Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 03-15-2003, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Well, no, the objection is that the old Negro spiritual (what is the politically correct term for that these days?) does not in fact mention a location. It asks, "were you there?" not "were you there in Jerusalem?" or were you there at Calvary?"

Whatever it is that NOGO was looking for, it is not something that mentioned Jerusalem, Calvary, or Golgotha. NOGO requested something that in some way speaks of the location of the death of Jesus without mentioning the names of these places.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 03-15-2003, 01:43 PM

You are right, Peter. I should have said that the objection is that there is no "there" there. No location is stated or implied. This contrasts with the passage from Hebrews, where there is a location - outside the gate or the compound - that is not tied to Jerusalem.

vtran31 · 03-16-2003, 03:37 PM

NOGO: "For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will.

Note the word "now"
Is "now" ~30 CE when Jesus suposedly spoke these words?

No! This is a case of "writer perspective"
The writer starts by projecting the event into the future "For those days will be .."
Then he stumbles ... makes a mistake ... reveals something which he was not suposed to reveal.
Instead of saying "until then" keeping the event in the future as Jesus would have said it, he writes "until now", thus betraying his belief that the tribulations had already started.
"now" is the time of the tribulation in question. The war with the Romans had already started when Mark wrote this. He may have guessed that the temple would be destroyed but a good prophet cannot take that chance. Therefore the earliest would be 70 CE.

How do you get that. I get it means it will be a time of tribulation that is so tribulous that anything in the past, beginning of the creation of God, this present time, now, or the future, ever will be.

NOGO · 03-16-2003, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Peter:
NOGO requested, "Show us text which speak of location of the death without mentioning Jerusalem, Calvary and Golgotha." Perhaps that request can be fulfilled. An objection to the example that came to mind may be that it is a song, not quite a "text."

Hi Peter,

Can you tell me where that text comes from?

Basically my point was to clarify Doherty's position since Layman seemed to have misrepresented it.

Your quote may be relevant but obviously you probably will not have the impressive list which Layman furnished.

I agree with you that between Jesus is God and no Jesus there are many possibilities.

But please do tell me where this text comes from.

Layman · 03-16-2003, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
The consensus is usually listed as Mark being written between 65 - 80 CE, either after the fall of Jerusalem or shortly before, in the heat of the warfare leading up to the fall. So the question is still there: where did Mark get this information? Was it floating around in the ether of alleged "oral tradition" or did Mark have a theological motive in adding that detail to his allegorical tale?

Ahh. Here we go again. I actually provide a cite to a leading New Testament scholar to back up my assertion. You provide nothing.

In case E.P. Sanders does not merit any respect from you, I checked one of the leading liberal introductions to the New Testament:

Quote:

But inasmuch as there is no clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70, most scholars date Mark in the years 64-70.

Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament.

Toto · 03-16-2003, 06:34 PM

Here we go again?

I have finally gotten access to K�mmel. I find this full quote on p. 71:

Quote:

But inasmuch as there is no clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70, most scholars date Mark in the years 64-70. Certain scholars, however, regard composition after 70 as more probable. (Johnson, Beach, Brandon). Brandon claims to see reflected in Mk. 13 the situation of the Roman Christians in the year 71, but his proof is hardly convincing. Since no effective argument for a year before or after 70 can be cited, we must be satisfied with the conclusion that Mark was written around 70.

This leaves a different impression from your quote, no?

(Compare Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament, p 152: "And yet, Mark's [gospel] could not have been conceived before the war. It would not have made sense before the war had run its course and the tragic fate of the city was known.")

I did not want to get into the dating of Mark, but I needed to point out your *selective* quoting. But suppose Mark dates to 64 CE.

Where did Mark get the detail that Jesus was tried at Jerusalem? No previous Christian writers seem to have mentioned a location.

Okay, perhaps that is a rhetorical question. You will speculate about "oral transmission" even with no evidence.

Layman · 03-16-2003, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
[B]Here we go again?

I have finally gotten access to K�mmel. I find this full quote on p. 71:

This leaves a different impression from your quote, no?

