Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 02-26-2003, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie

Maybe Iasion or Layman will be happy to discuss this issue with you?

Not likely. I don't even know why this issue is in this thread.

IM is beyond reason on these two issues. He pulls interpolations out of thin air for no other reason than they make his pet theories discomforting. He claims that Hebrews does not compare Jesus to the temple cult's high priests, when he clearly does.

You are right. He is a type of fundamentalist. The fact that he's alone here shows that even his fellow mythicists can't find value in his arguments.

Ted Hoffman · 02-26-2003, 10:09 PM

Vinnie,
Thank you for sharing your position on the matter.
Layman,

Quote:

Not likely. I don't even know why this issue is in this thread.

You can ignore it now. I am comfortable with that.
You had said earlier:

Quote:

The answer is that you have not and really cannot prove that there were no synagouges in first century palestine. Vinnie has you on that issue.

If you feel content with labelling me for disagreeing with you, thats fine with me.

You can focus on Doherty's response.

Ted Hoffman · 02-26-2003, 10:46 PM

Other Fundamentalists (pedigrees, unlike me), going by Vinnie and Layman's arbitrary labelling are:
Elvar Ellegard,
Richard Horsley
Howard Clark Kee
Paul Flesher

Heck, some are what we call synagogue scholars.
And thats just from my horribly limited literature survey.
So dont go treating me as if I have a monopoly over being a fundamentalist on this. Its not unique to me.

Ted Hoffman · 02-27-2003, 12:31 AM

From Logical Fallacies of IronMonkey:

Quote:

Argumentum ad fundamentulum argument is a form of ad hominem that takes a form similar to the one below:

IM: Synagogues did not exist pre-70

L&V: They did, they did. Provide your quotation in full

IM: Ok, here is the complete argument

L&V: EP Sanders says the archaeological excavations could not be made in Tiberius etc because they are not allowed. Three synagogues have been identified but there are more only they are buried under the cities. <jumping up and down excitedly>Yaay! Yaay I have blown your argument out of the water! You have been had. Kaput! Finnished! Finito!

IM: <calmly>What are the names and locations in which these three synagogues were identified? Were cities and city buildings mostly built on old synagogues? The preponderant archaeological data indicates that there were no synagogues Pre-70 era in Palestine. A number of scholars share the same view I hold.

V: Ah, this is boring. You are a fundamentalist. Sanders has hit the nail on the head. I hate lengthy discussions. The gospels can not be dated on the basis of mentioning synagogues. I hate discussing with fundamentalists. Maybe Layman or Quentin can.

L: Not me, I hate fundamentalists too. I dont even know why we are discussing this. Even fellow mythicists have abandoned him because he is a fundamentalist.

The intention of those making this kind of fallacy is to attack the person making the argument so that he loses credibility while they divert the attention from the argument to the person they seek to stigmatize. Its other manifestation is seen in competitive sports where one competitor enters a race while confident in winning, but when the other competitor proves unbeatable, the perceived losers then resort to verbally/physically abusing the perceived winner or accusing them of using drugs etc. Normally, it arises from the difficulty people have in accepting losing an argument and being confronted with unassailable counterarguments. Another reason for this negative characterisation is the animosity people feel when they perceive a threat to their status or ideas they hold dear. Its mostly a knee-jerk, simple-minded response that is geared towards pain-avoidance. It is however, very common.

To deal with this fallacy, press those comitting it to focus on the arguments presented and not on the person presenting them.
Prevail upon them to refute arguments presented.

Vinnie · 02-27-2003, 09:03 AM

Some people can admit when they are shown wrong.....

