Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11185
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:56 am

And the original understanding was likely that Melchizedek was king of Sodom as well.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7061
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:57 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:56 am
And the original understanding was likely that Melchizedek was king of Sodom as well.
Probably true.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11185
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:04 am

What drives me crazy about Giuseppe is not that he believes that some Christians thought this or that about Jesus but that everyone of his beliefs (I prefer to call them 'wishes' because they aren't even as developed as a formal belief) happens to dovetail with the oldest Christian beliefs. Yes some Christians thought that Jesus was an alien. The idea of Jesus being an alien is very strong in early and modern Christianity

Image

But the thought that I was just assume that all my beliefs happened to match perfectly with the origins of Christianity is simply madness. You can almost excuse 'normative' scholars for this assumption because they were indoctrinated since birth in this idiocy. But in Giuseppe's case he is constantly initiating and reinitiating himself into a ludicrious mystery religion of his own concoction. He is engaged in a voluntary abuse of reason and logic for no apparent purpose other than for personal enjoyment.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Giuseppe
Posts: 6519
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:33 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:49 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:44 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:36 am
You are misinterpreting Hebrews 8.4. Melchizedek was on earth when Abraham paid him tribute.
If it is for that reason, then also Jesus appeared more times in the history to meet the biblical personage x.
What I am saying is that the epistle lays out no rule that a priest of the order of Melchizedek can never have been on earth. If that were the rule, then Melchizedek himself is disqualified.
There are two ways to have been on earth:
  • to have an entire life from Birth to Death.
  • to appear before someone.
Melkizedek satisfied the second way to have been on earth, when he appeared very enigmatically before Abraham. In a manner similar to Jesus's way when he gave the eucharist for Paul (I hope that you realize that the episode is an appearance of Jesus, not a fact among many facts of an entire life on earth). During an apparition. Melkizedek didn't have an entire life from Birth to Death. Being without Birth, he could only appear on this earth, he couldn't life really on this earth.

I fear (for sake of discussion) that you will continue to confuse the two ways of existence. To confuse existence with appearance. (And note that I am assuming a real historical archangelic Melkizedek in the mind of the author of Hebrews).

Hebrews 8:4 says that a similar high priest was never on earth, meaning: he was never born on this earth, hence he didn't come from any tribe. He came uniquely from heaven. And to heaven he ascended.

Melchizedek was on earth, but he came before Aaron, so that is fine.
it is not fine insofar you don't realize how Melkizedek came on earth: during a mere appearance, and coming from any tribe. From neither Levi nor Judah.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7061
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:37 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:33 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:49 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:44 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:36 am
You are misinterpreting Hebrews 8.4. Melchizedek was on earth when Abraham paid him tribute.
If it is for that reason, then also Jesus appeared more times in the history to meet the biblical personage x.
What I am saying is that the epistle lays out no rule that a priest of the order of Melchizedek can never have been on earth. If that were the rule, then Melchizedek himself is disqualified.
There are two ways to have been on earth:
  • to have an entire life from Birth to Death.
  • to appear before someone.
Melkizedek satisfied the second way to have been on earth, when he appeared before Abraham. In a manner similar to Jesus's way when he gave the eucharist for Paul (I hope that you realize that the episode is an appearance of Jesus, not a fact among many facts of an entire life on earth). During an apparition. Melkizedek didn't have an entire life from Birth to Death. Being without Birth, he could only appear on this earth, he couldn't life really on this earth.

I fear (for sake of discussion) that you will continue to confuse the two ways of existence. To confuse existence with appearance. (And note that I am assuming a real historical archangelic Melkizedek in the mind of the author of Hebrews).
What does any of this have to do with the epistle to the Hebrews? Everything I have stated I can defend straight from the text. But you are off in fantasyland, making up rules that the author has clearly never heard of.
Hebrews 8:4 says that a similar high priest was never on earth, meaning: he was never born on this earth, hence he didn't come from any tribe. He came uniquely from heaven. And to heaven he ascended.
That is not what Hebrews 8.4 says.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 6519
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:44 am

You have asked before where it is written that a high priest of the example of Melkizedek couldn't come from Judah.

The answer is: precisely where it is said that Melkizedek couldn't be never born. Where he is said to be without genealogy. A Melkisedechian Jesus is by definition a not-davidic Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7061
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:55 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:44 am
You have asked before where it is written that a high priest of the example of Melkizedek couldn't come from Judah.

The answer is: precisely where it is said that Melkizedek couldn't be never born.
Which means: nowhere. Nowhere does Hebrews state that Melchizedek could not be born. (Whether he was born or not is a different question.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 6519
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:58 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:55 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:44 am
You have asked before where it is written that a high priest of the example of Melkizedek couldn't come from Judah.

The answer is: precisely where it is said that Melkizedek couldn't be never born.
Which means: nowhere. Nowhere does Hebrews state that Melchizedek could not be born. (Whether he was born or not is a different question.)
no, in a precise point Hebrews states that Melchizedek was never born:


Without father or mother
, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

(7:3)

Only who has father and mother can be born. Only who has an earthly ancestry can be born. Only who lived really on this earth can be born.

The birth was for the ancient people synonymous of historical reality for us.
Last edited by Giuseppe on Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7061
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:00 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:58 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:55 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:44 am
You have asked before where it is written that a high priest of the example of Melkizedek couldn't come from Judah.

The answer is: precisely where it is said that Melkizedek couldn't be never born.
Which means: nowhere. Nowhere does Hebrews state that Melchizedek could not be born. (Whether he was born or not is a different question.)
no, in a precise point Hebrews states that Melchizedek was never born:


Without father or mother
, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

(7:3)

Only who has father and mother can be born.
This is not disagreeing with what I said. It is misunderstanding what I said. And it is exhausting trying to keep up with the depths of the misunderstanding.

We are done here. You have the epistle; do with it as you will.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7061
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Hebrews 7:14 versus Hebrews 7:3: one of them is an interpolation

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:01 am

Oh, and incidentally, the Greek words for "fatherless" and "motherless" are also used for orphans who have very clearly undergone a human birth. But nuance is not your thing.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply