gstafleu

Just a quick question. If the heavens include that heavenly Jerusalem, would at least that part of the heavens then perhaps become part of the oikuomene, of the inhabited regions?

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

Only if the heavenly Jerusalem is part of the inhabited earth. Can you show that it is?

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

Which not only does not adduce Heb. 1:2 as having the sense you say it does, but goes on to note that in NT expressions parallel to Heb. 1:2 the import of διά with the genitive is to designate Jesus "... as intermediary" not agent "in the creation of the world".




Jeffrey

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Some student, I think, asked a few days ago, about the relationship of Greek and Hebrew concepts of the heavens. Here are some good websites that talk about Hebrew and ancient cosmology.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/m.../cosmology.htm

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Thr...edUniverse.htm

http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/heavens.html

It might be relevant to the conversation that Isaiah appears to place God on Earth and in the heavens at the same time.

Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."

To get a good understanding of First century cosmology, we should keep some facts in mind.

Mount Hermon is the largest Mountain in Israel. 2,814 meters (9,230 feet)

Mount Sinai where the Hebrew God lived is 2,285 meters (7,496 feet)

Mount Olympus 2,917 meters (9,570 ft).

The altitude of the old city of Jerusalem 760 meters (2,500 ft).

The average cruising altitude for a jumbo jet is 12,000 meters (39,000) feet

What I found interesting is that the no Hebrew Biblical text puts God outside the firmament which divides the upper and lower waters.

We should assume that by the first century C.E., all the mountains in Israel had been pretty well explored and no God found, so the Hebrews had to move their God to a somewhat higher mountain, one that would have been even higher than Mount Olympus' three kilometers. So the heavens or home of God would be envisaged as a city on a mountaintop about four kilometers high (or about one-third the height that a jumbo jet cruises at).

The Romans had to come from 2,510 kilometers away. So, in the final battle, described in Revelation, between Rome and Judea, the angel Jesus and his troops would have a decided advantage, only needing to descend four kilometers from heaven on their horses to reach the battlefield.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Jeffrey Gibson

Some "student"???

And what you were asked by that "student" to adduce were "Jewish texts that show unambiguously that Jewish views of "heaven" were one and the same with the Greco Roman view of the home of the Olympians", not websites, let alone pictures drawn up by people who lived well after the first century CE.

See http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...32#post5037232

So .. may we have these Jewish texts?

Jeffrey

gstafleu

Hm, that depends on the definition. Of course if you define oikoumene to mean "the inhabited earth, not heavens" then the heavenly Jerusalem is of course outside the oikumene. But if it means "the inhabited regions of the universe" it is inside. Here is what Lidell-Scott says:
I've bolded some bits. It seems that at least here inhabitation is an important criterion. Now, if the heavenly Jerusalem has heavenly inhabitants...

Gerard Stafleu

Ted Hoffman

I hope you all note that now that Jeffery's assertions have been falsified by Earl, Jeffrey has swiftly moved on to latch onto something else and started splitting hairs. No admission of error and for wasting our time with nonsense and gratuitous Greek when he should know better.
It is important that all and sundry note that Earl's case is built upon several documents written by Early Christians, not isolated texts. James Madison should note this but from his arguments with Gerard, he has already made his mind about the entire case.
At any rate, welcome back Earl.

James Madison

I know the answer to this question already but I am going to ask it. What significance or relevance do you perceive those documents, by early christians, have in regards to understanding Hebrews? Next, what early christian documents are you talking about?

In regards to my exchange with Gerard, well, quite simply he was not introducing any compelling evidence or logic to persuade me.

Jeffrey Gibson

They have?

I have? Can you be specific on where and how I did this?

Since you yourself don't know Greek, how do you know that the Greek I adduce is "gratuitous"?

Can you tell me why you think it is legitimate to build one's case about a first century writing upon texts that were written well after the first century?

And if it is, then let us note how Earl (and you) are hoisted on your own petard with respect to ἐν ταῖς ἡμ�*ραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ. Oecumenius has ὅταν ἦν ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς for this. On your criteria for determining what the author of Hebrews is saying -- i.e., look at what later writers about subject mooted by the author of Hebrews and accept that what these writers say about that subject is what the author of Hebrews is saying -- ἐν ταῖς ἡμ�*ραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ has to be a reference to Jesus' "earthly" life.

Anyone here want to take bets on how Ted/Jacob will try to have his cake and eat it too on this one? Will we have an appeal to the "historicists are committed to saying this" card?

Jeffrey

gstafleu

Are you sure that Christ only became a priest after his sacrifice? Here is the NRSV text:
At least in the English it is not clear that the being made a priest necessarily came after the sacrifice, "having been designated" can refer to any time. Is the Greek more clear on the matter? And what does this have to do with the present discussion (not that it isn't an interesting question)?

Gerard Stafleu