Layman

That's nothing more than question begging. You are good at it though.

Insisting that "I'm afraid that is as general and unspecified as Doherty's initial statement." Is like saying that "he used an analogy for the unspecified purpose of explaining".
If someone is talking about a certain thing and he uses an analogy, its supposed to be congruent.

It remains congruent to you and your like-minded translators because you have a bias. Doherty's paradigm is different.

I know. He is wrong.

Doherty is the one ignoring the context. Quite obviously.

I don't read Greek. So I've consulted many translations, commentaries, and lexicons.

?

I'm quite tired of this point and have responded to him at length.

Nebulous? I provided the full citation and the references to the high priest which are the foundation for talking about "once" as often as he does.

You know that the "verses" are really an artificial numbering system that occurred many years later don't you?

If you want to respond to my point, please go back to my full response to your post and take it in detail. You might make some points that way.

Ted Hoffman

I will assume you plagiarised my thoughts and words inadvertently.

A grounding assumption that has pervaded your thought process, locutions and argumentation.
Perhaps you should write a book since you seem to have very strong opinions over this matter.

At the end of the day, what matters is whether you can argue your case. You have fumbled and failed. And you still think he is wrong.
Its a pity.
But perhaps you can tell us which respectable journals have published articles by you since you feel qualified to dismiss Doherty's arguments without having to make your "case".

A copy and paste frenzy? Naah.
If you understood the argument you were claiming to make, you would have typed what you meant and not "bombed" the thread with arbitrary bible quotes and pseudo-scholarly support.
As it is, you made a long post without much thought and expect to make an impression by the length of your post.

You should know by now that long posts do not themselves make strong arguments. They can however, intimidate newbies.

Ted Hoffman

I am designated "Veteran User". That must mean something.

Layman

Not an assumption at all. It is something I have demonstrated quite clearly throughout this thread.

So you say, but you have not demonstarted any such pity. In fact, you've ignored my substantive reply to your response. You have descended into vaugaries and insults.

I never claimed I had any of my New Testament writings published. What relevance do you attribute to this fact?


No, a real, substantive response to my reply. You have avoided any such engagement.

There was nothing arbitrary about the quotes in the least. But you have completely failed to respond to any of them.

Not hardly. The length of the post is irrelevant. Your failure to address any of the points within it is very revealing.

Peter Kirby

It is a measure of quantity, not quality.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Layman,
In retrospect, I think the comments I made in my last post were uncharitable and in bad taste especially considering you had given a serious response to my post.
I apologise for that.

Lets see if there is a parallel between these verses :
A
B
Here is Heb. 9:27-28 (NAS):

Argument 1:

In A, the HP enters once a year for the sins of the people. Even Christ enters *once* in 9:11.

In B, Christ will appear a second time. Of course, this means he will enter twice.

I assert (from your HP angle) that Since the HP enters *only once* and the salvific act is done (ie, there is no relation between entering one year and entering the next year), there is incongruence when the verse is translated to mean Christ reveal himself twice.

That is incongruent Layman

Another incongruence is that in 28, he shall appear *only* to those that look unto him.

Argument 2:

Secondly, is the WHEN - will he reveal himself? This must be the Parousia. A year, going by your HP angle, meant a period (salvific or whatever).
If you insist there will be a second time - when will it be? And will there be a third time? If there will be no third time, then we should be talking of a *final* time, not a *second* time.

These two problems/ questions in arguments 1 & 2 are solved when one interprets the verse 28-29 to be referring to the Parousia.

I am swamped at work right now and I may not be able to provide a detailed response to your arguments.

Ted Hoffman

Maybe I could clarify things further:

Argument 1
a) In Hebrews 9:12, Christ entered the holy place *once* and obtained eternal redemption for us (KJV).

b) In Hebrews 9:7, the HP went into the (second) tabernacle *once* every year.

c) BUT in Hebrews 9:28, Christ was offered *once* - but that was not enough for some unexplained reason.
So, he will appear a *second* time but only for those that look upon him.

Therefore (c) is incongruent and breaks the pattern evident in (a) and (b).

The incongruence arises also because (c) is exclusive as opposed to (a) and (b) because the "appearance" will be witnessed by only those that look upon him.

(c) also introduces an element of salvation (taking the faithfuls away from the world of pain and suffering - deliverance), as opposed to redemption (lamb of God taking away the sins of the world - ransom).

So (c) introduces 3 ideas that are not present in (a) and (b) - namely: exclusivity, salvation(end time and opposed to periodic redemption) and repetition (*second time* as opposed to *once*).
Therefore (c) is incongruent as it is.

Argument 2

"Secondly" in (c) leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
The HPs went into the second tabernacle once every year. Over the "history" of beleivers, one would therefore expect Christ to also perform the salvific/ redemptive act only once. But (c) says its twice.

Why would Christ do it twice - wouldnt that make him look inferior compared to the HPs - who only needed to do it once?
What would be the first appearance be for if its not salvation? And which part of the HP's entry matched the *once*(first entry/appearance) for Christ?

If Christ were also to appear *once* (as [c] would be saying with the incongruence eliminated), as the HPs, then that would be the parousia.

If (c) stated that christ will only appear once, the incongruity in argument one would be eliminated.

Ic (c) stated that christ would appear once, that would mean there was no HJ, and that would be the best explanation for the lack of evidence for a HJ.

Conclusion: Therefore (c) must have been written originally to state that Jesus would also come *once* to redeem all of their sins (the Parousia) as Doherty stated.

One plausible explanation: The people who translated (c) must have held preconceptions about Jesus having come to earth once and that he was going to come again. They felt whatever was written originally did not fit their paradigms, so they decided to correct what to them was an obvious error. In the process of making textual emendations, they overlooked the incongruency that their alteration created.

Therefore, (c) was not interpreted correctly and Doherty is right in asserting so.

That is the whole argument from my POV - excluding the Greek - just context and (your) analogy.

You can dismantle it one part at a time at your leisure.

Ted Hoffman

That was my point exactly: I had/have seen a lot of quantity - I have done my time in the trenches as the marines would put it . But I have since steered off from that kind of talk.

NOGO

Obviously!
Hebrews was written before 70 CE since it does not mention nor allude to the war.
What he meant is that this was the last generation. Jesus inaugurated the coming of the Kingdom of God. Jesus' death was a marker for the last generation.
Obviously Matthew which was written after 70 CE has the same idea in mind in chapter 24.
So does Paul with 1 Corinthians 15- 51:52

Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Notice that Paul says "we will be changed" including himself in the future event. Paul expected to be alive when it happened.

So even before the Gospels were written Christians expected the end of the world withing the then generation.

Funny you argue this point both ways.
You started by saying that since there was sin after Jesus then obviously He must have died for those too. Then I pointed out that sin was no longer a part of the believer community and now you argue that this still proves your point.

Yet the author of Hebrews obviously is stating that Jesus chose his timing carefully not to have to sacrifice himself year after year. Given that then the end of the world is the only logical meaning left.

You have attempted an interpretation for "the consumation of the ages" which makes no sense as I have shown. I challenge you to come up with an interpretation which makes sense in the context of Hebrews 9.


Wishful thinking. Your power of argumentation is truly impressive here.

Ted Hoffman

Layman wrote this? The Layman that I "know"?
This is flabbergasting. F**king howlingly amazing.