Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Jesus Exist?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AlexBP" data-source="post: 57233993" data-attributes="member: 261211"><p>Yeah, it's explained, but it's not explained very well. Let's take a look at what Doherty says.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: indigo">We have to start by realizing that the modern mind has long abandoned those views of the universe which for the ancients governed their beliefs in gods and salvation. The concepts of the first century CE have little resonance with the scientific knowledge of the 20th and 21st centuries. When the eye of the ancient philosopher or even the average layperson looked skyward, it imagined it could see a populated spirit world where the bulk of the workings of the universe took place. Near the bottom of this multi-level system lay humanitys sphere of material existence; only Sheol or Hades, the underworld, was lower. Various supernatural layers (usually seven) extended upwards, filled with spiritual life forms, reaching to the highest heaven of pure spirit where the ultimate God dwelled in timeless perfection. Most important, the nature of this reality involved far-reaching correspondences between the higher and lower realms, between spirit and matter.</span></p><p style="text-align: left"></p> </p><p><span style="color: black">This is a decently accurate picture of Platonic thought. It is wrong to say that "the ancient philosopher or even the average layperson" adopted this viewpoint as if it were unanimous. There were many different philosophies circulating in the relevant time period. Therefore we cannot simply declare that any particular person held this view. Unless we have <em>specific</em> evidence that a person viewed the world in this manner, we can't ascribe a Platonic worldview to that person. (We'll call this Doherty's Error #1, or DE1 for short.) In particular we should be extremely skeptical of any claim that a Jew held this worldview, due to the already cited evidence that Jews of the time rejected any influence of Greek thought on their religion. Not suprisingly, Doherty immediately does exactly that.</span></p><p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkslateblue">These concepts became expanded in various ways, showing a range of expression in Greek philosophy as well as in Jewish and other near-eastern thought. A sacred site such as the Jerusalem Temple, for example (as in Hebrews 8 and 9, Wisdom of Solomon 9:8, etc.), was the earthly counterpart of a greater, more perfect heavenly Temple. (Even the Babylonians had held such an idea.) Nations, rulers, groups on earth possessed a corresponding angelic or divine being who represented them, a superior counterpart in heaven, a champion.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p>In using the quote from Wisdom of Solomon as an example, Doherty is flat wrong. A quick check of the relevant passage will show that it compares the temple to the <em>tabernacle tent</em>, exactly as the Old Testament does on countless occasions. It does not compare the Temple to a temple in Heaven. Now on to Hebrews, the idea that Hebrews reflects a Platonic understanding has already been rebutted in an article that I linked to earlier, which you (as usual) simply refused to respond to.</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/price3.htm" target="_blank">Doherty's Use of Hebrews</a></p><p> </p><p>Since asking you to click on links and read and respond to what they say is an exercise in futility, I will instead quote the relevant portion right here:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkslateblue">Doherty places much emphasis on the influence of Platonic thought on Hebrews. According to Doherty, "there can be no denying that Hebrews' thought world is fundamentally Platonic. This is a divided, dualistic universe of realms heavenly and earthly, genuine and imitation." Although I agree that there was Platonic influence on the author of Hebrews, Doherty greatly overestimates it. Moreover, he tends to ignore and explain away many references in Hebrews which affirm other, Jewish influences which stress the linear thought of Jewish eschatology and Jewish messianic expectations. Those Jewish ideas stressed God's direct intervention in human affairs. "YHWH, as the creator and covenant God, was irrevocably committed to further action of some sort in history...." (N. T. Wright, <em>The New Testament and the People of God</em>, page 247). Along these lines, Jewish messianic expectations centred around a human messiah--not a purely mythological saviour active only in the "lower celestial realm." The Epistle to the Hebrews affirms and reinforces these beliefs, but with its own spin.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkslateblue">For comparative purposes, a useful way to describe Platonic thought is that it is vertical. The imperfect on earth is but a shadow of the perfection in the heavens. The relationship is vertical and static. Jewish belief, however, though containing its own vertical relationship between God's actions in heaven and effects on earth, stresses a horizontal perspective. The world--even the heavens--is not static, it is moving forward according to God's plans to a final reconciliation of heaven and earth. In Hebrews there is undoubtedly some Platonic influence; at least in language. However, it is subordinated to the horizontal Jewish perspective stressing God's intervention in earthly affairs. To the great detriment of a dispassionate understanding of Hebrews, Doherty chooses to view Hebrews only through a Platonic lens.