Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 02-09-2003, 07:30 PM

Here is Heb. 9:27-28 (NAS):

Quote:

And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Doherty prefers the NEB:

Quote:

And as it is the lot of men to die once, and after death comes judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the burden of men's sins, and will appear [literally, he will be seen, or will reveal himself] a second time [ek deuterou], sin done away, to bring salvation to those who are watching for him.

Either translation shows the obvious problem for Doherty--it refers to a second coming of Christ. That this coming will be earthly and visible to all is confirmed by Doherty himself ("It is certainly the coming in glory at the End-time that he has in mind" (emphasis added)).

To avoid this fatal blow to his attempt to argue Hebrews contains no indication that Jesus ever appeared on earth in the first place, Doherty argues that an analysis of 9:27-28, standing alone, indicates that every modern translation of this scripture is wrong. Contrary to every modern authority from every conceivable background, Doherty argues that 9:27-28 does not refer to a second coming, but to the first coming that follows Jesus's (nonearthly) death and offering.

Here is his argument, found in Supplementary Article No. 9 (http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/),:

Quote:

Scholars claim that here at least�and they are willing to allow that it is only here in the entire corpus of New Testament epistles�a Christian writer clearly refers to the End-time coming of Jesus, the Parousia, as a second coming. But is there such a reference even here?

The above analysis of 10:37 would suggest there is not. But we can contest it on the basis of 9:27-28 alone. If the "ek deuterou" means a second time, the parallel with verse 27 is destroyed. Verse 27 is saying that "first men die, and after that (or �next') they are judged." There is no sense here of a "second time" for anything; the writer is simply offering us a sequence of events: death, followed by judgment. Does this not imply that verse 28 is offering a sequence as well? "Christ was offered once, and after that (next) he will appear to bring salvation."

The idea of appearing "a second time" would be intrusive here. Since the writer is clearly presenting his readers with some kind of parallel between verses 27 and 28 (note also the "once" in both parts), it seems unlikely he would introduce an element which doesn't fit the parallel, especially one he doesn't need. "Ek deuterou" can have the alternate meaning of "secondly" or "next in sequence," like the similar word deuteron, which appears in this sense in 1 Corinthians 12:28. Just as men's death is followed by judgment, so is Christ's sacrifice followed by his appearance, but with no indication of how long a time between the two. Before the turn of the century, Vaughan (quoted in The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol.4, p.340) translated verse 28 this way: "Christ died once and the next thing before him is the Advent." Thus even in Hebrews it would seem that we have no Second Coming of Christ.

Basically, therefore, Doherty offers two arguments.

First, any reference to a second coming would be intrusive because of the unspecified purpose of keeping 27 and 28 parallel.

Second, one authority suggests this should be translated "next."

These arguments are complete failures.

DOHERTY'S TRANSLATION IS CONTRIVED AND COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED

There is a reason Doherty has to reach back to the 1800s to find any support for his argument. Every modern translation or commentary I have been able to find rejects his interpretation. And, the overwhelming usage of the term in contemporary literature and in Hebrews itself is that the term is to be translated as "second."

Modern Translations and Commentaries Interpret the Term as "Second" or "Again"

The only authority Doherty has been able to point to for his own personal interpretation is one commentary from the 1800s. In contrast, every translation I could find interprets this passage as either "second" (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NEB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, AMP, ASV, WE, YLT, WYC, DARBY) or, less seldom, "again" (CEV, NLT, LNT). I also reviewed several commentaries on Hebrews from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives and found none that translated this passage to mean "next" or "after" as does Doherty.

