Stuart wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:39 pm
My RSV only lists one [Hebrews] verse as having any NT reference. Verse 5:7 has the tears of Jesus found only in the interpolated Luke 22:44, and his fear of death in the cup scene from the parallel Synoptic accounts.
I do see verse 2:9 paralleling some of the Philippians hymn. And verse 2:10 seems to come from the same concepts as John 1:3 and Colossians 1:15-16. There are other interesting parallels, but not a single quote I'm aware of.
On the Epistle to the Hebrews
Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews
fwiw >
Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews
Connections between Hebrews and 1, 2, & 3 John, by Ben C Smith, viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3219
Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews
fwiw, what other's have said on BC&H about Melchizedek or 'the order of Melchizedek'
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:08 am
The order of Melchizedek, in our author's eyes, has nothing to do with ancestry. A priest of this order could be of Judah; he could be of Benjamin; he could be of Gad; he could be of Levi; ancestry does not matter.
The usual order of priests (as per the Torah), however, has everything to do with ancestry. A priest officiating in the temple in Jerusalem must be of Aaron's line.
Problem (for our [Hebrews] author): The Christ is of Judah's line, but the Christ really ought to be a priest anyway, in order that his (self) sacrifice be perfectly valid.
Solution (for our author): The Christ can be of the order of Melchizedek, in which one's ancestral line does not in any way matter.
.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:49 am
the priest of this order [the order of Melchizedek] is celestial. He couldn't be of Judah. He couldn't be of Benjamin. He couldn't be of Gad. He couldn't be of Levi. Any earthly ancestry is denied at all. He never lived on this earth.
Hebrews 8:4:If he had been on earth he would not have been a priest
Nowhere in Hebrews the Christ is said to be davidic. David is mentioned without no reference to him being an ancestor of Christ. And this is strange.Problem (for our author): The Christ is of Judah's line
.
andBen C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:36 am ... Melchizedek was on earth when Abraham paid him tribute.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:49 am What matters to our author [of Hebrews] is that no priest of this order is serving as priest on earth during the tenure of the Aaronides. Melchizedek was on earth, but he came before Aaron, so that is fine. Jesus was on earth, too, but he was not a priest while on earth; according to Hebrews, he became a priest only after he died. So the Aaronides remain the priesthood of record on earth, in the sanctuary at Jerusalem, but Jesus becomes the priest of record in heaven, in the true sanctuary.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:56 am And the original understanding was likely that Melchizedek was king of Sodom as well.
Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews
rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 9:01 amSo these are the "basic teachings". The way I read this is that these are the basic teachings which the writer is not going to review because they should already be understood. Accordingly, Hebrews goes into no further detail on these subjects. All of these topics are covered in Paul's letters. I do find it interesting that this doesn't say anything about the poor, though teachings about the poor are a theme of Paul's main letters.Hebrews 6:6 Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ - τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον - and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God, 2 instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And we will do this, if God permits.
But notice that this says, "basic teaching about Christ," not teachings of Christ. Anyway, this is all supernatural mumbo jumbo. So the interest here is primarily in magical stuff, this isn't about how to live your life, etc. So we can see from this that the "basic teachings" are about various magical powers and such (demonology type stuff) and the main new teaching in the letter is about why Jesus' atoning sacrifice has the power that it does.
My reading of it is that Jesus' sacrifice has such atoning power because Jesus was unborn, his unblemished flesh experienced suffering, and his sacrifice took place on a heavenly alter, not a flawed earthly alter.
But I think it is pertinent that Hebrews seems to have been written by a Gentile God-fearer. I think whoever wrote this wasn't the greatest student of Judaism. I think obviously rabbis of his day would have scoffed at this letter. So you point out some issues, and I agree with them, but you are pointing out exactly why real Jews would have rejected this as nonsense. But this wasn't written by a real Jew.
Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:21 am Jesus's earthly life is denied not only in 8:4 but also in 9:26-28:
Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared (πεφανέρωται) once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will be seen (ὀφθήσεται) a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Note the remarkable difference: Jesus is merely "appeared" (πεφανέρωται) , to mean that he didn't exist on earth.
In the future, at contrary, he "will be seen"(ὀφθήσεται) with physical eyes, to mean that he will exist really in the future.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:16 pm
Roger Parvus has resolved this apparent contradiction between Hebrews 7:14 and Hebrews 7:3
Hi Giuseppe,
I am not sure “rose up from Judah” means “descended from Judah’s tribe”. Loisy takes it to mean he rose “as a star might rise” (The Origins of the New Testament, p. 262). That is, Jesus appeared on the scene, much like the author of Hebrews has Melchisedec appearing on the scene without human ancestry.
https://vridar.org/2019/03/06/revising- ... ent-126839
Hence 'rose up from Judah' supports mythicism, not historicity.
Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews
1 I presume rgprice means, "he ascended to heaven where he was sacrificed / where he underwent the [ultimate] sacrifice".rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:13 am
It's clear that the writer puts Jesus on earth:
But he is still unborn. He "came to earth"; he descended to earth from heaven, as the writer describes elsewhere. But his sacrifice took place in heaven as well: He existed in heaven, unborn, without mother or father, he descended to earth where he suffered, then he ascended to heaven where [he] underwent a sacrifice.7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
That he came through the tribe of Judah is merely a reference to his Davidic lineage, which is derived from Pauline teaching.
.
Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:56 am
So Couchoud ...
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews considers the Crucifixion, which is at the same time the priestly sacrifice, as taking place in heaven. Since expiatory victims had to be burned without the camp (Heb. xiii. 11), Jesus suffered without the gate—i.e., not in this world. “Let us go forth unto him without the camp . . . for here we have no continuing city” (xiii. 13-14). Here is the earth. Jesus suffered in the flesh, but not on earth.
(Creation of Christ, p. 122)
Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews
Paul Davidson on Melchizedek
in Philo and Qumran in Fred L Horton Jnr's 2015 The Melchizedek Tradition
in Philo and Qumran in Fred L Horton Jnr's 2015 The Melchizedek Tradition
I know I'm in the right place
I received a nice long email from Fred Horton a couple of days ago! A kind gentleman. He said he hasnt revisited this material in decades, unfortunately.
Re: Paul Davidson's blog post
Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish philosopher whose ideas also exerted considerable influence on Christianity, explicitly equates Melchizedek with the eternal Logos in one of his works (Legum Allegoriae III §§79-82). Exactly how much emphasis Philo puts on Melchizedek as an individual here is difficult to determine, but what’s important is that this too could have elevated Melchizedek in people’s eyes as a divine being. (In Philo’s system of thought, the Logos was the intelligent mediating force between God and the material universe often described as “Wisdom” in some biblical texts, notably Proverbs. The Logos would later be equated with Jesus in the Gospel of John and other Christian writings.)
I question that logic and implication. Why assume the idea originates w/ Philo? It seems far more likely to me Philo is addressing an existing conception, or even a sect's belief, refining details to his philosophy/agenda or otherise exploiting it for his own advantage. I see Philo as a propagandist! Question his intent.
Re: I know I'm in the right place
billd89 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:05 pm Why assume the idea originates w/ Philo? It seems far more likely to me Philo is addressing an existing conception, or even a sect's belief, refining details to his philosophy/agenda or otherise exploiting it for his own advantage. I see Philo as a propagandist! Question his intent.
- Yes, good points.
For posterity viewtopic.php?p=120519#p120519 (& b/c the point about 'the Exaltation of Melchizedek' in 2nd Enoch might be relevant to bild89's point)