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman · 02-28-2003, 01:44 AM

For Layman's rebuttal attempt to be valid and not a strawman, he would have to address the following two points which are explained in detail in Doherty's Supplementary article number 9 http://humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp09.htm . Because Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 9:27 is not based solely on the parallel that is broken (focusing on "ek deuteurou" alone) - a point on which Layman has thrown all his weight upon.
Layman must address the finer points of the argument and they include the two below:

(1.) The writer of Hebrews expresses Platonic ideas/thoughts in his writing. And its in line with his platonic leanings for a heavenly(Jesus') sacrifice to take place in heaven in parallel to the high priests sacrifice on earth. An earthly sacrifice of Jesus would shatter/ be inconsistent with the platonic framework
[quote]The structure of this thought is thoroughly Platonic, though it mirrors some longstanding Jewish ideas as well. I will quote Marcus Dods from his 1910 commentary on Hebrews in the Expositor�s Greek Testament (p.271), for he lays out the Platonic principle very succinctly:

[quote](The author�s focus on the �heavenly� represents) the contrast of this world and heaven, between that of the merely material and transient, and the ideal and abiding. Things of this world are material, unreal, transient; those of heaven are ideal, true, eternal. Heaven is the world of realities, of things themselves, of which the things here are but copies.

Quote:

....
What specifically constitutes the �sacrifice� which Christ offers, and where has it taken place? The �event� which the writer constantly focuses on seems not to be Christ�s death itself, but his action of entering the heavenly sanctuary and offering his blood to God. This is the redemptive action, the offering of himself. Obviously, the writer sees things this way because his Platonic philosophy requires a parallel to the earthly cult; in the tent on earth, it is the entry into the inner tabernacle and the offering there of the blood of the sacrificed animal which is the determining element of the Day of Atonement rite, not the slaughter outside which produced the blood. Thus the center of gravity in Hebrews is the entry of Christ into the heavenly sanctuary, bringing his own blood as an offering to God. This is what the writer seems to define as the act and location of the �sacrifice.�
...
Unfortunately for our understanding of things, all the writer ever refers to is this entry of Christ into the heavenly sanctuary. He never refers to Calvary, to Jesus� historical death, as part of the redeeming action. He never itemizes the death as a distinct feature of the sacrifice. -...So it would seem he regards the death of Jesus (wherever it took place) as part of the heavenly sacrifice, though not part of the most important action inside the sanctuary itself. Heavenly, because this sacrifice is �spiritual, eternal and unblemished� (9:14). Earthly sacrifices cleanse earthly copies, but �better sacrifices are required to cleanse heavenly things� (9:23). In the Platonic thinking of the writer such sacrifices, such blood, can only be spiritual and eternal.
And yet, there should be his problem. Jesus� blood was neither. He had lived on earth, he had been human in his incarnation, and human blood, the blood of matter, coursed in his veins. It was shed on a hill on earth, material, red and sticky. The sacrifice�or at least an essential part of it, a part which the tradition he supposedly received would certainly have regarded as essential�took place in the earthly realm, in the world of the transient, unreal copy of the heavenly. But such an earthly dimension would shatter his Platonic comparison. It would irreparably contaminate the purity of the earth / heaven, high priest / High Priest contrast on which his whole theology is based. The sacrifice had not been confined to the heavenly realm. It had a foot in both camps, and thus to some extent the writer would be comparing an earthly thing with another earthly thing.
Yet he shows no sign of being perturbed by any conflict in his theoretical universe. Instead, the picture is uniform because the author has extrapolated earthly figures and activities (the Jewish sacrificial cultus) into a heavenly embodiment which is the perfect archetype of the lower world copy.

(2.) The authors use of the word "Phaneroo"(appeared) in 9:24 and "hapax"(once) in 9:24 and Doherty's interpretation of the contextual meaning.
Layman needs to demonstrate that Doherty's contextual interpretation of those usage of two words above - perhaps including "emphainizo"(appear) is incorrect.
And,
(3.) Why, nowhere in the passage(s) does the author mention Jerusalem, Calvary, Pontius Pilate, or any earthly source or link of Jesus' sacrifice.

Then, and only then, will Layman be in a position to challenge Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28

Layman · 02-28-2003, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IronMonkey
For Layman's rebuttal attempt to be valid and not a strawman, he would have to address the following two points which are explained in detail in Doherty's Supplementary article number 9 http://humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp09.htm . Because Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 9:27 is not based solely on the parallel that is broken (focusing on "ek deuteurou" alone) - a point on which Layman has thrown all his weight upon.