The Clear and Overwhelming Attestation of Ancient Usage is that the Term Means "Second"

But even more crippling to Doherty's argument is the clear and overwhelming attestation that "Ek deuterou" means "second." The term is used throughout the New Testament to mean "second" (Matth. 21:30; 22:26, 39; 26:42; Mark 12:21, 31; 14:72, Luke 12:38, 19:18, 20:30; John 3:4, 4:54, 21:16; Acts 7:13; 10:15, 12:10, 13:33; 1 Cor. 15:47; 2 Cor. 1:15; 13:2; Ti. 3:10; 2 Peter 3:1; Rev. 2:11; 4:7; 6:3; 8:8; 11:14; 16:3: John 3:4; John 9:20, 11:9; 19:3).

The Author of Hebrews Himself Uses the Term Repeatedly and Exclusively to Mean "Second"

Perhaps, however, the most important point of all -- and the one that Doherty inexplicably neglects to even mention -- is the usage of the term by the author of Hebrews elsewhere in his letter. The term is used four other times by the author of Hebrews, and every time it is used mean to mean "second." (Heb. 8:7; 9:3; 9:7, 10:9). In fact, the author of Hebrews never uses the term in any other way except to mean "second."

THE USE OF "SECOND" IS NOT "INTRUSIVE," BUT NECESSARY AND COHERENT

Doherty is thus lamely arguing that the term "second" is somehow intrusive here because of the unspecified purpose behind a purported "parallel." In addition to above-referenced fact that the term should be translated "second," Doherty's purported parallel is contrived and unconvincing.

The Author of Hebrews Intentionally Avoided Using the Same Phrase Used in V. 27

First, he argues v. 28 is best translated "Christ was offered once, and after that (next) he will appear to bring salvation." According to him, it must be translated this way because it must parallel v. 27, "first men die, and after that (or 'next') they are judged."

This translation fails because the author of Hebrews specifically chose a different term to indicate a different meaning. The term used in v. 27 to mean "after" is the Greek term "meta." If, as Doherty insists, the author meant to indicate the same sequence for Jesus in v. 28 as he did for mean in v. 27, why did he intentionally avoid using the same word, meta? I have been unable to find any reason other than the obvious one--the author did not intend to recreate the same sequence and used a different term because he meant to say something different: second, instead of next. Rather than use "meta" the author uses a word he has elsewhere used four times to clearly mean "second." There is no ambiguity here. The author's word choice demonstrates that Doherty's argument is a contrived fallacy.

Verse 26 Requires that V. 28 Refer to a Second Coming

Second, the context of the passages clearly shows that the author means exactly what he says--Christ will come a second time. Doherty misses the obvious connection between v. 26 and v. 28. V. 26 refers to Christ' first coming, v. 28 refers to his second coming (RSV):

Quote:

But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Note the real focus of the author here. Jesus died once as an offering for sin. So to do men die once. V. 26 explicitly states that Jesus "appeared" before to died for humanity. V. 28 clearly refers to him "appearing" a second time to those he saved. The sequence is obvious, v. 26 is the first coming and v. 28 is the second coming. Clearly, the parallel is between both Jesus and man having to die once.

Doherty's Translation Ignores the Obvious Parallels with the Temple Cult

Third, Doherty completely and inexplicably ignores the obvious symbolism here. Throughout Hebrews its author refers to the temple cult system of sacrifice and contrasts Jesus' sacrifice and authority as High Priest with the temple cult. That is why the author focuses so much on Jesus having only died once. Whereas the temple cult had to make sacrifices every year, Jesus' is superior because he only had to die once.

In v. 27-28, the author is continuing this comparison and symbolism. The High Priest of the temple cult would appear before the people in front of the Holy of Holies -- where no one else was allowed to enter. He would then enter the Holy of Holies with his sacrifice on behalf of the nation. Once inside, he would make his sacrifice. The people would wait expectantly outside for the reappearance of the High Priest. Why? Because the mere fact that he survived to leave the Holy of Holies meant that God had accepted the sacrifice.