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkslateblue">Indeed, the first passage in Hebrews demonstrates the fallacy of cramming Hebrews into a Platonic box. It stresses both Jesus' role as a human agent of God and a decidedly non-Platonic worldview:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkslateblue">Hebrews 1:1-2: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." </span><span style="color: darkslateblue">Jesus' actions take place not in a static, murky realm, but in a set place in history. While actions in the platonic heavenly realm are timeless and static, Jesus did not speak as God's son until "these last days." Additionally, Jesus' role as God's spokesperson is compared to the flesh and blood prophets of the Jewish forefathers "long ago." Hebrews uses the same terms to describe the actions of the prophets "long ago" and Jesus "in these last days." There is a definite parallel being drawn between God speaking through his earthly prophets and God speaking through his earthly Son. "Each of the main phrases in the first verse (of old, to our fathers, by the prophets) is matched by a corresponding, and to some extent contrasting phrase in the second (in these last days, to us, by a Son)." (R. McL. Wilson, <em>The New Century Bible Commentary: Hebrews</em>, page 30). This is far from platonic.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkslateblue">Whatever uses will be made of the 'Platonic' category of ideas later in the letter, we must see with complete clarity that here in the opening statement the relationship between the two forms of revelation--the imperfect and perfect--is given not as between an imperfect human or earthly form and a spiritual and heavenly form, but as earlier and later forms. The disclosure of the Word of God takes its shape as a history, a history which has a past and a present (and, indeed, a future). </span><span style="color: darkslateblue">(Graham Hughes, <em>Hebrews and Hermeneutics</em>, page 36).</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkslateblue">As Luke T. Johnson puts it:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkslateblue">Platonism is ... 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 now exalted and enthroned. Platonism is here stretched and reshaped around belief in a historical human saviour whose death and resurrection made both his body and time axiologically rich. </span><span style="color: darkslateblue">(Luke T. Johnson, <em>The Writings of the New Testament</em>, page 422)...</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkslateblue">In summary, although the view that the author of Hebrews writes from a strongly Platonic perspective used to hold much sway in the academic community, more thorough and recent scholarship has rightly rejected this notion. There are simply too many important differences.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p><span style="color: black">So that's what people who actually know what they're talking about think of Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews. (We'll call this Doherty's Error # 2, or DE2 for short.) Next up from Mr. Doherty:</span></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkslateblue">Paul and the earliest Christians thus lived at a time when the world of matter was viewed as only one dimension of reality, the observable half of a larger, integrated whole, whose otherinvisiblehalf was regarded as the genuine reality, accessible to the intellect.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p><span style="color: black">I've earlier called you out on using the passive voice. Earl Doherty uses the same trick here. "lived at a time when world of matter was viewed..." Was viewed by who? Some people held that view and others did not; Paul was among the ones who did not, or at least neith you nor Mr. Doherty can give a lick opf evidence that he did. (We'll call this Doherty error #3, or DE3 for short.)</span></p><p> </p><p>So now I've given reasons for rejecting the entire basis of Doherty's argument on that page, we'll look at the specifc reasons give for interpreting the phrase "the one man, Jesus Christ". What is the word that's translated as "man"? It's <span style="color: darkgreen">anthropos</span>, the word that is throughout the New Testament used <em>specifically</em> to indicate a human man as distinct from a spiritual being. You claim that Earl Doherty has explained this usage at the link above, but I don't see where he did so. Would you mind quoting here the exact passage that explains why, if Paul thought Jesus to be a spiritual being and not human, Paul referred to Jesus with the word that specifically indicates a human being and not a spiritual one? Thanks in advance!</p><p> </p><p>For quick reference here are the original claims; I still view them as standing until you give a specific reason why they don't.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkred">3. Paul describes Jesus Christ as a man repeatedly. You say that you can only find two instances. I can find many more.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkred">"But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did Gods grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one mans sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive Gods abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! </span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkred">Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." [Romans 5:15-9]</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkred">So there are three references to Jesus Christ as a man in that passage alone.