Doherty's the one who claimed that his interpretaion of 9:27-28 could "stand alone."

Are you admitting that it cannot?

Quote:

Layman must address the finer points of the argument and they include the two below:

(1.)The writer of Hebrews expresses Platonic ideas/thoughts in his writing. And its in line with his platonic leanings for a heavenly(Jesus') sacrifice to take place in heaven in parallel to the high priests sacrifice on earth. An earthly sacrifice of Jesus would shatter/ be inconsistent with the platonic framework

Since I agree with Doherty that Jesus' offers himself as a sacrifice in heaven, I'm not sure what your point is.

Additionally, while it is true that the author of Hebrews expresses Platonic thought, it is very evidence that Platonic thought is not all, or even dominant, to its author. Or, that the author uses it in the way that Doherty assumes.

Quote:

The symbolism of Hebrews is complex, deriving from a variety of traditions. The search for a perfect correspondence between one tradition and this writing is futile, for Hebrews reshapes the available symbols around the figure of a crucified and exalted Messiah. A discussion of the symbolic framework is valuable only insofar as it helps us understand that new shaping. It has recently been argued, for example, that Hebrews most resembles the thought world of the Qumran sectarians. Both there and here, we find a New Covenant community, separation from cult with appropriation of its symbols, the expectation of a priestly as well as kingly messiah, even an interest in the figure of Melchizedek."

Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, at 420.

Quote:

Platonism is, however, entirely reworked by Hebrews. First, Hebrews shows a very acute awareness of history: God spoke of old, and speaks now, but differently. The past also serves as a type or example for the present, which is "greater" and "more real" (see 4:11). Second, the distinction between heaven and earth is not only cosmological, it is also existential. "Heaven" describes God's existence and all that can participate in it, whereas 'earth' denotes merely human existence. Third, Hebrews exalts rather than denigrates the physical. Only because Jesus was and had a body could he be a priest. His body, furthermore, is not cast off at death but exalted. Fourth, Hebrews emphasizes change: Christ came once and will come again; he was, for a little while, lower than the angels but is not exalted and enthroned. Platonism is here stretched and reshaped around belief in a historical human savior whose death and resurrection made both his body and time axiologically rich.

Johnson, at 422.

Quote:

Philo does not treat the Old Testament history as history, but as a framework for his philosophical ideas. But for the writer to the Hebrews the history is treated literally, as the catalogue in chapter 11 shows.

Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, at 707.

Quote:

In the use of the OT made by the two writers striking and fundamental differences appear.... On such fundamental subject as time, history, eschatology, the nature of the physical world, etc., the thoughts of Philo and the writer of Hebrews are poles apart.

Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (1970).

Quote:

When we consider only Philo and Hebrews, for example, we may be struck by the similarities, and even mislead into thinking the relationship closer than it actually was. When we take note also of the differences, and bring other factors into the reckoning, other documents which use the same ideas but in different ways, the picture becomes very different. More complicated, perhaps, but probably nearer the truth.

Hebrews, R. McL. Wilson, at 27.

Quote:

"Thirdly, as we have already noticed, whatever echoes of Platonic ideas we may find in the author's conception of heavenly archetype and earthly copy, the fact is quite undeniable that the two covenants, in their inferiority and superiority, also stand in sequential or horizontal relationship as earlier and later.

Hebrews and Hermeneutics, Graham Hughes, at 26.

Quote:

(2.)The authors use of the word "Phaneroo"(appeared) in 9:24 and "hapax"(once) in 9:24 and Doherty's interpretation of the contextual meaning.
Layman needs to demonstrate that Doherty's contextual interpretation of those usage of two words above - perhaps including "emphainizo"(appear) is incorrect.

You are going to have to explain this one if you want anyone to find it persuasive.

Quote:

And,
(3.) Why, nowhere in the passage(s) does the author mention Jerusalem, Calvary, Pontius Pilate, or any earthly source or link of Jesus' sacrifice.