This is being played out with Jesus. Just as the High Priest appeared before the people, so to did Jesus. Just as the High Priest took the sacrifice into the Holy of Holies, so to did Jesus. The joy that the Israelites felt at seeing their high priest reappear after the offering is actually recounted in Ben Sira 50:5-10). Just as the High Priest would reappear to confirm that God had accepted the sacrifice, so to will Jesus appear a second time to his people to show them that God has accepted his sacrifice.

A couple of New Testament scholars explain it clearly:

Quote:

Men and women die once, by divine appointment, and in their case death is followed by judgment. Christ died once, by divine appointment, and his death is followed by salvation for all his people. This is because in his death he bore 'the sins of many,' offering up his life to God as an atonement on their behalf....

The Israelites who watched their high priest enter the sanctuary for them waited expectantly for his reappearance; that was a welcome sign that he and the sacrifice which he presented had been accepted by God. His reappearance from the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement was an especially welcome sight.

F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Revised), at 232.

Quote:

Christ' first coming was as the sinbearer. That task has been finished forever. His priestly work of making sacrifice is done, and His representation of believers in the sanctuary of God's presence is now being accomplished (v. 24). There remains one final action of this high priest. Even as the Jewish priest emerged from the holy of holies, signifying by the very fact of his emergence that his sacrifice had been accepted (otherwise he would have been divinely stricken in the inner chamber), so Christ will also appear a second time. Those who wait him are all true believers, for whom Christ's second coming will mean the consummation of their salvation. All of the blessed results of Christ's sacrifice will be brought to fulfillment. At Christ's second coming, His purpose will be apart from sin, for that was dealt with by His once-for-all sacrifice when He came the first time. For believers, salvation in its fullest realization will occur as they share God's blessed presence for eternity.

Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews, A Commentary, at 190.

In sum, Doherty's translation is a farce. It is completely unsupported by any modern translation or authority. It is contradicted by the clear and overwhelming usage in other New Testament literature. And is contradicted by the clear usage of the term to mean second, without exception, by the author of Hebrews. Moreover, his interpretation actually does violence to the context and analogy to the temple cult. Accordingly, Hebrews 9:27-28 refers, quite clearly, to the second coming of Christ.

(Of course, if anyone has found some modern translations or commentaries that reject the translation to "second" or "again" I would be most interested).

Toto · 02-09-2003, 10:16 PM

Is this your only disagreement with Doherty's chapter on Hebrews -- the translation of one verse in the Epilogue, which is almost a footnote to his extensive discussion? Doherty has a long analysis of what Hebrews does say and its relation to the Temple Cult. He lists verses such as Heb 10:37 which provide some positive indication that the Christ discussed in that epistle had not yet come. Are you okay with those?

Richard Carrier (who does read Greek) agrees with Doherty, and provides more evidence that Doherty's sense of the meaning is correct:

Quote:

(v) Doherty's reading of Heb. 9:27-8 is probably correct (n. 25, p. 334). Though the phrase can (and frequently does) mean "for a second time," Doherty adduces several reasons why that reading does not fit here, and there is another reason he doesn't mention: the word for "once" does not mean for the first time, and so cannot set up a sequence of two similar events. The word hapax means once only, once and for all. It excludes a repeat event. So ek deuterou must mean "in the second place" (and as he notes, this is a direct parallel to the previous meta de touto : "once and for all...and after this" then "once and for all...and second"). See Jude 5 for the closest parallel in the New Testament (to deuteron with hapax, here clearly means "next" not "for a second time"). I also find it curious that the expected de particle is missing in the Hebrews ek deuterou clause. Either something has been distorted through scribal error (and ek deuterou was not original) or the ek deuterou is intended as a copulative (in which case it merely represents the shift to a new thought, hence "secondly," and not a substantive idea like "for a second time").

Besides, Doherty's thesis is that the Christ was sacrificed on a heavenly sub-lunar plane. It doesn't seem to be too hard to reconcile that viewpoint with even your favored translation, so this translation does not seem to be critical to Doherty's case.

