Hebrews 8:4 has long fascinated me. And while I believe there was a historical Jesus, this intriguing passage found in Hebrews might imply something else. Thoughts?

Hebrews 8:4 3Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: hence, this one too must have something to offer. 4Now if he [Jesus] had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts which the Law prescribes, 5though they minister in a sanctuary which is only a copy and shadow of the heavenly. . . . [NEB]

Kindly,

Sean

I would suggest that you read the context from verse one of the chapter you are citing. This would answer your question vividly. A person once said that they can prove the bible states that there is no God. The man read from Psalm 14:1. But only read the latter part of the verse and intentionally left out the first part which states "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God". You have to include the context if you are going to have any accuracy in the interpretation.

Great point moon,

sean, here are the first 6 verses of Hebrews chapter 8



Basically, what the passage is saying is that if Jesus had not risen to Heaven, He would have been significantly more than just a priest, since at best priests are imitations of the role Jesus plays for us in Heaven.

MD, I ALWAYS check context before posting something--always! I do not yank out quotes that seem to support what I already want to say. I make sure, before I use a passage, that I know precisely who was (supposedly) talking, who he was talking to, and what he appeared to be trying to express.

Thank you, IAS, for your reply. Taking the position of "Devil's Advocate" here, can you (anyone) please address of the following by Earl Doherty:

... Hebrews 8:4 3Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: hence, this one too must have something to offer. 4Now if he had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts which the Law prescribes, 5though they minister in a sanctuary which is only a copy and shadow of the heavenly. . . . [NEB]

This passage might be called a "smoking gun," for it virtually spells out that Jesus had never been on earth. Though the point may seem trivial (and it is), the writer is comparing the heavenly High Priest, Christ, with his earthly counterparts, and here he makes the passing comment that Christ on earth would have nothing to do, since there are and have been priests who perform this role which the Law requires.

The tense here is ambiguous. The Greek for the key phrase is "ei men oun en epi ges" or literally: "now, therefore, if he were on earth," with the verb "were" in the imperfect. This is, strictly speaking, a past tense, and the NEB translation above reflects this, with its clear implication that Jesus had never been to earth. Scholars, naturally, shy away from this meaning. Paul Ellingworth [NIGT, Hebrews, p.405] admits that the NEB is grammatically possible, "since the imperfect in unreal conditions is temporally ambiguous." But he counters: "However, it goes against the context, in at least apparently excluding Christ's present ministry, and it could also be misunderstood as meaning that Jesus had never 'been on earth.' He thus opts for a translation like most others, "If he were [now] on earth, he would not be a priest at all."

Even with the latter translation, however, there is an awkward silence. The writer offers no qualification for an idea which could be misconstrued as covering past times. He shows no cognizance of the fact that Jesus had been on earth, and that an important part of his sacrifice had taken place there, the shedding of his blood on Calvary. The implication that he would have had nothing to do on earth, since there were already high priests there, goes against the obvious fact that he had had very much to do on earth. Ellingworth goes on to say that, "The argument presupposes, rather than states, that God cannot establish two priestly institutions in competition." This is indeed the case, yet with Christ the High Priest on earth, performing an important part his sacrifice on Calvary, such a competition would in fact be present, and the writer should have felt obligated to deal with it.

The epistle's fundamental point is the setting up of two counterpart sacrificial systems, the old and the new, the Sinai cult on earth and the heavenly sacrifice of Jesus which supplants it. The presence of Jesus on earth, crucified in the earthly sphere in the present or the past, would have foiled such a Platonic duality.

[Note the contrast here with the terms "flesh" (sarx) in 5:7 and "world/universe" (kosmos) in 10:5. Whereas the epistles often use both these terms, especially the first, in speaking of Jesus' activities, they never use 8:4's "ge" (earth), save for here where the thought is clearly that Jesus had never been to that place.

SOURCE: The Jesus Puzzle
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/silhebrs.htm

Kindly,

Sean

You can say that you understand the context...but you didn't present the context. And by the way ...who wrote Hebrews anyway? Now the answer to that one sort of mutes 'your' entire context!

Apparently Earl Doherty didn't pay attention to the context.

RE: Doherty's reply
He apparently takes an 'ambigious' verb tense and 'grammatically possible' rendering of a verse and makes it a 'smoking gun' and 'clear implication.' Perhaps if we were ignorant of the rest of Hebrews, his argument might possibly hold water, but the rest of the letter is quite clear that Jesus was a man.

and, thus, not a god. thanks for reminding us.

I am not a 'Christian' but I do believe that Jesus was here on this Earth, I just think he was a prophet or someone who was way ahead of his time practicing peace and loving one another.

and I am not a Realian but they would agree with you and give you reasons why. I could but everytime I do go to explain something of Raelian belief everyone thinks I'm a loony.