Not that I can tell. Kummel rejects all attempts to date Mark after the fall of Jerusalem.

That's pretty clear. What do you think is the ambiguity?

Quote:

(Compare Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament, p 152: "And yet, Mark's [gospel] could not have been conceived before the war. It would not have made sense before the war had run its course and the tragic fate of the city was known.")

I did not claim all scholars, I claimed a majority of scholars. And I proved my point.

Quote:

I did not want to get into the dating of Mark, but I needed to point out your *selective* quoting. But suppose Mark dates to 64 CE.

All "quoting" is by definition selective. Kummel is clear that he dates Mark before the fall of Jersualem. He is also clear that this is the opinion of the majority of scholars.

Quote:

Where did Mark get the detail that Jesus was tried at Jerusalem? No previous Christian writers seem to have mentioned a location.

As I said before, no previous Christian writer (that we know of) had written a biography of Jesus.

As for where Mark got his information, I believe he got much of it from Peter.

Quote:

Okay, perhaps that is a rhetorical question. You will speculate about "oral transmission" even with no evidence.

And just what evidence would you expect there be of "oral transmission"?

Overall, though, you are missing the point. Mark, a contemporary of the author of Hebrews, writes of Jesus being executed outside the they city. This is evidence of the existence of such a tradition at that time. As such, it is more reasonable to conclude that the author of Hebrews was trying to "force" a fit of that tradition with existing Hebrew scripture. If the author had simply created a story about Jesus based solely on the Hebrew scripture at issue, it would have been much different.

Layman · 03-16-2003, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO
You seemed to have missed the point.
The verses Doherty quotes specifically speak of the location of the sacrifice yet fail to mention the earthly location. It matters not that a million letters talk about Jesus death and not mention Golgotha. Show us text which speak of location of the death without mentioning Jerusalem, Calvary and Golgotha.

Actually, I got the point just fine. Every letter I cited also discussed Jesus' death, crucifixion, or "passion."

There is simply no significance in the "failure" to mention a detail a JesusMyther now finds necessary.

Layman · 03-16-2003, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IronMonkey
You most assuredly did no such thing Layman.
At one point, you stated that your main argument was not that Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews is dubious, but that his "ek deuterou" argument could not stand alone. Your title was misleading. You cant use a title of a thread as a flag of victory as you are doing now, however ambitious and dramatic the title is. Where is the evidence that you demonstrated "that Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28 was very dubious"? Your boastful claims?

Here is the evidence:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=45180

Quote:

You then reeled into a nitpicking tangent that the author of Hebrews seemed to have different platonic "flavours" but you could not refute the argument that the author expresses a dominant platonic way of thought/theology in the manner in which he wrote the relevant section(s) of Hebrews. You instead chose to quibble about the different "flavours" exhibited in Hebrews.

I was quite clear. Just because some makes some platonic noises does not mean they can't believe something happened on earth.

Quote:

Doherty argues that if the author were drawing a parallel between a heavenly and earthly sacrifice, then it would be inconsistent to have the heavenly event being partly earthly. This is an incongruence you could not address convincingly.

I make my argument and you failed to offer any serious rebuttal. You were left resporting to conspiracies to alter the text.

Quote:

How could the High priest's sacrificial act be a parallel to Jesus' sacrifice if Jesus was sacrificed on earth?

Because the author was not restricted to Doherty's version of how Platonic thought works.

Quote:

That in itself would have shattered the parallel in the platonic framework (in the platonic mindset, there were heavenly counterparts to earthly events). It would be incongruent to have the heavenly parallel being "contaminated" with an earthly event (Jesus' alleged earthly crucifixion).

No one has proven what kind of allegedly "platonic framework" was used.

Quote:

Mythers hold that Jesus' "life", "death" and "resurrection" were wholly ethereal events that did not take place in the earthly realm just like that of sumerian Attis/Asherah. And this is consistent with the platonic ethos that the author of Hebrews displays throughout his epistles.

No its not. As I have shown specifically twice now. If you want to argue, please be specific.