So what? If memory serves me correctly, in seven letters Ignatius never once mentions Jerusalem or Calvary or Golgotha.

This is a completely ad hoc argument. Especially because Doherty admits that Jesus will make at least one appearance on earth. Obviously even his "theory" doesn't foreclose the possibility tha the the author of Hebrews could not have enviosioned ANY intervention by God on earth.

Quote:

Then, and only then, will Layman be in a position to challenge Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28

Nice (and desperate) try. Doherty claims that his interpretation of 9:27 can "stand alone." You have apparently conceded that it cannot and are trying to bootstrap it into your and Doherty's preconceived notions.

The evidence is overwhelming and indications are overwhelming that 9:27 is discussing another appearance of Jesus on earth.

Ted Hoffman · 03-01-2003, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Doherty's the one who claimed that his interpretaion of 9:27-28 could "stand alone."
Are you admitting that it cannot?

No.
The fact is that it does NOT stand alone - even if it can.
So whether or not it can stand alone is not that significant. Unless you just want to nitpick.

You should have titled this thread: "Doherty's ek- deuteurou argument cannot stand alone".
Your howling title is misleading because you aren't actually arguing that Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28 is dubious but that only one part of the pillars that he bases his argument cannot stand alone.

Quote:

Since I agree with Doherty that Jesus' offers himself as a sacrifice in heaven, I'm not sure what your point is.

The idea of heavenly sacrifices is consistent with other myths like that of sumerian mythical figure Attis who also suffered and was sacrificed - like Christ Jesus.
Hence the story of Jesus sacrifice, as related by the writer of Hebrews demonstrates that the author embraced a mythical christ.

Welcome to the christ myth community Layman.

Quote:

Additionally, while it is true that the author of Hebrews expresses Platonic thought, it is very evidence that Platonic thought is not all, or even dominant, to its author. Or, that the author uses it in the way that Doherty assumes.

Thanks for the scholarly citations. The dominant point is that the author had platonic "persuasions" - what flavour, what mix, form, colour or to what extent his platonic leanings found expression in his writings, is hardly significant. Those are just nuances - I dare say, quibbles. Scholarly, sapiental, masterfully expressed and insightful but quibbles nonetheless.

Quote:

IronMonkey said earlier: (3.) Why, nowhere in the passage(s) does the author mention Jerusalem, Calvary, Pontius Pilate, or any earthly source or link of Jesus' sacrifice.
Layman responded: So what? If memory serves me correctly, in seven letters Ignatius never once mentions Jerusalem or Calvary or Golgotha.

Your memory serves you wrong. What is the significance of "seven" in your response above?
I stated very recently in page three from Doherty's review:

Quote:

The figures of Mary, Pontius Pilate and John the Baptist appear for the first time outside the Gospels in the letters of Ignatius, usually dated around 110. Ellegard sees this as the bishop of Antioch's own invention, an effort to anchor Jesus firmly in earthly history. The Gospel story subsequently arose as an enlargement on the groundwork laid by Ignatius, using his biographical 'data' as a starting point. This is one reason why Ellegard places the Gospels all within the second century, following Ignatius.

Quote:

This is a completely ad hoc argument. Especially because Doherty admits that Jesus will make at least one appearance on earth.

Provide a complete citation with him saying/writing that please.

Layman · 03-10-2003, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IronMonkey
No.
The fact is that it does NOT stand alone - even if it can.
So whether or not it can stand alone is not that significant. Unless you just want to nitpick.

It can't stand alone. And it so powerfully fails to stand on its own, that it calls into question the rest of Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews.

Quote:

You should have titled this thread: "Doherty's ek- deuteurou argument cannot stand alone".
Your howling title is misleading because you aren't actually arguing that Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28 is dubious but that only one part of the pillars that he bases his argument cannot stand alone.

Doherty claimed it could stand alone. It obviously cannot. And your attempts to save it by "context" also fail because ignoring the real context of the verses was one of Doherty's problems in the first place.