Here is Doherty's argument infull. Somebody like to actually take a stab at addressing his argument?

THE SOUND OF SILENCE: THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/silhebrs.htm

A Supplementary to this is entitled Article No. 9
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp09.htm

Sean

Sorry, that's obviously a non-Christian website and therefore, biased. Why would I want to read something from a biased website?

IAS, did you notice that I stated clearly that I did not adhere to the "Jesus myth" theory, that I was simply playing "Devil's Advocate" here? Why did I ask that? Obviously not. Now, can you (anyone) avoid the straw-man nonsense and rebut/address the original argument, please?

Sean

I was not addressing the role you are playing I was merely pointing out that that website is obviously biased since it's non-Christian, and in adherence with what seems to be the accepted practice by many posters here, I don't think it's constructive to read information from biased sources.

"Unlike many New Testament epistles, Hebrews cannot be spoken of as an "occasional writing," written 'off the cuff.' Rather, it is a carefully thought-out theological treatise, designed to enlighten and encourage the community of which the writer is a part, apparently in the face of difficulties and the threat of members losing heart and fervor. Accordingly, we should have every right to expect that the essentials of the community's faith would be reflected in this epistle, not the least of which would be an identification of the object of that faith with the historical man presumed to lie at its root. We should also expect—and certainly so in a work of this length—a fair amount of 'biographical' reference to incidents, teachings, and background such as we find in the Gospels, reflecting the life and deeds of the man on whom the epistle writer and readers have founded their community and theology."

Doherty's entire argument rests on this one point and he leaves it totally unsupported. Why should we expect all of these references to Jesus? Because Doherty said so? If the epistle was written to a non Christian audience, he might have a point, but it was most certainly written to Christians. If I were writing to a bunch of physicists I would not need to explain Maxwell's equations every time I mentioned them. If I do have to, I'm talking to some really bad physicists. Likewise, if I were writing to Christians, I should not have to include every story that might have some connection to what I am talking about.

So, even though the question was asked with tongue in cheek, you think it should be avoided, IAS? Actually, it sounds to me that you can't answer the question, have to cry "context"--set up a straw man--and run for the hills. Fine. Anybody--like SSL, who actually made a good argument--else like to take a stab at the Doherty theory?

Sean

Thanks for your reply, SSL. A good argument. I have emailed Doherty to see if he could shed some more light on the issue. Until then, here is just one reply I found in his "READER FEEDBACK SETS":

Hebrews 8:4: "Now, if he were / had been on earth..."
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/rfset26.htm#Dan

Kindly,

Sean

Actually sean, I was simply trying to point out how ridiculous it is to dismiss articles simply because they come from a website which is intended to support one point of view... the majority of articles, books, and websites are intended to support one point of view or another. Since you had stated you were not taking this too seriously, and since I had already pointed out that Doherty was obviously ignoring context so he could make his point, I figured it would be a good topic to point out something which is ridiculous.

BTW SSL, great post.

t

So, explain your argument fully instead of just "context." How is context influencing Doherty's theory so forth and so on?

Sean

AGREED. The author of the letters commonly ascribed to "Paul" doesn't seem to know that jesus ever lived. My personal opinion is that the life of Jesus consists of remnants of mystery cults. There were in fact quite a few famous men named Yeshu at the time. It would have been very easy by the fourth century to concoct gospel stories together. But a specific man who did everything in the n.t.?no.

Here we go! Another good argument. And Paul's Jesus does appear to exist in a spiritual realm. Scholars have pointed this out repeatedly. Very interesting.

... The broad contours of his religious experiences--epiphany, the reception of oracles, visions, the journey to heaven, secret revelations--these are all well known to us, especially from the Greek magical papyri, the Hermetic texts and various forms of esoteric Judaism of the period. Add to that his specific expectations regarding his mission to the Gentiles, the conversion of Israel, and the imminent parousia of Jesus as cosmic Lord, and you have it--his own particular vision and version of that most general Hellenistic (and human) hope--escape from mortality. And yet it is those very apocalyptic "particulars'' that make Paul really Paul...--James Tabor, Professor of Religion, UNC

SOURCE
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/paul.html

Sean

hey

Jesus does exist.
he just did not die and would be back in 10 years.

PARDON?

what do you mean?

Lava....could your comment be in reference to this verse?

Mark 13:30
"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

And before anyone can say "out of context" lets do a little research of Ancient Greek first (been through this before with Iams)

Mark 13:30
"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

The verse in AG:
amhn legw umin oti ou mh parelqh| h genea auth mexriv ou tauta panta genhtai.



With "genea" being the key word.

Το λεξικό βρήκε 1 λέξη.
The dictionary found 1 word.

γενεά η = offspring generation
genea i

.kypros.org

Generation as in those alive at the time.