As it is, you've shown me time and again that you have not even read Hebrews and fail to understand Doherty's theory.

Quote:

Doherty also asked the very unforgettable question: How could the author be talking about a second coming yet he had not accounted for or mentioned a first coming?
You have not addressed this question either and no amount of hand-waving and grandstanding will make these questions vanish.

I address this question quite specifically:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=45180

You are showing once again that you have not read my posts.

Quote:

More importantly, you were attacking a strawman by isolating his interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28 yet you know very well that the interpretation is drawn from a number of other reasons and contexts and histo-cultural milieu which you conveniently chose to exclude. You instead chose to focus on "meta" and ek deuteurou" - when I pointed this out, you pouted that Doherty had said that it could stand alone.

Doherty did say it could stand alone. Obviously it cannot.

Quote:

And that is when I said your ambitious thread title was misleading.

Talk about "quibbling." You are quite the lightweight. A poor man's Toto so to speak.

Quote:

Doherty's argument is not that his interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28 can stand alone, but that the author was referring to the parousia. You chose to attack a claim about the argument and left the argument untouched. As I said, its a waste of time to argue that an item is not red when one is colourblind. If you reject Doherty's arguments, its a waste of time to argue that they cannot stand alone, so its worthwhile instead to focus on the arguments and your reasons for rejecting them.
You have started a new thread without clearly addressing Doherty's arguments other than asserting that "mainstream scholarly opinion is that the author was referring to the second coming". Which is in essence, an apop (argument from a position of preconception) and an appeal to numbers. Price and Carrier have endorsed Doherty's interpretation.

In a nutshell, Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28 is as sound as ever and has not been shaken one bit by your assertions and tangential arguments.

Folks. IM is simply lying. Read for yourselves here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=45180

Quote:

Now you have started another thread, with a dramatic, presumptuous title.

Your point?

Quote:

What you need to explain, as Toto points out, is why the authors chose, in their lengthy, preachy writings, not to mention "Jerusalem, Golgotha, and/or Calvary".

Actually, what I've shown is that there is no reason to think such an omission is significant.

Quote:

What is your explanation - that it doesn't matter that they didn't mention any historical facts? You want to wave it away?

Nope, I explain why its not significant by pointing out example of example of later Christian writers who write about the crucifixion and never mention its location.

Quote:

It follows logically that if one is writing about a person but doesnt mention any historical entities, then the person(being written about) is not likely to be historical, or the text cannot be considered to be historical.

If you assume the answer, you will be right in the question.

Quote:

To argue that such a character is actually historical, the one making such an argument would then have to explain why the author(s) chose to omit historical references.

Not when its clear that many later Christian writers did not feel any need to mention said historical fact.

Quote:

Until then, you are begging the question. From the writings of Ignatius, there is no reason to beleive that he/she was writing about a historical character. Apart from begging the question, I can see you resorting to special pleading - unless you have substantive arguments this time.

Once again you prove you have no idea what Doherty's theories are. And that you have not read the subject matter at issue. Have you ever read one of Ignatius' letters? Or Polycarps? Or the other writings I referenced?

Obviously not.

Quote:

Sectarian selection of quotes from some scholars of your choice don't lend much validity to your argument(s). Because we have scholars that disagree anyway.

The scholar you cite does note even mention Hebrews.

Quote:

About your tortured argument that the author was "forcing" what he knew about the historical facts of Jesus' death into Hebrew scripture, it has no validity. An analogy does not need to be exact - by its very definition. If its a perfect match, it must be a repeat of the same thing - or the same thing and NOT an analogy.

Very funny. And hypocritical, considering the conclusory, uninformed grief you gave me over the obvious analogy that the author of Hebrews draws between Jesus and the high priests.

We are not just talking about an analogy. Per Doherty's theory, the author of Hebrews invents his refernces to Jesus based solely on Hebrew scripture.

Quote:

In fact, the only thing that makes it seem "forced" is if one is arguing from the preconceived position that a historical Jesus, as formulated in the Gospels, actually existed.