Quote:

The idea of heavenly sacrifices is consistent with other myths like that of sumerian mythical figure Attis who also suffered and was sacrificed - like Christ Jesus.
Hence the story of Jesus sacrifice, as related by the writer of Hebrews demonstrates that the author embraced a mythical christ.

But the author does not talk about Attis, the author compares Jesus to the high priests.

Quote:

Thanks for the scholarly citations. The dominant point is that the author had platonic "persuasions" - what flavour, what mix, form, colour or to what extent his platonic leanings found expression in his writings, is hardly significant. Those are just nuances - I dare say, quibbles. Scholarly, sapiental, masterfully expressed and insightful but quibbles nonetheless.

Umm, yes, how the author mixed Platonic thought with Jewish eschatology or Qumran type thinking is a HUGE issue. Just because someone writes a thing or two akin to Platonic thought does not mean that he can't be referring to anything happenin on earth. That's obviously false. And in the case of these verses, clearly not the case.

Quote:

Your memory serves you wrong. What is the significance of "seven" in your response above?
I stated very recently in page three from Doherty's review:

My memory is perfectly correct. Yours if faulty.

You said that the author of Hebrews could not be referring to an earthly Jesus because he does not mention Calvary or Jersualem. I pointed out that Ignatius never mentions Calvary or Jersualem in any of his letters. Nor does he mention Golgatha. In other words, even though he assuredly believed in a human Jesus, he never felt it necessary to repeat the location of Jesus' death.

Claiming that there are somehow magic words that someone must utter to demonstrates a belief in a human Christ is foolish.

Quote:

Provide a complete citation with him saying/writing that please.

I already did. In the very first post. What a waste of time.

It is certainly the coming in glory at the End-time that he has in mind, but how can this
be a second coming, for the writer has made no room for a previous one.

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

Supplementary Article 9.

Every indication from the text and the context demonstrates that the author of Hebrews is talking about a second coming here--one that is obvious preceded by a first coming . Your only defense is to offer up magic words, like "Platonic" to ignore the obvious. Oh yeah, and to invent corruptions of the text where it betrays Doherty's point.

Bobzammel · 03-10-2003, 05:41 PM

the author compares Jesus to the high priests

...Which is by itself faulty. The author of Hebrews takes an obscure Old Testament character and a mistranslated and misinterpeted Psalm so he can invent a priesthood for Jesus, in order to discredit the Levites. However if one closely examines the OT, it is clear that the Levites's right to priesthood is as legitimate and eternal as the right to the Davidic line on the throne. One of the major problems I've found with the NT is that practically all the writers cut & paste Old Testament passages out of context or relying on sloppy Greek translations.
What's also slightly interested is that it is possible that Mary's line is Levite(Going by Elizabeth). If this is so, why isn't this mentioned in this discourse?

02-26-2003, 10:46 PM	#83
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Other Fundamentalists Other Fundamentalists (pedigrees, unlike me), going by Vinnie and Layman's arbitrary labelling are: Elvar Ellegard, Richard Horsley Howard Clark Kee Paul Flesher Heck, some are what we call synagogue scholars. And thats just from my horribly limited literature survey. So dont go treating me as if I have a monopoly over being a fundamentalist on this. Its not unique to me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-27-2003, 09:03 AM	#85
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Some people can admit when they are shown wrong..... Vinnie

03-10-2003, 05:41 PM	#90
Bobzammel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 276	the author compares Jesus to the high priests ...Which is by itself faulty. The author of Hebrews takes an obscure Old Testament character and a mistranslated and misinterpeted Psalm so he can invent a priesthood for Jesus, in order to discredit the Levites. However if one closely examines the OT, it is clear that the Levites's right to priesthood is as legitimate and eternal as the right to the Davidic line on the throne. One of the major problems I've found with the NT is that practically all the writers cut & paste Old Testament passages out of context or relying on sloppy Greek translations. What's also slightly interested is that it is possible that Mary's line is Levite(Going by Elizabeth). If this is so, why isn't this mentioned in this discourse?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.