POST

yes, it could be and when its said "if he were here", i say he will be.
sorry if i was too simple.
can't read all the replies, new here, therefor jumped in and reflected directly.

After reading all the responses up to this point, it may also help to read further back than Hebrews chapter 8. Hebrews chapter 7 deals with Jesus' priestly nature. It discusses the Priesthood "in the Order of Melchisadek" (The priesthood of Melchisadek is a big topic, so I won't go into detail about this here. Suffice it to say that Jesus is compared to some extent to Melchisadek. Chapter 7 ends with a description of Jesus as our High Priest: For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. (Hebrews 7:26-28).

This then leads straight into chapter 8, which describes Jesus' role as a new high priest of a New Covenant. The author suggests that if he were on earth, he would not be a High Priest, because it was the job of the High Priest to offer sacrifices both for his own sins and for the sins of the people. Since Jesus was sinless (according to the Bible), he could not fulfil the first role, and since he came to institute a New Covenant based not on animal sacrifice, but on Grace, he could not fulfil the latter role.

And so Jesus, if he were on earth could not be a High Priest. But being in heaven, Jesus has instituted the new covenant based on his resurrection, so now the role of High Priest is totally suited to his position in heaven.

That's as how I read it, at least.

Regards, PA

I read this and nearly laughed myself to death…this statement from someone that has routinely posted material from Apologetic websites as if they were (excuse the pun) the “Gospel truth”! Both ludicrous and hypocritical OR very very tongue in cheek, either way I enjoyed the humor of it!
Yes, it is a biased website, written by a man with training in historical research and biblical criticism. Another “biased” hisitorian, Professor Richard Carrier of Columbia University has this to say about Dohtery’s little foray into Hebrews:

“When we compare the standard historicist theory (SHT) with Doherty's ahistoricist or "mythicist" theory (DMT) by the criteria of the Argument to the Best Explanation, I must admit that, at present, Doherty wins on at least four out of the six criteria (scope, power, plausibility, and ad hocness ; I think DMT is equal to SHT on the fifth criterion of disconfirmation ; neither SHT nor DMT wins on the sixth and decisive criterion). In other words, Doherty's theory is simply superior in almost every way in dealing with all the facts as we have them. However, it is not overwhelmingly superior, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty. For all his efforts, Jesus might have existed after all. But until a better historicist theory is advanced, I have to conclude it is at least somewhat more probable that Jesus didn't exist than that he did. I say this even despite myself, as I have long been an opponent of ahistoricity.”

Hebrews is a strange duck as it is, some scholars (albeit very few) wish to assign it to Paul, but it is in neither Paul’s writing style nor completely in his theological stance, a fact that Eusebius says that Clement noted in early 2nd century. Tertullian, writing in the 2nd century CE attributed it to Barnabas and indeed it does epigraphically match works attributed to Barnabas fairly closely. Writing somewhat later, Origen said, “Who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews God only knows,". As for dating, Hebrews has been dated from 60 CE to 95 CE, but the best bet is dependent on the traditional date for I Clement which shows us when the Pauline epistles were collected and began to circulate, Hebrews would have been written shortly afterwards which would give us a date of 95CE or later.

Interestingly, in failing to even mention material from the gospels that were indeed germaine to his argument, showeds an unawareness of the gospels and the Jesus that they portrayed and in the view (non-Pauline) that there is no second repentance (Heb 6:4-6), that apostasy is unforgivable, the author shows that he could not have been aware of the story of Peters denial (paraphrased from Wells, G. A., The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 1988 Page 55). This is indeed a loaded gun, strong evidence for the 2nd century dating of the gospels and not the mid 1st century dating that Apologists desire.

I'm glad you laughed, it was intended to show how ridiculous you are to dismiss articles simply because they come from Christian sites. Thanks for making my point

No problemo amigo...I figured that you were being droll...but ya can never be sure with anyone (including me)...I never dismiss an article until I read it and then usually I will rebut it. Although, some are so standard and usually so "grasping at straws" that they can be easily dismissed....

I emailed Mr. Doherty with regards to the following questions on page one [1] of this thread. His reply is as follows:

1) He apparently takes an 'ambigious' verb tense and 'grammatically possible' rendering of a verse and makes it a 'smoking gun' and 'clear implication.' Perhaps if we were ignorant of the rest of Hebrews, his argument might possibly hold water, but the rest of the letter is quite clear that Jesus was a man.

2) And by the way ...who wrote Hebrews anyway? Now the answer to that one sort of mutes 'your' entire context!

3) Apparently Earl Doherty didn't pay attention to the context.

