On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by gryan »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jan 22, 2021 3:53 am
Then a bold assertion, then v. 24 --

22 ... you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel ...

The author of Hebrews appears to be interacting with Galatians 4:24-26:

24These things serve as illustrations, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery: This is Hagar. 25...and corresponds to the present-day Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

But with a twist: Unlike Galatians, where "Mount Sinai" is connected, not with "Jerusalem above" but with "the present day Jerusalem," Hebrews connects "Mount Zion" with "heavenly Jerusalem." Are "Mt. Sinai" and "Mt. Zion" the same? Not according to this Google search result: "Mount Sinai as the locus of encounter or meeting between God and Israel only played a transitory role, whereas Mount Zion had perpetual significance as the destination, the dwelling place of God and his people."

What do you make of this?
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:36 pm
What I just outlined are theological points. The author used the fact that Jesus was fully human to make these points. Certainly that does not make what preceeds the outlined words just fictional literature...
The Epistle to the Hebrews does not establish any historical facts about the character called Jesus Christ. The facts are that the writing is anonymous and of unknown date of authorship.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
The Epistle to the Hebrews does not establish any historical facts about the character called Jesus Christ. The facts are that the writing is anonymous and of unknown date of authorship.
All NT texts do not indicate date of authorship and even when the writers claimed he is Paul, Peter, Jude or James, that does not mean they are the true authors.
The historical facts in Hebrews about the character of Jesus is that he was as human as you and me, which is very clear but unacceptable for mythicists.

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:00 am to hakeem,
The Epistle to the Hebrews does not establish any historical facts about the character called Jesus Christ. The facts are that the writing is anonymous and of unknown date of authorship.
All NT texts do not indicate date of authorship and even when the writers claimed he is Paul, Peter, Jude or James, that does not mean they are the true authors.
The historical facts in Hebrews about the character of Jesus is that he was as human as you and me, which is very clear but unacceptable for mythicists.

Cordially, Bernard
What you say does not alter the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews is an anonymous writing of unknown authorship and does not establish any historical facts about the character called Jesus.

By the way, whether or not authors of NT books were Paul, Peter, Jude or James that does not mean they wrote about historical facts about the their supposed Jesus.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to MrMacSon,
you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.
But the Greek has"and" as such:
you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.

It does not look to me that mount Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem are the same.
It's like saying: you have come to Rome and to the renaissanse city, the nearby Florence ...

Cordially, Bernard
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by davidmartin »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:00 am to hakeem,
The Epistle to the Hebrews does not establish any historical facts about the character called Jesus Christ. The facts are that the writing is anonymous and of unknown date of authorship.
All NT texts do not indicate date of authorship and even when the writers claimed he is Paul, Peter, Jude or James, that does not mean they are the true authors.
The historical facts in Hebrews about the character of Jesus is that he was as human as you and me, which is very clear but unacceptable for mythicists.

Cordially, Bernard
what i don't understand about mythicists is the attempt to make Jesus purely mythological presents all kinds of problems - the easy way out being to admit a historical person and associated movement that developed and grew (if you like, and about whom myths were made). then it is fun to speculate on these historical origins and theorise what they might be. whereas the pure mythicist has to build up a case to deny the validity of stuff all over the place... boring. When it comes to Hebrews and Paul, they have zero need theologically to say anything about the historical Jesus beyond what can be written on a very small piece of paper but that doesn't mean such information didn't exist. It strikes me more likely that this type of Christianity in the end was forced to incorporate this information in the form of gospels. this then undermines the mythicists own reliance on writings such as Hebrews if these same churches were forced to do something different and change their tune (the gospels were too popular to ignore?) then why should they be star witnesses to a mythological Jesus?
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by hakeem »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:14 am what i don't understand about mythicists is the attempt to make Jesus purely mythological presents all kinds of problems - the easy way out being to admit a historical person and associated movement that developed and grew (if you like, and about whom myths were made). then it is fun to speculate on these historical origins and theorise what they might be. whereas the pure mythicist has to build up a case to deny the validity of stuff all over the place... boring. When it comes to Hebrews and Paul, they have zero need theologically to say anything about the historical Jesus beyond what can be written on a very small piece of paper but that doesn't mean such information didn't exist. It strikes me more likely that this type of Christianity in the end was forced to incorporate this information in the form of gospels. this then undermines the mythicists own reliance on writings such as Hebrews if these same churches were forced to do something different and change their tune (the gospels were too popular to ignore?) then why should they be star witnesses to a mythological Jesus?
Whether or not there was an historical Jesus it is a fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews is anonymous and of unknown date of authorship so cannot be regarded as an historical writing for the Jesus character.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is part of the Canon of the Christian Church whose doctrine is that their Jesus was God in the flesh without a human father.

Hebrews does not contradict the teachings of the Christian Church.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
The Epistle to the Hebrews is part of the Canon of the Christian Church whose doctrine is that their Jesus was God in the flesh without a human father.

Hebrews does not contradict the teachings of the Christian Church.
(bolding mine)
But it does: Heb 7:14 "For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:55 am to hakeem,
The Epistle to the Hebrews is part of the Canon of the Christian Church whose doctrine is that their Jesus was God in the flesh without a human father.

Hebrews does not contradict the teachings of the Christian Church.
(bolding mine)
But it does: Heb 7:14 "For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."

Cordially, Bernard
The passage you quoted and the entire Epistle to the Hebrews do not state Jesus had a human father. It should have occurred to you that the Christian Religion teaches that their Jesus had a human mother.

Jesus Christ is the Creator and God's son in Hebrews.

Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Hebrews 1:10
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
The passage you quoted and the entire Epistle to the Hebrews do not state Jesus had a human father. It should have occurred to you that the Christian Religion teaches that their Jesus had a human mother.
Oh, so Jesus had a human mother! I am glad you admit that.
As for Heb 7:14 "For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." Heredity in the Jewish system was transmitted through the male line. gMatthew and gLuke did not change that in their made up genealogies. So, Hebrews implies Jesus had a human father.

Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Hebrews 1:10
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.

Yes Hebrews has the Son begotten before the beginning of time. But in order to be incarnated on earth, he needed a human mother and a human father, when still being the Son.

Cordially, Bernard
Post Reply