outside the city = in the heaven: Why even Richard Carrier is wrong!

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

outside the city = in the heaven: Why even Richard Carrier is wrong!

Post by Giuseppe »

Hebrews 13:11-14
11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

If the “city” outside from which Jesus suffered is just the “city” that is meant as allegory for “here” (in the verse 14, meaning the “Planet Earth”) in opposition to the “enduring city” reserved for the Christians in the afterlife (i.e., the celestial Jerusalem in the higher heavens), then Jesus's sufferings have to be localized precisely “outside the city” allegorizing “here”, i.e. outside this world: in the lower heavens.


This interpretation is given by Couchoud and reported by Marc Stéphane (La passion de Jésus, fait d'histoire ou objet de croyance, 1959, p. 310).

Note that Richard Carrier wrote in OHJ that ''outside the city'' is to be meant as ''outside the celestial city'', but this is not precisely what the text says, since the city that is meant is the earthly world. Not the earthly Jerusalem and not even the celestial Jerusalem. But “here”. :cheers:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: outside the city = in the heaven: Why even Richard Carrier is wrong!

Post by arnoldo »

Could the following verse be an interpolation?
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
https://biblehub.com/hebrews/5-7.htm

Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: outside the city = in the heaven: Why even Richard Carrier is wrong!

Post by Giuseppe »

arnoldo wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:04 am Could the following verse be an interpolation?
that is not the topic of this thread. Here I am not speaking about interpolations.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: outside the city = in the heaven: Why even Richard Carrier is wrong!

Post by arnoldo »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:10 am
arnoldo wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:04 am Could the following verse be an interpolation?
that is not the topic of this thread. Here I am not speaking about interpolations.
Ok, sorry. Hebrews is an interesting book with it's depiction of a High Priest, Temple ,etc. Jerome, in fact believed that Clement wrote Hebrews. Thomas J Herron seems to agree with this possibility along with the dating of the text before 70 AD.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: outside the city = in the heaven: Why even Richard Carrier is wrong!

Post by Giuseppe »


11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp.

12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.

13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city =[here we have a city that is not enduring], but we are looking for the city that is to come.

if the “camp” = “here”,

and if “here” = a “city” that is not “enduring”

then “outside the city gate” = “outside the camp” = “outside the city that is not enduring”

But the “city that is not enduring” is “here”

and “here” = the entire Planet Earth

Therefore: “outside the city gate” = outside the Planet Earth .e. in the heaven.

So the sense is:
11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp.

12 And so Jesus also suffered in the heaven to make the people holy through his own blood.

13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For in this earth we do not have an enduring heaven, but we are looking for the heaven that is to come.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: outside the city = in the heaven: Why even Richard Carrier is wrong!

Post by arnoldo »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Nov 19, 2018 5:34 am
11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp.

12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.

13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city =[here we have a city that is not enduring], but we are looking for the city that is to come.

if the “camp” = “here”,

and if “here” = a “city” that is not “enduring”

then “outside the city gate” = “outside the camp” = “outside the city that is not enduring”

But the “city that is not enduring” is “here”

and “here” = the entire Planet Earth

Therefore: “outside the city gate” = outside the Planet Earth .e. in the heaven.

So the sense is: <snip>
That is your sense.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: outside the city = in the heaven: Why even Richard Carrier is wrong!

Post by Ben C. Smith »

arnoldo wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:49 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:10 am
arnoldo wrote: Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:04 am Could the following verse be an interpolation?
that is not the topic of this thread. Here I am not speaking about interpolations.
Ok, sorry. Hebrews is an interesting book with it's depiction of a High Priest, Temple ,etc. Jerome, in fact believed that Clement wrote Hebrews. Thomas J Herron seems to agree with this possibility along with the dating of the text before 70 AD.
Arnoldo, you know better than to interrupt Giuseppe while he has this thinking cap on.

Image
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: outside the city = in the heaven: Why even Richard Carrier is wrong!

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:25 am
Arnoldo, you know better than to interrupt Giuseppe while he has this thinking cap on.

Image
what is disturbing, Ben, is that you are doing so caustic irony not against me (I can always forgive you) but against Couchoud (and Doherty for that matter).
It doesn't seem that you have a better solution, if you really think that the "outside the city gate" that is meant is... ...the Golgotha (sic).

...or the Gethsemani (double sic). :facepalm:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: outside the city = in the heaven: Why even Richard Carrier is wrong!

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:18 amwhat is disturbing, Ben, is that you are doing so caustic irony not against me (I can always forgive you) but against Couchoud (and Doherty for that matter).
This is Earl Doherty's view of that passage. From "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", pages 68-69 (my highlighting):

Hebrews 13:11-13 says that Jesus "suffered outside the gate," but no city is mentioned, and the idea is determined by scripture. For this writer, Jesus' experience in the realm of myth is being portrayed wherever possible as paralleling the sacrificial cult established in Exodus. In verse 11-12, his suffering is paralleled with the burning of the bodies of sacrificed animals which took place "outside the camp," referring to the Israelite camp at Sinai—even though this is actually a poor parallel, since the disposal of the carcass of the animal after its sacrifice is not equivalent to Jesus' death which, occurring before, provides the blood for his own sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary, nor is his body destroyed. But here the author changes his motif and has Jesus dying "outside the gate," more than likely meaning the gate of Heaven. (It had to be changed in any case, since Jesus died neither inside nor outside any camp.) If he had meant the gate of Jerusalem, there should have been no reason for him to revert in the next verse (13) to the idea of believers joining Jesus "outside the camp," since joining him at the site of his death outside the gate of Jerusalem would have been a very apt metaphor.

Whether that agrees with your interpretation or not I don't know, since I don't quite understand your interpretation.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: outside the city = in the heaven: Why even Richard Carrier is wrong!

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:40 am
Whether that agrees with your interpretation or not I don't know, since I don't quite understand your interpretation.
No, it doesn't agree with the Couchoud's interpretation. It is the same of Carrier.

Can you say what is not clear, GDon, please?

The immediate context in verse 14 talks about an enduring city that is not "here", therefore the implication is that "here" corresponds ipso facto to a "not-enduring city".

11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp.

12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.

13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

So if the author is in a not-enduring city found "here", i.e. this earth and this world, then do 2 + 2 : what is outside this world is the heaven.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply