in heaven? Can you imagine that?

In you can, then how do we decide to determine which of the two is a better explanation? Isn't the only way to decide is to look at the evidence? And what if someone says that their view is supported by pagan writings -- what do we do in that case other than by examining the pagan writings?

Surely the people of that time could have believed that the blood offered on earth could be carried to heaven? Let me paraphrase you from earlier: Can you really look at ancient beliefs from just about any religion or culture--Egyptian, Hindu, etc.--and deny they believed things like this? (I'm not really trying to be ironic, but I hope you can see the problem in using such arguments by assertion)

Yes. And do you deny that beings "in the flesh" and descendent from earthly people are never portrayed as living purely in a spiritual realm?

That is the one-horse argument that sustains Doherty supporters, and that they can't wrap their heads around. However, we have LOTS of examples that are similar, up into the Third Century. Surely you can't deny that we have those other examples?

How about primary sources from that time supporting the view that "fleshly" earthly activities were thought to occur in a non-earth location. Where did the Greek and Roman gods fornicate with human women? Where did they carry out their activities?

Then why is Christ entering heaven?
Heb 9:24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us

And where is he going back to?
Heb 9:28 ... To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

This earlier thread also looked at Hebrews:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=173350

No, I can imagine it quite easily. It's the evidence for such a belief that is difficult to find.

Evidence. "In the days of his flesh", "seed of David", "tribe of Judah" places Jesus on earth. "Entering heaven" shows Jesus wasn't in heaven originally. "Appear a second time" indicates a return to earth. AFAICS all you have is argument by assertion, along the lines "surely we can imagine..." or "they believed lots of weird things, so they could have believed this also". I agree, but I just don't know how you can draw the line using such arguments. We may just as well claim the opposite, using the same reasoning for support.

I think that the evidence in Hebrews doesn't support your view. Now, if you want to claim that there was a non-earthly location where people were "in the flesh", "of the tribe of Judah", etc, that wasn't heaven, I'd like to see the evidence. Imagination is fine, but as the old saying goes, "sweet words butter no parsnips".

Clivedurdle

Is that not easy to answer? The heavenly one because there the sacrifice happens in the presense of god, and the platonic idea that heaven is real and this life a shadow kicks in. A sacrifice here in the imperfect world would by definition be an imperfect sacrifice. And the only place on earth that is holy is in the temple by the ark of the covenant, and there are no stories about it happening there, and surely it should be a burnt offering.

Has anyone asked if the quote from Hebrews above about a second coming is an interpolation?

If we have Christ saying it is finished, and the idea that a perfect sacrifice has happened and the kingdom of heaven is with us, does not the second coming become a later theological "improvement" to cope with the fact people are dying and sin is still around?