Ted Hoffman

It can only call the rest of his interpretation of Hebrews into question if "the rest of his interpretation" is based on this trivial sub-argument.
The fact is, it is not.

It can stand alone if you agree that the argument is valid in the first place.
This exposes the error in your insistence that this thread is meant to demonstrate that "it cannot stand alone" - which is simply based on the idea that Doherty's interpretation is wrong.
Which takes us back to square one.

Doherty does not ignore ANY context. But you can go ahead and support that claim, if its valid.

You can do better than feign simple-mindedness. Its called "proof of concept". The same death-resurrection-salvation concept applies both in Jesus and Attis.

Its a tortured argument Layman. Picking one or two nuances and trying to attach importance to them is hardly persuasive.
The author had Platonic leanings. We can invoke Occams razor and cut out the flavours of platonism that are squeezed out of the writings.

He did. He mentioned Mary, Pontius Pilate and John the Baptist. At least one of those is supposed to be a historical character.

Most strawman arguments are foolish.

You earlier said:

First of all, this statement is false. Doherty doesn't allow for even one appearance of Jesus on earth. He is a Jesus myther for christs sake!

Secondly, his argument is that the author of Hebrews had platonic leanings and that he (Hebrews' author) embraced the idea of a sacrifice in heaven and used the High priest example as an earthly.

You need to clearly understand Doherty's arguments before you can refute them.
When Doherty says:

He means there was NEVER a first earthly coming.
And that the Galilean tradition was a layer that developed later (Ellegard thinks the Bishop of Antioch invented this tradition) and was later intergrated with the idea of Christ Logos.

Since you beleive in a heavenly sacrifice of Jesus, like me and Doherty, you are a Jesus myther. Like I said, welcome aboard.

Layman

And you say I don't understand Doherty's theory?

Perhaps you are right. But I suspect very strongly not. At least not on this issue.

Regardless, I know that Doherty is saying that the author of Hebrews does not believe in an earthly first coming. Where I believe you are wrong is that Doherty seems to think that the early Christians believed Jesus would finally come to earth during the Paurosia.

Why do I think this?

Because of comments like this one by Doherty: 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.

Also: The Greek participle erchomenos, which the Septuagint here uses, became a virtual title, used with a masculine article: “the Coming One,” and referred to the expected savior figure who would arrive at the End-time. This is clearly how Hebrews is using it.

And here: Yet he does not. His
silence plainly shows that for him Christ’s coming is still to be, that he has no concept of him already having been here.

And here in Article 8: Christ is the heavenly man who will be arriving on earth at the imminent End-time.

Please prove that Doherty does not think that, from the early Christian perpsective, "Christ is the heavenly man who will be arriving on earth" in the future.

Because you are doing nothing but (attemping to) vaguely parroting what you think Doherty says, I think I can safely stick a fork in you. You're done. You have no substantive responses in defense of Doherty's dubious interpretion of these passages.

This again demonstrates just how ignorant you are about Doherty's theory and about traditional exegis of Hebrews. No one disputes that Jesus is offered as a sacrifice in heaven. That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he died on earth.

Ted Hoffman

Of course you do.
I agree with you that Doherty does think that.

"Will be coming" in the future. NOT - "will come again".
Thank you.

Layman

Well, you agree with me now. Earlier you were demanding proof that Doherty allowed for any appearance by Jesus on earth:

It seems you were the one who needed some educating about Doherty's theory.

Ted Hoffman

Doherty does not allow for ANY appearance of Jesus by Jesus on earth. At least not a past appearance.

He however beleives the author of Hebrews beleived Jesus would come on earth in future.

Allow has got nothing to do with what we are discussing. It is not for Doherty to allow or disallow anything - we are making textual interpretations, not gratifying our egos.

Ted Hoffman

Originally Posted by Layman
Originally Posted by Layman
Focus on the subject being discussed. Not the person(s). Its a simple debating rule.

Originally Posted by Layman
The citation you provided did not have Doherty allowing for at least one appearance of Jesus on earth, but it had Doherty beleiving that Hebrews' author wrote in reference to the coming in glory at the End-time - not the second coming - because as Doherty says, the author had made no allowance/provision for the first coming.

Its not what Doherty allows. One cant allow the past. Being a myther, he(Doherty) cant allow any mythical coming in future either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrap this tightly around your skull, O Layman.
Eschew all ignorance and foolish talk for thou art truly blessed
Go ye and ponder upon these words and imbibe the succulent wisdom from the glorious feet of Earl Doherty.
For he hath revealed the mystery of Christ thy Lord
Hearken to his resplendent wisdom and immerse yourself in the honey-pot of his magnificient sapience.
Tarry no more Layman, heed these words

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Kirby

Preaching, purple prose & prattle prohibited.

playfully,
Peter

Vinnie

Jesus loves you.

Playfully,
Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Be you disturbed by my prose?
Trouble not, for I shall spout no more
But how shall we set aright Laymans benighted sight?
He be locked in strife with the wise counsel of friar Earl Doherty

Alack! Alas! wherefore cometh this fierce fortune
That keeps my thirsty friend shackled in the dark?
Seeth he not, that what he thinks hath venom, be full of honey?

O that he could.
Or shall we eke deconstruct his exclusionary style like did Vernon Robbins?

Layman

As my quotes showed, Doherty definitely believes that the early Christians believed Jesus would make an earthly appearance.

Is this still unclear to you?