Layman

When did I ever say I rejected anything by Kirby because he "is no friend to Christianity"?

Please. Tell me.

And then apologize when you can't find it. Here is what I said:

While I respect Kirby, I do not recognize his opinion as always representing the majority.

Liar.

Toto

You didn't say that, and I did not mean to imply that you said it, although I see I did not phrase my words carefully enough. Sauron posted that jibe against Peter from another board.

I can think of no other reason why you reject Peter's thorough analysis. But you didn't say that.

Toto

Is Burton Mack an extremist? Crossan? I would not consider them extremists. The extremists think that Mark was written in the 2nd century.

I was trying to be a little restrained and not call you an outright prevaricator. You deliberately snipped out part of a paragraph to distort the actual conclusion that the author reached. Not an outright lie, but not exactly honest scholarship.

He reports that the majority of scholars date Mark before the fall of Jerusalem, and goes on to discount the impact of that by picking a compromise date. You claimed originally that he "rejected" the idea that Mark could have been written after the fall of Jerusalem.

I actually did try to find that book, but could not. Every other source I have read dates Mark to after the fall, based on the prophesy in the Little Apocalypse.

Do you recognize hyperbole? And I didn't accuse you of that. I asked if you included medieval scholars in your majority. Obviously I should have asked if you were including Irenaeus and Eusebius in the poll.

Not automatically - but I would walk outside and check for myself before believing it.

This is getting tiresome. I don't care what the majority opinion is if I don't know what it is based on.

You started this thread to attack one small part of Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews. You haven't made your case yet.

NOGO

Once again your statements show that you have yet to understand the basic arguement. How can you critique someone's point of view if you are incapable of understanding it.

The analogy is that animals in the OT were sacrificed outside the camp and their blood was brought to Yahweh as a sin offering.
Jesus was sacrificed outside Jerusalem.
Obviously Jesus' blood was not taken to Jerusalem and into the temple and presented to Yahweh.
This presentation to Yahweh took place in heaven according to Heb 9:24

For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

So if we look at Heb 13:12

Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

This is the analogy that the author of Hebrew makes, so why you say "Since you JMers like parrallels"?

Heb 13:12 says that Jesus sanctified the people with his blood and Heb 9:24 says that this took place in heaven.

It is therefore legitimate to ask regarding Heb13:12 which gate are we talking about? Is it a heavenly gate or an earthly one?

Heb13
13 So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.
14 For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.

Note that verse 13 says "camp". If it had said "gate" one could link it with "city" in verse 14. BUT IT SAYS CAMP.
Verse 13 can be read as an invitation to believers to join Jesus in his sacrifice, ie an invitation to martyrdom.

So the problem remains. If Hebrews is read without the benefit of the Gospels the reader would never know that Jesus was sacrificed just outside of Jerusalem. That is just weird.

How can the author of Hebrews make such analogy, tell us that part of the analogy was conducted in heaven and then fail to specify that the other part (the sacrifice) was made on earth.

Of course, Layman, with the blind faith and your total assurance of being right, you don't see a problem.

I am not trying to convince you. I am just trying to make you understand another point of view. You seem to be incapable of doing this, but I do hope that I am wrong.

Ted Hoffman

Slow down fellaz. When does someone become an extremist? When they disagree with "mainstream scholarly consensus"? or when their views make people squirm?
Is it the case that anyone who challenges our basic assumptions is labelled an extremist?
Shouldn't we instead focus on how their arguments are supported? And whether or not they are valid?


Correct! This is the position I hold too. Layman confuses popularity with correctness.

NOGO said:

This is precisely what we are saying. Thank you for putting it clearly to the Layman.

NOGO

IronMonkey

We often ommit certain details because we assume that the other side either knows or can figure it out.

Hebrews was written before any of the Gospels. Christians will counter that all Christians knew the story of Jesus and thus writers like the author of Hebrews implied that Jesus died outside Jerusalem.

Similarly if Jesus presented his blood to God in Heaven as Heb:9 says Believers assume that the author is implying that Jesus died and resurrected and went to heaven in order to do this.

So all that is missing is implied.