No, it seems forced because the animals were sacrificed in the camp and Jesus was executed outside the gate. It seems forced because Jesus suffers before the sacrifice and the animal is "burned" after the sacrifice. It seems forced because the author switches from "camp" to "gate" for no apparent reason.

None of this relies on assuming a historical Jesus. But it is obvious that the existence of historical Jesus' traditions are a better explanation for the discrepencies than that they were based solely on contradictory Hebrew scripture.

Quote:

Eheumerizing Christ [logos] is inconsistent with platonic philisophy which was pervasive in hellenistic Palestine.

I'm very skeptical that you even know what these words mean.

Quote:

This speaks volumes about the idea that a historical Jesus existed, because if we buy the idea, we will then have to explain what compelled the author of Hebrews to "force" interpretations into a framework that so obviously expels any attempt to fit motifs. What aggravates the quagmire you are in is the fact that you are arguing that the author deviated from his platonic leavings in the verses in question - which raises another question: what animus motivated him to force the analogy he was attempting to draw?

You have not established that the author's "platonic leanings" foreclosed any discussion of earthly events. You've simply conjured a magic word and think it explains everything away.

Remember:

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.

Luke T. Johnson, The New Testament Writings, at 422.

Quote:

You have not explained the very fitting nature of the comparison when the author uses the word camp in 13:11-13:

Doherty notes:

I would like to remind the readers/lurkers that you have chosen to conveniently exclude the section I have highlighted above when you quoted Doherty above. After selectively quoting part of the write up that can serve your agenda (this is called "slicing"), you then stated:

The differences are not significant and the similarities and obvious. The word camp is used in Jesus' parallel and in the High Priests' case. This is a very beautiful and fitting analogy.
If differences do not exist, then it obviously cant be and analogy, its misleading to highlight the differences alone even as you selectively quote the author. The fact that you offer no link in your OP also seems sneaky and smnacks of devious argumentation. Thanks to Toto, the link is now readily available.

Of course the author uses "camp" when discussing the system set forth in the Scriptures. The difference, quite obvious, is that he does not use "camp" to describe Jesus' death. He uses "gate."

Swing and a miss there, IM.

Quote:

Of course there have to be changes in terminology. Its a basic writing practice. Using the same terminology all the time makes for a tedious, boring writing. And it might make ana analogy be confused with the actual thing being described.
"Outside the gate" and "outside the camp" both mean "outside the camp"
Any living thing that is "burnt" "suffers" so the analogy is fitting.
You are engaging in semantic quibbles. And its a sorry sight.

This is basic writing practice? Says you. You have shown yourself much to ignorant about Hebrews and Doherty's theories (and now Ignatius) to have any authority in your words.

Quote:

Because its an analogy. Besides, the "shift" trivial, as I have indicated above.

No actually, the shift is important. You are the one who is trying to "wave" it away. Saying the author wanted to avoid being "boring" is hardly persuasive argument.

And the shift is especially profound given that it fits within the historical tradition being articulated by a contemporary of the author of Hebrews,--the author of the Gospel of Mark.

Quote:

Another strawman. He doesnt say Jesus was the same thing - he says Jesus underwent the same thing (the sacrificial act). Its about the soteriology. You evidently cant see the trees for the forest. To be sure, Doherty says:

earthly copy is used in reference to a copy of the event, NOT the actual beings involved - a perfect analogy.

Wow. You used the word soteriology. Now explain yourself rather than rehashing words that I'm not sure you have any understanding of.

None of this explains why the author of Hebrews chose to use a word indicative of a contemporary tradition about the historical Jesus. Or why the order and location of Jesus and the animal sacrifice is so disparate.

Quote:

It does point away "from a heavy reliance on Platonic thought" if one presumes that there was indeed a historical Jesus. So this is a moot point. In the wider context of Hebrews however, and the glaring omission of mention of historical info, its evident the author was just pulling out any scriptural characters/ events and constructing heavenly analogies for them.

Ah, back to the "wider context of Hebrews."

LOL.