DOHERTY'S REPLY:

Hello Sean,

My Supplementary Article No. 9 on Hebrews thoroughly discusses context in regard to the entire epistle, and make it highly dubious that "Jesus was a man". (On the latter score, see also Article No. 8):

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp09.htm

As a supplement, with a little more thorough discussion of the implications of 8:4 itself, you can refer to the section on Hebrews in my response to Richard Carrier's review of The Jesus Puzzle (it's in the latter part of the article, as I recall):

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CarrierComment.htm

I hope you've noticed that your three "replies" make no effort to address and refute the specific arguments I make. This is always the case. General condemnations, no actual counter-arguments.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Kindly,

Sea

hay

i am reading your posts. kinda has my attention cos i do not have knowledge about what you're talking about. quite interesting.

so, who's Doherty and why does his opinion matter?

Hebrew is not the name of language?

Are you Christians or Jews?

If you are asking what our religions are - Gid is kinda Jewish, I am Deist, Seanph is Atheist (I think), IAmsSon is Christian, Paranoid Android (better known as PA) is Christian, Zandore is Atheist..anyone I missed, my apologies...this is a very dirverse forum, which at least in my opinion makes it one of the better ones on the internet, this and coupled with Moderators and Web Master that let us argue, fuss and fight with few restrictions (no flaming or personal attacks or name calling). Welcome aboard Lava

Well, IAS, are you going to reply? How does context effect and influence the meaning of Doherty's theory concerning Hebrews 8:4?

Nice response PA.







Historical Jesus or Jesus Myth: The Jesus Puzzle
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm



Can you explain Lava?

Kindly,

Sean

Actually I am a New-Ager, of Jewish ancestry. My knowledge of Judiasm, as also my learning of other religions, is based almost entirely on self-study. I have a great admiration for the Jewish People and their religion, but am not a follower. I share a lot of beliefs with the Jewish faith, such as: reincarnation, responsibility for one's own actions, etc., but these are also found in Buddhism.

Sorry I haven't replied sean, I've been experiencing a busy week and have not had the time (at any one sitting) to really dig into this one.

What I find interesting in His follow-up article is that he mentions who the audience for this letter is:

SOURCE

Clearly a group of believers. Yet he seems to forget this fact as he continues on his conviction that the Jesus being presented is a purely Heavenly being. The thing is that these believers KNEW that at the time of the writing Jesus WAS and IS a Heavenly being, He is residing as our Mediator there. But they also knew and trusted His human death, which was the necessary sacrifice that then prepared Him to be our ultimate High Priest in Heaven (the main topic of Hebrews). If this letter had been written to non-believers, and still only in passing referred to Jesus's earthly ministry and human lineage, then the argument that it is proof that Christians believe in a non-human/God Jesus would be more solid, but given these people were His followers because they accepted His sacrifice in their place, really renders his argument null.

The context is not just the context of the chapter, or even the book. The context includes the community it was addressed to, and like I said, his argument just does not stand well in context.

Absolutely .
Context is essential .

Sama

thank you all for warm welcome

could what you mean by Hebrew be Torah?
or is there a book named Hebrew?

from the name Hebrew i would understand the language of Isaeli people.

well, you have very different beliefs then. interesting
thank you for explanation mako.

There is a book in the New Testament titled "Hebrews"

Apparently a movie is being made about this very subject, I started a thread on it under the Paranormal Media forum

linkage: "The God Who Wasn't There"

Check out the video link there, as well as the first 4 sections of the movie. (To the right) It brings up some real valid points, in addition to your Hebrews scripture.

in the black and white of it , belief/faith aside , there is no proof he existed. what in the past , written , that has been claimed as proof has been by most experts of theology marked as fakes , inserted later to serve as 'proof '. even the book of Daniel had been pre dated.

Thanks, IAS, for your reply. Nicely done.



I have this DVD, AV. Quite good. Could have provided a little more substance then they did. Still, worth watching ... whatever your view on Jesus.

Kindly,

Sean

Of course jesus existed. Nothing cant exist. If jesus didnt exist then he wouldnt exist in which to deny.

People also make up stories, and that means they only exist in the minds of the person writing the story!
There is a difference between physicaly existing and mentaly percieving.

How is there a difference?!?!?!

What we see and think are one and the same. What we see is imagination in the cortexes of the brain. The brain is also a thought in awareness. It is only thought that tells us thought that we think and thought that we see are different. Since it is thought that tells us to discriminate, how can we honestly know the difference between what we mentally percieve and physical percieve since it is all mental?

Actually, the majority of historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, consider the historicity of Jesus to be valid. History is not a science though, so there is no way to use history to prove or disprove something.


Thanks, Sean, sorry I took so long to reply... lots of reading involved.

So have you ever seen jesus?

In my thoughts. Physical reality is also just thought translated by the brain and the brain itself is a thought that we know of because of awareness. Hence I ask you again where is the fundamental if any difference between what we see and think when both are imagination???