You can access that page directly here:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp09.htm (scroll nearly to the botton to the Epilogue for that verse)

JP Holding also attacked Doherty on this point, and Doherty discusses that here:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/rfholdin.htm

Layman · 02-09-2003, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Is this your only disagreement with Doherty's chapter on Hebrews

Nope.

Quote:

-- the translation of one verse in the Epilogue, which is almost a footnote to his extensive discussion?

I'm skeptical that the significance of a scripture can be judged by how much treatment one commentator gives it.

Quote:

Doherty has a long analysis of what Hebrews does say and its relation to the Temple Cult.

I know he does. Which is what makes his failure to see the clear analogy I refer to so peculiar. Jesus' reappearance is like the reapperance of the high priest returning form the Holy of Holies. It is a confirmation of what has already been done since his appearance before the Israelites.

Quote:

He lists verses such as Heb 10:37 which provide some positive indication that the Christ discussed in that epistle had not yet come. Are you okay with those?

Nope. Especially in light of the tortured analysis he inflicts on 9:27-28.

But he goes out of his way to claim that his arguments re: 9:27-28 could stand "alone." If you are willing to concede that they do not, but require bootstrapping by other scriptures in Hebrews, fine.

Quote:

(who does read Greek) agrees with Doherty, and provides more evidence that Doherty's sense of the meaning is correct:

I'm sure that the translators on all those modern translations and commentators can read Greek at least as good as Mr. Carrier. Or was he on the board of translators, for example, of the New Revised Standard Version?

Quote:

Doherty's reading of Heb. 9:27-8 is probably correct (n. 25, p. 334). Though the phrase can (and frequently does) mean "for a second time,"

Actually, saying "frequently does" is such an understatement it is misleading. The attestation for it and its derivatives as meaning "second" is overwhelming--even, or especially, in Hebrews.

Quote:

Doherty adduces several reasons why that reading does not fit here, and there is another reason he doesn't mention: the word for "once" does not mean for the first time, and so cannot set up a sequence of two similar events.

This is again misleading. The "once" referes to Jesus' death. As discussed in the original post, the reason "once" is emphasized is because it is contrasted with the "many" offerings given in the temple cult.

Moreoever, the "second" appearance is not a death, it is an appearance. As discussed below, the first "appearance" is mentioned explicitly in v. 26. No one is claiming that this is Jesus' second death. So Carrier' argument doesn't seem to amount to much.

Quote:

The word hapax means once only, once and for all. It excludes a repeat event. So ek deuterou must mean "in the second place" (and as he notes, this is a direct parallel to the previous meta de touto : "once and for all...and after this" then "once and for all...and second"). See Jude 5 for the closest parallel in the New Testament (to deuteron with hapax, here clearly means "next" not "for a second time").

As discussed above, Jesus's second coming is not a "repeat event" of his death. It is the second time he will come to earth. Heck, its even in a different age.

Moreoever, Carrier does not explain why -- if the intent is to exactly parallel the sequence in v. 27 -- the author switches to a phrase always used to mean "second" in v. 28. If he meant "after" or "next" in the exact same way and sequence, why did he not use the same word? Why switch from "meta" (a word generally attested to mean "after") to "ek deuterou" (a word generally attested to mean "second" or "again") if the meaning is the same?

And finally, Carrier' interpretation makes no sense in light of the clear analogy that the author is drawing between Jesus' appearance, offering, reappearance, with the temple cult's corresponding events, appearance, offering, reappearance.

Quote:

I also find it curious that the expected de particle is missing in the Hebrews ek deuterou clause. Either something has been distorted through scribal error (and ek deuterou was not original) or the ek deuterou is intended as a copulative (in which case it merely represents the shift to a new thought, hence "secondly," and not a substantive idea like "for a second time").

The thought is obviously a continuous one. That's Doherty's whole point. Moreover, this argument completely contradicts the "parallel" argument Doherty hinges his case one.

For now, I'm not willing to take Mr. Carrier's translation over everyone else's (but Doherty's).

