Weakness of Carrier/Doherty Heavenly Sacrifice

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Weakness of Carrier/Doherty Heavenly Sacrifice

Post by robert j »


TedM wrote,
As long as there is a footnote and an explanation then I don't see the problem. It can still be examined for alternative understandings, just as you are doing.

These “emended” translations get around, explanatory footnotes are left out, these apologetic readings can become “the” reading. Check out the version here (Stromata, Book 6, chapter 15) ---

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book6.html

The passage is found below the subheading “Reasons for the meaning of Scripture being veiled.”

The apologetic reading of, “... previous to the capture of Jerusalem” is used here, but there is no explanatory footnote to inform the reader that the extant Greek actually says “founding”, and not “capture”.

robert j.
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Weakness of Carrier/Doherty Heavenly Sacrifice

Post by TedM »

That's why I said as long as there is a footnote and an explanation. I"m still curious as to why scholars attribute the passages to the 2nd century, expecially if they have an apologetic purpose.
Hawthorne
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Weakness of Carrier/Doherty Heavenly Sacrifice

Post by Hawthorne »

robertj wrote:Nowhere in the primary evidence is such a cosmic event clearly described. The Ascension of Isaiah is rife with problems. Paul spends little ink on this aspect of his Christ.
Carrier and Doherty rely on Hebrews to make that case. I actually share your point of view on this, but to be fair, I do not see anything wrong with their use of Hebrews:
Hebrews911 wrote:But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here,[a] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.


Hebrews924 wrote:24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.


Carrier and Doherty argue that the greater and more perfect tabernacle is in heaven(or as Carrier says, "outerspace.")
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Weakness of Carrier/Doherty Heavenly Sacrifice

Post by Blood »

There's no doubt that the author of Hebrews thought that Christ brought his blood into "the heavenly tabernacle," as opposed to earthly priests who brought the blood of animals into the earthly Temple. However, according to the author, this happened after the resurrection. The actual sacrifice happened in this world.

10:4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
10:5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;
10:6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.
10:7 Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll-- I have come to do your will, my God.'"
10:8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them"--though they were offered in accordance with the law.
10:9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second.
10:10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Re: Weakness of Carrier/Doherty Heavenly Sacrifice

Post by Solo »

GakuseiDon wrote:
Tenorikuma wrote:
But having unrolled the books of the prophets which we had, found, sometimes expressed by parables, sometimes by riddles, and sometimes directly and in so many words naming Jesus Christ

I never fail to be astonished at phrases like this. What specific texts could Clement (or Peter) have had in mind?

It reminds me of all those places in Acts where Paul or Apollos or someone will make a slam-dunk case from the "scriptures" that Jesus was the Messiah, but it never actually tells you what scriptures those were or what the argument was. One wonders if the author himself even knows.
Justin Martyr explains in his "Dialogue with Trypho":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html
  • CHAPTER LXXV -- IT IS PROVED THAT JESUS WAS THE NAME OF GOD IN THE BOOK OF EXODUS.

    "Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: 'And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.' Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called by this name Jesus, and first called Auses(Oshea). For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'for My name is in Him,' was Jesus. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob's name was changed to this also. Now Isaiah shows that those prophets who are sent to publish tidings from God are called His angels and apostles. For Isaiah says in a certain place, 'Send me.' And that the prophet whose name was changed, Jesus[Joshua], was strong and great, is manifest to all. If, then, we know that God revealed Himself in so many forms to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, how are we at a loss, and do not believe that, according to the will of the Father of all things, it was possible for Him to be born man of the Virgin, especially after we have such Scriptures, from which it can be plainly perceived that He became so according to the will of the Father?

It's all very clear! :scratch:
Does this help ? :scratch:
Eusebius HE 1.3 wrote: Moses himself was the first one to announce how greatly sanctified and glorious was the name of Christ...when describing God's high priest as a man of supreme power, he calls him and his office "Christ" as a mark of honour and glory understanding the divine character of Christ.[ As a footnote explains this apparently relates to Lev 4:5, 16 and 6:22 where the high priest is described as "annointed" (Heb. mashiyah)]. He was also inspired by the Holy Spirit to foresee quite clearly the title "Jesus". Although previously it had never been known Moses gave the title "Jesus", again as a type or symbol, only to the man he knew would succeed him after his death. His successor was known by another name, Hoshea, which his parents had given him [Num 13:16] but Moses calls him Jesus- Joshua the Nun himself bearing the image of our Saviour, who alone after Moses received authority over the true and pure religion. In this way Moses bestows the the name of our Saviour Jesus Christ as a supreme honour on the two men who in his time surpassed all others in merit and glory: the high priest and the man who would rule after him.
Best,
Jiri
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Weakness of Carrier/Doherty Heavenly Sacrifice

Post by neilgodfrey »

GakuseiDon wrote:
Tenorikuma wrote:
But having unrolled the books of the prophets which we had, found, sometimes expressed by parables, sometimes by riddles, and sometimes directly and in so many words naming Jesus Christ

I never fail to be astonished at phrases like this. What specific texts could Clement (or Peter) have had in mind?

It reminds me of all those places in Acts where Paul or Apollos or someone will make a slam-dunk case from the "scriptures" that Jesus was the Messiah, but it never actually tells you what scriptures those were or what the argument was. One wonders if the author himself even knows.
Justin Martyr explains in his "Dialogue with Trypho":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html
  • CHAPTER LXXV -- IT IS PROVED THAT JESUS WAS THE NAME OF GOD IN THE BOOK OF EXODUS.

    "Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: 'And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.' Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called by this name Jesus, and first called Auses(Oshea). For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'for My name is in Him,' was Jesus. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob's name was changed to this also. Now Isaiah shows that those prophets who are sent to publish tidings from God are called His angels and apostles. For Isaiah says in a certain place, 'Send me.' And that the prophet whose name was changed, Jesus[Joshua], was strong and great, is manifest to all. If, then, we know that God revealed Himself in so many forms to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, how are we at a loss, and do not believe that, according to the will of the Father of all things, it was possible for Him to be born man of the Virgin, especially after we have such Scriptures, from which it can be plainly perceived that He became so according to the will of the Father?

It's all very clear! :scratch:
Scholars of Second Temple Judaism throw light on Justin's writings that has been generally lost to us. There were branches of Judaism that placed great stress upon the name of God and found spiritual realities even in what to us are the mere letters of the Tetragrammaton. Philippians 2 and chapter 1 of the Epistle to the Hebrews speak of the name of Jesus being higher than any other name -- The name of Jesus (in its Hebrew representations) may indeed found in the revelation of God to Moses, or rather the name above all names found there in the name of Jesus -- in the form of Yehoshu'a.

(Moshe Idel: "Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism")
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply