stephan huller

But Philippians 4:5 - ὁ κύριος ἐγγύς? If you are right, isn't the Lord really far away? The Christianity always taught that the Lord who was formerly far away is now near and is brought near by communion in the Church (= Ephesians 2:13).

stephan huller

Clement on Ephesians. The Hebrews are far off, the Christians are near:

The emboldened text is for 'those who are near.' I don't see how these things can be associated with a God who is far away.

aa5874

What BS!!! People who know Greek Reject your translation---your own peers.

Suddenly you have become "judge, jury and executioner".

Again, the Canonised Epistle to the Hebrews is NOT the foundation of Christianity but an Anonymous writing of unknown date of authorship that was NOT known or mentioned by Apologetic writers even up to the end on the 2nd century.

And, it is clear that the author of the Epistle was aware of a story of Jesus and claimed Jesus God's Son who was in the Flesh, spake unto the Hebrews, suffered without the gate and died..

[U]Hebrews 2. 16-17 In the Epistle, Jesus the Son of God, did NOT take on the nature of angels but of the seed of Abraham.

In the Epistle, Jesus was God Incarnate.

Up to the end of the 2nd century, The Epistle to the Hebrews appears to have been unknown to Marcion, Ireaneus and Tertullian based on "Against Heresies" and "Against Marcion".

stephan huller

And I was just thinking about this as I was working on something else. You are saying Jesus isn't on the earth but sends his spirit instead. But isn't Jesus a spirit anyway? So the idea that he sent his spirit really isn't an argument against the gospel narrative. Couldn't he have been 'in spirit' in the gospel narrative? I guess my question is - what is the difference between being a spiritual being in heaven who sends his spirit and a spiritual being who walked the face of the earth? Why does one preclude the other?

Chili

And where do you think heaven is at?

EarlDoherty

You are really reaching here, Stephan. I have never encountered any such exegesis of Eph. 2:13. In fact, the text clearly says otherwise.

The "you" refers to those whom Paul is addressing, namely the gentiles. It is not Christ who was far away and became near. This is the idea that the gentiles were outside the boundaries of salvation, but are now able to enter into that privilege through Christ's death, one of the Pauline principles which he more than once preaches to his gentile audience (such as in Gal. 3)

As for Phil. 4:5, you read far too much into it. Paul is simply saying, behave in such-and-such a way for the Lord is near. He even uses the present tense. Is Jesus still on earth? Isn't he back in heaven on the right hand of God? How often have you heard things like, Be good, for God is near. He is here in spirit, that is all.

Stephan, you can't atomistically twist and contort texts and simply read your own preferences into them.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Why does this not surprise me? It probably doesn't surprise anyone else. It was a waste of time to begin with.

Earl Doherty

stephan huller

But this is precisely my point. Your whole approach to the material is that our existing canon 'is' the canon, each text, is correct. I converse with many well known experts on the material who can understand the nuance that there isn't a monolithic text of 'Romans,' '1 Corinthians' etc. For example, I was just speaking with David Trobisch last week and the week before. He noted how he has to adjust his inherited thinking with respect to the Marcionite canon. It is challenge for him, his way of thinking. I don't think you have demonstrated yourself capable of that. You want Ephesians to be 'Ephesians' - like the black monolith from 2001 A Space Odyssey. I just don't get it.

Just look at what I demonstrated from Clement. How does that square with our existing text?

stephan huller

Let me put it another way. We know that there were at least two different versions of almost every letter of the New Testament canon. One was in the possession of the 'God through a woman' tradition. The other text was associated with traditions (tradition) which put forward a supernatural Jesus descending from heaven. Clement puts in the Stromata consistently puts forward a supernatural Jesus. His canonical citations and his inferences from scripture betray that he had in possession a very different canon - the heretical canon. This other canon was widely held. How then can you use the 'God through a woman' canon to understand Clement let alone Marcion? If there was this other canon associated with the 'supernatural Jesus' tradition, you simply can't use the 'God through a woman' canon to understand the 'supernatural Jesus' tradition.

First of all, the existence of separate canon means - more than likely - that those positing a supernatural Jesus didn't use the 'God through a woman' canon. It's like learning how to make love to a woman from gay porn. There is a related idea (copulation) but we are dealing with two very different traditions, two different interpretations, two separate ways of life. It's just different.

EarlDoherty

But in the Gospels Jesus is very much a human being, not a spirit. (If Marcion had written the Gospels or even an Ur-Luke, he would have made his spirit nature clear. Not even Tertullian accuses him of doing that.) And the epistles do NOT present a spiritual Jesus who walks the earth. If you are going to keep presenting these bizarre objections and mistreatments of the texts, I can see that this discussion is not going to go anywhere.

Earl Doherty