Quote:

Besides, Doherty's thesis is that the Christ was sacrificed on a heavenly sub-lunar plane. It doesn't seem to be too hard to reconcile that viewpoint with even your favored translation, so this translation does not seem to be critical to Doherty's case.

You forgot to explain why.

Quote:

You can access that page directly here:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp09.htm (scroll nearly to the botton to the Epilogue for that verse)

JP Holding also attacked Doherty on this point, and Doherty discusses that here:
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/rfholdin.htm

Neither the original article or Doherty's response to JP Holding address the issues I've raised.

Vinnie · 02-09-2003, 10:59 PM

What does Doherty make of Hebrews 2:14, 10:5, 13:20 et al. ???

Vinnie · 02-09-2003, 11:47 PM

Also, as noted by Meier (Marginal V1 p 47), "The Epistle to the Hebrews does mention--as an apparent obstacle to its thesis that Jesus is the high priest of the new cocenant--that he was of the tribe of Judah, not Levi (Heb 7:14). It also knows a tradition akin to Jesus' agonized prayer in Gethsemane (Heb 5:7-8; cf. mark 14:32-42 parr.; also John 12:27-36a)."

Doeherty argues what here?

I'm not sure of what Doherty's view on Hebrews could be???

After all, look at Hebrews 5:7: "During the days of Jesus' life on earth "

Does Doherty think there is a silence here???

Vinnie

Toto · 02-10-2003, 12:07 AM

Vinnie - For Heb. 2:14 and 5:7, read this link:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/sil20arg.htm

e.g.

Quote:

Hebrews 5:7:

In the days of his flesh [en tais h�merais t�s sarkos autou] he offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears . . .

Has the writer of this epistle placed Jesus on earth in this passage? Or does this verse indicate yet another way of viewing the mythical Christ and learning of his activities? What in fact are the activities which this verse assigns to Jesus' "days in flesh"? Not earthly words or deeds, nor any Gospel-based piece of historical data. Rather, as scholars have pointed out (Ellingworth, Montefiore, Buchanan), the words refer to two passages in the Psalms. This is only one of several writers in the early Christian record who seem to regard Christ as one who 'lives' only in scripture-revealed myth.

"In the days of his life on earth" appears to be a rather free translation. There have been long debates over what "sarkos" means. Doherty believes it can refer to a higher sphere of existence.

Don't ask me how Doherty explains things. You can read Doherty's chapter 9 for yourself. He discusses all of your concerns. You don't have to agree, but there's no point in acting like there is no argument at all.

Vorkosigan · 02-10-2003, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
I'm not sure of what Doherty's view on Hebrews could be??? After all, look at Hebrews 5:7: "During the days of Jesus' life on earth "

Does Doherty think there is a silence here???

Vinnie

NIV
7During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

NASB
7 In the days of His flesh, (1) He offered up both prayers and supplications with (2) loud crying and tears to the One (3) able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His (4) piety.

AMP
7In the days of His flesh [Jesus] offered up definite, special petitions [for that which He not only wanted [1] but needed] and supplications with strong crying and tears to Him Who was [always] able to save Him [out] from death, and He was heard because of His reverence toward God [His godly fear, His piety, [2] in that He shrank from the horrors of separation from the bright presence of the Father].

7While Jesus was here on earth, he offered prayers and pleadings, with a loud cry and tears, to the one who could deliver him out of death. And God heard his prayers because of his reverence for God.

ASV
7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear,

YLT
7 who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared,

It is pretty clear that the passage in question says "in the days of Jesus flesh" which makes the NIV translation tendentious, but then we already knew the NIV was colored by doctrinal tendency anyway.

"in the days of his flesh" is consistent with Doherty's understanding of the events of Jesus' execution in the sublunar plane. There is no contradiction for Doherty to explain here, unless you use the mistranslation of the NIV.

