Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Kapyong wrote: Two things leapt out at me -
firstly, that the suffering was an exhibition of the type of Christ Above,
secondly, that these things were counterparts of what took place above.

"these things were counterparts of what took place above below"??
(or the other way round?)

maryhelena wrote:

cienfuegos wrote: It is explicit here that Christ's sacrifice was performed in the "greater and more perfect tabernacle" which "not a part of this creation." This tabernacle is juxtaposed against the "blood of goats and bulls." The 'crucifixion' on earth was not of a man, but of animals. The mirror image is not a human crucifixion, it is the temple sacrifice vs. the celestial sacrifice.

Nonsense....."crucifixion".............."of animals". Now I've heard it all.....

"crucifixion" as euphemism/allegory for sacrifice

Gday all,

MrMacSon wrote:

Kapyong wrote: Two things leapt out at me -
firstly, that the suffering was an exhibition of the type of Christ Above,
secondly, that these things were counterparts of what took place above.

"these things were counterparts of what took place above below"??
(or the other way round?)

Well, the text has "that the animal Christ ... underwent suffering, that the mother might exhibit through him a type of the Christ above,"
which means that the suffering [below] was "a type of the Christ Above."

And "For they declare that all these transactions were counterparts of what took place above" means these [suffering] transactions are [lower] counterparts of what took place above.

It's not clear where the suffering took place, only that it appears to be below the Christ Above, and below the worlds above.


Kapyong

Kapyong wrote:Gday all,

Here is an interesting quote from Irenaeus (Book 1, Ch. 7.2)
with regard to the debate about things above mirroring things below.

Irenaeus wrote:...It follows, then, according to them, that the animal Christ, and that which had been formed mysteriously by a special dispensation, underwent suffering, that the mother might exhibit through him a type of the Christ above, namely, of him who extended himself through Stauros, and imparted to Achamoth shape, so far as substance was concerned. For they declare that all these transactions were counterparts of what took place above.

Two things leapt out at me -
firstly, that the suffering was an exhibition of the type of Christ Above,
secondly, that these things were counterparts of what took place above.


Kapyong

Counterparts, reflections, echoes. The Jerusalem above, in some way, mirrors the Jerusalem below. However, best to keep in mind that we are dealing with reality and with intellectual 'realities' - what we conceive in our minds. Thus, reflection does not entail exact outcomes. i.e. while a heavenly, spiritual or intellectual sacrifice can have supreme, salvation, value, it does not follow that an earthly flesh and blood human sacrifice has such value. On the contrary, a human flesh and blood sacrifice would have no value whatsoever. Context changes the outcome.

Thus:

1) animal sacrifices were perceived to have some value.

2) human flesh and blood sacrifices have no value whatsoever.

3) spiritual sacrifices have supreme value, salvation value.

Human, flesh and blood, sacrifice - as in crucifixion - is, in reality, "moral depravity". (Richard Dawkins).

Hebrews is contrasting animal sacrifice with spiritual sacrifice; animal sacrifice with heavenly sacrifice. Contrasting one value with a superior value. Hebrews is not contrasting animal sacrifice with human flesh and blood sacrifice. Such a contrast would be immoral. The life is in the blood, so says the OT. In a heavenly crucifixion context it is life, not physical human blood, that is offered up as having salvation potential. A spiritual life, an intellectual life - however one wants to conceive of such an intellectual/spiritual entity.

Hebrews is dealing with the theology of sacrifice: It contrasts the earthly animal sacrifice with the heavenly/spiritual sacrifice. However, Hebrews does not overrule the gospel story; a story that revolves around an earthly crucifixion. Just because a flesh and blood human sacrifice has no salvation value does not cancel out the relevance such a crucifixion had for the gospel writers and the development of NT theological/philosophical ideas.

A heavenly, a spiritual or intellectual, sacrifice does not rule out a historical flesh and blood crucifixion, an execution by the Romans, as being important, relevant, for the writers of the gospel Jesus story. (yes, no Jesus - think the crucifixion/execution of Antigonus... .)

All this goes to say is that there are two crucifixion stories in the NT. The spiritual/intellectual Pauline celestial crucifixion story and the gospel story that reflects a flesh and blood crucifixion. One crucifixion has salvation value, the Pauline crucifixion, while the historical flesh and blood crucifixion, reflected in the gospel Jesus story, has no salvation value whatsoever. That historical crucifixion was a travesty, a tragedy.

Always best to keep a big divide between theology and historical realities. We can argue theology until the cows come home - historical reality requires we keep our two feet firmly on terra-firma.