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkred">4. Further, the entire point of chapter 5 of Romans is to juxtapose how "sin entered the world through one man" with "God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ". Since Paul certainly thought that Adam was a man, the comparison only makes sense if Paul thought that Jesus was a man.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AlexBP, post: 57233993, member: 261211"] Yeah, it's explained, but it's not explained very well. Let's take a look at what Doherty says. [INDENT][COLOR=indigo]We have to start by realizing that the modern mind has long abandoned those views of the universe which for the ancients governed their beliefs in gods and salvation. The concepts of the first century CE have little resonance with the scientific knowledge of the 20th and 21st centuries. When the eye of the ancient philosopher or even the average layperson looked skyward, it imagined it could see a populated spirit world where the bulk of the workings of the universe took place. Near the bottom of this multi-level system lay humanitys sphere of material existence; only Sheol or Hades, the underworld, was lower. Various supernatural layers (usually seven) extended upwards, filled with spiritual life forms, reaching to the highest heaven of pure spirit where the ultimate God dwelled in timeless perfection. Most important, the nature of this reality involved far-reaching correspondences between the higher and lower realms, between spirit and matter.[/COLOR] [LEFT][/LEFT] [/INDENT][COLOR=black]This is a decently accurate picture of Platonic thought. It is wrong to say that "the ancient philosopher or even the average layperson" adopted this viewpoint as if it were unanimous. There were many different philosophies circulating in the relevant time period. Therefore we cannot simply declare that any particular person held this view. Unless we have [I]specific[/I] evidence that a person viewed the world in this manner, we can't ascribe a Platonic worldview to that person. (We'll call this Doherty's Error #1, or DE1 for short.) In particular we should be extremely skeptical of any claim that a Jew held this worldview, due to the already cited evidence that Jews of the time rejected any influence of Greek thought on their religion. Not suprisingly, Doherty immediately does exactly that.[/COLOR] [LEFT][/LEFT] [INDENT][COLOR=darkslateblue]These concepts became expanded in various ways, showing a range of expression in Greek philosophy as well as in Jewish and other near-eastern thought. A sacred site such as the Jerusalem Temple, for example (as in Hebrews 8 and 9, Wisdom of Solomon 9:8, etc.), was the earthly counterpart of a greater, more perfect heavenly Temple. (Even the Babylonians had held such an idea.) Nations, rulers, groups on earth possessed a corresponding angelic or divine being who represented them, a superior counterpart in heaven, a champion.[/COLOR] [/INDENT]In using the quote from Wisdom of Solomon as an example, Doherty is flat wrong. A quick check of the relevant passage will show that it compares the temple to the [I]tabernacle tent[/I], exactly as the Old Testament does on countless occasions. It does not compare the Temple to a temple in Heaven. Now on to Hebrews, the idea that Hebrews reflects a Platonic understanding has already been rebutted in an article that I linked to earlier, which you (as usual) simply refused to respond to. [URL="http://www.bede.org.uk/price3.htm"]Doherty's Use of Hebrews[/URL] Since asking you to click on links and read and respond to what they say is an exercise in futility, I will instead quote the relevant portion right here: [INDENT][COLOR=darkslateblue]Doherty places much emphasis on the influence of Platonic thought on Hebrews. According to Doherty, "there can be no denying that Hebrews' thought world is fundamentally Platonic. This is a divided, dualistic universe of realms heavenly and earthly, genuine and imitation." Although I agree that there was Platonic influence on the author of Hebrews, Doherty greatly overestimates it. Moreover, he tends to ignore and explain away many references in Hebrews which affirm other, Jewish influences which stress the linear thought of Jewish eschatology and Jewish messianic expectations. Those Jewish ideas stressed God's direct intervention in human affairs. "YHWH, as the creator and covenant God, was irrevocably committed to further action of some sort in history...." (N. T. Wright, [I]The New Testament and the People of God[/I], page 247). Along these lines, Jewish messianic expectations centred around a human messiah--not a purely mythological saviour active only in the "lower celestial realm." The Epistle to the Hebrews affirms and reinforces these beliefs, but with its own spin.[/COLOR] [COLOR=darkslateblue]For comparative purposes, a useful way to describe Platonic thought is that it is vertical. The imperfect on earth is but a shadow of the perfection in the heavens. The relationship is vertical and static. Jewish belief, however, though containing its own vertical relationship between God's actions in heaven and effects on earth, stresses a horizontal perspective. The world--even the heavens--is not static, it is moving forward according to God's plans to a final reconciliation of heaven and earth. In Hebrews there is undoubtedly some Platonic influence; at least in language. However, it is subordinated to the horizontal Jewish perspective stressing God's intervention in earthly affairs. To the great detriment of a dispassionate understanding of Hebrews, Doherty chooses to view Hebrews only through a Platonic lens.