Quote:

Any statistics this time? Or shall we take you on your word again? You seem intent on making appeal to popularity fashionable.

I do not respond to absurd arguments. I've read probably about 20 or so commentaries on Hebrews from all different perspectives. Doherty's understanding is way out there.

Quote:

This "force" argument is not evident in the scholarly citations you've provided. Is it your own argument or does it have any scholarly support?
According to your quotations:

Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, says "The symbolism of Hebrews is complex..."
F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews says the parallel may seem inexact, but that its a parallel nevertheless.
Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews says "The analogy was not meant to be pressed"

You have cited them, purely for effect, then formulated your own tortured argument that the author of Hebrews just wanted to force things. Force them into what? since you argue that he had no Platonic persuasions, what would compel him to force things? What framework did he have in mind? What preconceptions/persuasions drove him into forcing analogies between incongruent (from your POV) entities?

You missed the cites? Let's try again. Maybe repitition will do you good. I direct your attention to the bolded terms.

Quote:

The fact that the bodies of the animals sacrificed on the Day of Atonement were burned outside the camp suggests a parallel to the fact that Jesus was crucified outside one of the city gates of Jerusalem [cf. John 19:2]. The parallel may seem inexact, since the animals of the sin offering were actually slaughtered within the camp.

F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, at 380.

And,

Quote:

The analogy was not meant to be pressed, and that may be why the author used the word suffered (epathen) rather than 'died." The Old Testament sin offering was actually slain within the tabernacle precincts, and only after its blood was sprinkled on the altar was the carcass carried outside the camp for burning. In the case of Jesus, of course, His death occurred outside the city. The main point in view is the disagr[ace] involved.

Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews, 285.

I never said that the author had no Platonic persuasions. As for why he tried to make the analogy fit, that's because he was eager to make his point and the OT was the only scripture Christians had at the time.

As for what preconceptions the author has, there is a heavy Jewish eschatology ("The idea of heavenly worship in a heavenly sanctuary has long been familiar in Judaism, quite apart from any Platonic influential." R. McL. Wilson, Hebrews, at 135), some Qumran thought in there (see Johnson above), and some Platonic thought (However, "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).

I thought I had already explained this to you by reference to Johnson, but maybe repitition will be good for you:

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:

Are there studies that have demonstrated that there are other scriptural authors who chose to force things into incongruent frameworks? If not, was this solely the style of the author of Hebrews?
Your tortured and tenuous argument strikes me as ad-hoc and the claim that he forced things seems entirely arbitrary and subjective.
Provide scholarly support at least.

I did.

Quote:

If I may ask, why did you cite the scholars above?

I cited Bruce and Kent because they discussed how the analogy was "inexact", "not meant to be pressed," and pointed out the differences between the OT system and the discussion of Jesus. I cited JOhnson for the reasons I had to recite him here.

Peter Kirby · 03-16-2003, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO
But please do tell me where this text comes from.

I don't know. It's a traditional song.

best,
Peter Kirby

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

03-15-2003, 01:43 PM	#22
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	You are right, Peter. I should have said that the objection is that there is no "there" there. No location is stated or implied. This contrasts with the passage from Hebrews, where there is a location - outside the gate or the compound - that is not tied to Jerusalem.

03-16-2003, 03:37 PM	#23
vtran31 Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Midland, TX Posts: 40	NOGO: "For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will. Note the word "now" Is "now" ~30 CE when Jesus suposedly spoke these words? No! This is a case of "writer perspective" The writer starts by projecting the event into the future "For those days will be .." Then he stumbles ... makes a mistake ... reveals something which he was not suposed to reveal. Instead of saying "until then" keeping the event in the future as Jesus would have said it, he writes "until now", thus betraying his belief that the tribulations had already started. "now" is the time of the tribulation in question. The war with the Romans had already started when Mark wrote this. He may have guessed that the temple would be destroyed but a good prophet cannot take that chance. Therefore the earliest would be 70 CE. How do you get that. I get it means it will be a time of tribulation that is so tribulous that anything in the past, beginning of the creation of God, this present time, now, or the future, ever will be.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.