I think you will find that Christian expositions of Hebrews - especially of the fundamentalist pentecostal persuasion I am from explicitly accept and rejoice in the heavenly sacrifice once and for all.

Fascinatingly they then elide over the Platonic secondary glass darkly one on earth.

And not everyone accepted Plato's duplicate world view - it was probably formalised by christianity.

MrMacSon wrote:

maryhelena wrote:

cienfuegos wrote: It is explicit here that Christ's sacrifice was performed in the "greater and more perfect tabernacle" which "not a part of this creation." This tabernacle is juxtaposed against the "blood of goats and bulls." The 'crucifixion' on earth was not of a man, but of animals. The mirror image is not a human crucifixion, it is the temple sacrifice vs. the celestial sacrifice.

Nonsense....."crucifixion".............."of animals". Now I've heard it all.....

"crucifixion" as euphemism/allegory for sacrifice

Crucifixion - the act - precedes any notion of sacrifice - that's the interpretation.....

maryhelena wrote: Counterparts, reflections, echoes. The Jerusalem above, in some way, mirrors the Jerusalem below. However, best to keep in mind that we are dealing with reality and with intellectual 'realities' - what we conceive in our minds. Thus, reflection does not entail exact outcomes. i.e. while a heavenly, spiritual or intellectual sacrifice can have supreme, salvation, value, it does not follow that an earthly flesh and blood human sacrifice has such value. On the contrary, a human flesh and blood sacrifice would have no value whatsoever. Context changes the outcome.

Thus:

1) animal sacrifices were perceived to have some value.*

2) human flesh and blood sacrifices have no value whatsoever.*

3) spiritual sacrifices have supreme value, salvation value.*

• <snip>

All this goes to say is that there are two crucifixion stories in the NT. The spiritual/intellectual Pauline celestial crucifixion story and the gospel story that reflects a flesh and blood crucifixion. One crucifixion has salvation value, the Pauline crucifixion, while the historical flesh and blood crucifixion, reflected in the gospel Jesus story, has no salvation value whatsoever. That historical crucifixion was a travesty, a tragedy.

Sure, the eventual narrative likely reflects a very tortuous path.

* I'd say the development of Christianity involved substituting animal & spiritual sacrifices with a human sacrifice.

Always best to keep a big divide between theology and historical realities. We can argue theology until the cows come home - historical reality requires we keep our two feet firmly on terra-firma.

The trouble is the history of the development of the narrative, and its eventual final draft, are both shrouded in theology.

MrMacSon wrote:

maryhelena wrote: Counterparts, reflections, echoes. The Jerusalem above, in some way, mirrors the Jerusalem below. However, best to keep in mind that we are dealing with reality and with intellectual 'realities' - what we conceive in our minds. Thus, reflection does not entail exact outcomes. i.e. while a heavenly, spiritual or intellectual sacrifice can have supreme, salvation, value, it does not follow that an earthly flesh and blood human sacrifice has such value. On the contrary, a human flesh and blood sacrifice would have no value whatsoever. Context changes the outcome.

Thus:

1) animal sacrifices were perceived to have some value.

2) human flesh and blood sacrifices have no value whatsoever.

3) spiritual sacrifices have supreme value, salvation value.

• <snip>

All this goes to say is that there are two crucifixion stories in the NT. The spiritual/intellectual Pauline celestial crucifixion story and the gospel story that reflects a flesh and blood crucifixion. One crucifixion has salvation value, the Pauline crucifixion, while the historical flesh and blood crucifixion, reflected in the gospel Jesus story, has no salvation value whatsoever. That historical crucifixion was a travesty, a tragedy.

Sure, the eventual narrative likely reflects a very tortuous path.

Always best to keep a big divide between theology and historical realities. We can argue theology until the cows come home - historical reality requires we keep our two feet firmly on terra-firma.

The trouble is the history of the development of the narrative, and its eventual final draft, are both shrouded in theology.

But why keep just to the development of the narrative when we have historical details at our fingertips? Historical details that underpin the narrative....

maryhelena wrote:

MrMacSon wrote: "crucifixion" as euphemism/allegory for sacrifice

Crucifixion - the act - precedes any notion of sacrifice - that's the interpretation.....

Well, there is also a suffering component in Christian theology: the Passion narrative.

.... suffering/sacrifice for salvation ...

maryhelena wrote:.
But why keep just to the development of the narrative when we have historical details at our fingertips? Historical details that underpin the narrative....

The two are intertwined - there is the history of the narrative's development; and seemingly so much conflation.