[/COLOR] [COLOR=darkslateblue]Indeed, the first passage in Hebrews demonstrates the fallacy of cramming Hebrews into a Platonic box. It stresses both Jesus' role as a human agent of God and a decidedly non-Platonic worldview:[/COLOR] [COLOR=darkslateblue]Hebrews 1:1-2: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." [/COLOR][COLOR=darkslateblue]Jesus' actions take place not in a static, murky realm, but in a set place in history. While actions in the platonic heavenly realm are timeless and static, Jesus did not speak as God's son until "these last days." Additionally, Jesus' role as God's spokesperson is compared to the flesh and blood prophets of the Jewish forefathers "long ago." Hebrews uses the same terms to describe the actions of the prophets "long ago" and Jesus "in these last days." There is a definite parallel being drawn between God speaking through his earthly prophets and God speaking through his earthly Son. "Each of the main phrases in the first verse (of old, to our fathers, by the prophets) is matched by a corresponding, and to some extent contrasting phrase in the second (in these last days, to us, by a Son)." (R. McL. Wilson, [I]The New Century Bible Commentary: Hebrews[/I], page 30). This is far from platonic.[/COLOR] [COLOR=darkslateblue]Whatever uses will be made of the 'Platonic' category of ideas later in the letter, we must see with complete clarity that here in the opening statement the relationship between the two forms of revelation--the imperfect and perfect--is given not as between an imperfect human or earthly form and a spiritual and heavenly form, but as earlier and later forms. The disclosure of the Word of God takes its shape as a history, a history which has a past and a present (and, indeed, a future). [/COLOR][COLOR=darkslateblue](Graham Hughes, [I]Hebrews and Hermeneutics[/I], page 36).[/COLOR] [COLOR=darkslateblue]As Luke T. Johnson puts it:[/COLOR] [COLOR=darkslateblue]Platonism is ... 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 now exalted and enthroned. Platonism is here stretched and reshaped around belief in a historical human saviour whose death and resurrection made both his body and time axiologically rich. [/COLOR][COLOR=darkslateblue](Luke T. Johnson, [I]The Writings of the New Testament[/I], page 422)...[/COLOR] [COLOR=darkslateblue]In summary, although the view that the author of Hebrews writes from a strongly Platonic perspective used to hold much sway in the academic community, more thorough and recent scholarship has rightly rejected this notion. There are simply too many important differences.[/COLOR] [/INDENT][COLOR=black]So that's what people who actually know what they're talking about think of Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews. (We'll call this Doherty's Error # 2, or DE2 for short.) Next up from Mr. Doherty:[/COLOR] [INDENT][COLOR=darkslateblue]Paul and the earliest Christians thus lived at a time when the world of matter was viewed as only one dimension of reality, the observable half of a larger, integrated whole, whose otherinvisiblehalf was regarded as the genuine reality, accessible to the intellect.[/COLOR] [/INDENT][COLOR=black]I've earlier called you out on using the passive voice. Earl Doherty uses the same trick here. "lived at a time when world of matter was viewed..." Was viewed by who? Some people held that view and others did not; Paul was among the ones who did not, or at least neith you nor Mr. Doherty can give a lick opf evidence that he did. (We'll call this Doherty error #3, or DE3 for short.)[/COLOR] So now I've given reasons for rejecting the entire basis of Doherty's argument on that page, we'll look at the specifc reasons give for interpreting the phrase "the one man, Jesus Christ". What is the word that's translated as "man"? It's [COLOR=darkgreen]anthropos[/COLOR], the word that is throughout the New Testament used [I]specifically[/I] to indicate a human man as distinct from a spiritual being. You claim that Earl Doherty has explained this usage at the link above, but I don't see where he did so. Would you mind quoting here the exact passage that explains why, if Paul thought Jesus to be a spiritual being and not human, Paul referred to Jesus with the word that specifically indicates a human being and not a spiritual one? Thanks in advance! For quick reference here are the original claims; I still view them as standing until you give a specific reason why they don't. [INDENT][COLOR=darkred]3. Paul describes Jesus Christ as a man repeatedly. You say that you can only find two instances. I can find many more.[/COLOR] [INDENT][COLOR=darkred]"But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did Gods grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one mans sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive Gods abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! [/COLOR] [COLOR=darkred]Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." [Romans 5:15-9][/COLOR] [/INDENT][COLOR=darkred]So there are three references to Jesus Christ as a man in that passage alone.[/COLOR] [COLOR=darkred]4. Further, the entire point of chapter 5 of Romans is to juxtapose how "sin entered the world through one man" with "God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ". Since Paul certainly thought that Adam was a man, the comparison only makes sense if Paul thought that Jesus was a man.[/COLOR] [/INDENT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Jesus Exist?
Top
Bottom