the strange detail of the death ''out of the gates''
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:33 am
I can accept that Jesus existed but that the his Birth in Betlehem was invented.
I can accept that Jesus existed but that the his infancy in Nazaret was invented.
I can even accept that Jesus existed but that the reference to ''Golgotha/place of the skull'' was invented.
What I can't accept is the idea that Jesus existed and that the detail that he was suffered ''out of the gates'' (Hebrews 13:12) was invented.
These two ideas are logically mutually exclusive.
Since a historicist reading of Hebrews 13:12 has to assume necessarily (and I underline: necessarily) that the his author wrote that Jesus suffered ''out of the gate'' basically because he knew that Jesus was crucified out of Jerusalem of Judea.
The author of Hebrews could know nothing about a lot of things about a historical Jesus, but at least he had to know where precisely he died. Since even a Paul wanted to know ''only'' about the ''crucified Christ''. And surely the information about the precise place of the his crucifixion was absolutely necessary for him (if Jesus was historical).
Now, the problem is that, as I have explained before here, the detail of the death ''out of the gates'' is derived from the scriptures.
In short: the fact that the Gospel Jesus is crucified ''out of'' the earthly Jerusalem is more probably a consequence of the fact that the Epistle Jesus is crucified ''out of'' the celestial Jerusalem. And not vice versa.
Because otherwise the coincidence would be too much impossible to be true: that a historical Jesus was crucified ''out of'' the earthly Jerusalem, and (sic) he is also able to realize the point of the scriptures (being real or simply imagined there) that places the suffering of the ideal just ''out of'' the gates of the celestial Jerusalem.
This is a real problem for the historicists.
I can accept that Jesus existed but that the his infancy in Nazaret was invented.
I can even accept that Jesus existed but that the reference to ''Golgotha/place of the skull'' was invented.
What I can't accept is the idea that Jesus existed and that the detail that he was suffered ''out of the gates'' (Hebrews 13:12) was invented.
These two ideas are logically mutually exclusive.
Since a historicist reading of Hebrews 13:12 has to assume necessarily (and I underline: necessarily) that the his author wrote that Jesus suffered ''out of the gate'' basically because he knew that Jesus was crucified out of Jerusalem of Judea.
The author of Hebrews could know nothing about a lot of things about a historical Jesus, but at least he had to know where precisely he died. Since even a Paul wanted to know ''only'' about the ''crucified Christ''. And surely the information about the precise place of the his crucifixion was absolutely necessary for him (if Jesus was historical).
Now, the problem is that, as I have explained before here, the detail of the death ''out of the gates'' is derived from the scriptures.
In short: the fact that the Gospel Jesus is crucified ''out of'' the earthly Jerusalem is more probably a consequence of the fact that the Epistle Jesus is crucified ''out of'' the celestial Jerusalem. And not vice versa.
Because otherwise the coincidence would be too much impossible to be true: that a historical Jesus was crucified ''out of'' the earthly Jerusalem, and (sic) he is also able to realize the point of the scriptures (being real or simply imagined there) that places the suffering of the ideal just ''out of'' the gates of the celestial Jerusalem.
This is a real problem for the historicists.