Vorkosigan

Toto · 02-10-2003, 12:18 AM

Layman: Richard Carrier has an open invitation to email him questions or disagreements about anything he has written, so I suggest that you email your analysis to him for comments. But you might want to edit out the references to "contrived," "completely unsupported," and "farce" and other emotional language, since it seems that Doherty's translation is within the realm of possibility at the least.

Geoff Hudson · 02-10-2003, 03:34 AM

GEOFF'S DUBIOUS INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 9:24-28

[ ] Read in

{ } Read out

(24)For [Christ] {the Spirit} did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered [heaven itself] {our spirit�s themselves}, {which can} now [to] appear [for us] in God�s presence.

(25)Nor did he enter [heaven] {us} to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.

(26)Then [Christ] {the Spirit} would have had to [suffer] {appear} many times since the creation of the [world] {earth}.

(27)Just as [man] {the spirit} is destined to [die] {rise from the body} once, and after that to face judgement,

(28)so [Christ was] {the Spirit} [sacrificed] {appeared} once to [take away the sins of] {purify} many people; and he will appear a second time, not to [bear sin] {purify}, but to bring [salvation] {judgement} to those who are [waiting] {rejecting} him.

*****
In verse 27, the spirit rises after the death of the body to face judgement. An accepted spirit is one that has been purified by the Holy Spirit.

Here the Spirit appears once and a second time. The expectation was that His appearance for the second time was imminent.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson · 02-10-2003, 04:25 AM

And the idea of a sacrifical atonement was a later layer.

Geoff

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

02-09-2003, 10:59 PM	#4
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	What does Doherty make of Hebrews 2:14, 10:5, 13:20 et al. ???

02-09-2003, 11:47 PM	#5
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Also, as noted by Meier (Marginal V1 p 47), "The Epistle to the Hebrews does mention--as an apparent obstacle to its thesis that Jesus is the high priest of the new cocenant--that he was of the tribe of Judah, not Levi (Heb 7:14). It also knows a tradition akin to Jesus' agonized prayer in Gethsemane (Heb 5:7-8; cf. mark 14:32-42 parr.; also John 12:27-36a)." Doeherty argues what here? I'm not sure of what Doherty's view on Hebrews could be??? After all, look at Hebrews 5:7: "During the days of Jesus' life on earth " Does Doherty think there is a silence here??? Vinnie

02-10-2003, 12:18 AM	#8
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Layman: Richard Carrier has an open invitation to email him questions or disagreements about anything he has written, so I suggest that you email your analysis to him for comments. But you might want to edit out the references to "contrived," "completely unsupported," and "farce" and other emotional language, since it seems that Doherty's translation is within the realm of possibility at the least.

02-10-2003, 03:34 AM	#9
Geoff Hudson Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: UK Posts: 318	GEOFF'S DUBIOUS INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 9:24-28 [ ] Read in { } Read out (24)For [Christ] {the Spirit} did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered [heaven itself] {our spirit�s themselves}, {which can} now [to] appear [for us] in God�s presence. (25)Nor did he enter [heaven] {us} to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. (26)Then [Christ] {the Spirit} would have had to [suffer] {appear} many times since the creation of the [world] {earth}. (27)Just as [man] {the spirit} is destined to [die] {rise from the body} once, and after that to face judgement, (28)so [Christ was] {the Spirit} [sacrificed] {appeared} once to [take away the sins of] {purify} many people; and he will appear a second time, not to [bear sin] {purify}, but to bring [salvation] {judgement} to those who are [waiting] {rejecting} him. ***** In verse 27, the spirit rises after the death of the body to face judgement. An accepted spirit is one that has been purified by the Holy Spirit. Here the Spirit appears once and a second time. The expectation was that His appearance for the second time was imminent. Geoff

02-10-2003, 04:25 AM	#10
Geoff Hudson Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: UK Posts: 318	And the idea of a sacrifical atonement was a later layer. Geoff

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.