Hebrews 8:4

Pathofreason
Superfan
Pathofreason's picture
Posts: 320
Joined: 2006-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Hebrews 8:4

Hebrews 8:4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.

 

 Does anyone know anymore about this verse? I mean I have gotten many different rationalizations from Christians/Catholics. Some say that it means if he were on earth now, some say that it's a mistranslation. What did this verse originally mean and what does it say in the original greek translation? Does anyone know?

Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com

www.pathofreason.com

Check it out


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
It does mean if he were on

It does mean if he were on Earth now. Flemming totally misuses that verse in his movie. He leads the viewer to believe that this was a verse written by Paul. In fact, Paul did not write the book of Hebrews. Then he takes the verse out of context to lead the viewer to an incorrect conlcusion. Great intellectual honesty from Brian Flemming!

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Hebrews 8:1-7 wrote: Now

Hebrews 8:1-7 wrote:
Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

Let's look at this verse in context.  The previous chapter established that Jesus was a high priest in the order of Melchizedek (Gen 14:17-24, cf. Ps 110) rather than Aaron.  Hebrews 7:11-28 compares Jesus to Melchizedek and establishes the need for a better priesthood than the Aaronic priesthood, a priest after the order of Melchizedek (verses 23-28).

It is now that the writer (Paul?) makes the point that we have a high priest who is better than the earthly priests, seated at the right hand of God (v 1).  Verse 3 says that a priest must have something to offer (cf. Heb 7:27).  Verse 4 then makes the point that if Jesus were on earth (remember that verse 1 establishes that He is in heaven), He would have nothing better to offer since there are already priests on earth.  But verse 5 highlights the absurdity of this: they only serve shadows or copies of heavenly things, while verse 2 says that Jesus is in the very presence of God.

It is clear from verse 1 that the author places Jesus in heaven with God.  Therefore, verse 4 cannot be a denial of the historicty of the person of Jesus Christ.  The flow of thought, I would say, is pretty easy to follow.

I don't know enough about koine Greek to discuss the translation of this verse.  Maybe someone else on here does.

 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Additionally, Jesus was of

Additionally, Jesus was of the tribe of Juda.  Priests were required to be of the tribe of Levi.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
[quote = Cory T]

Quote:

Let's look at this verse in context. The previous chapter established that Jesus was a high priest in the order of Melchizedek

So who was Melchizedek? Hebrews says that he had no father, mother, and that he neither was born nor died.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

Let's look at this verse in context. The previous chapter established that Jesus was a high priest in the order of Melchizedek

So who was Melchizedek? Hebrews says that he had no father, mother, and that he neither was born nor died.

The God's Word version, a thought-for-thought translation, renders Hebrews 7:3 as follows:

No one knows anything about Melchizedek's father, mother, or ancestors. No one knows when he was born or when he died. Like the Son of God, Melchizedek continues to be a priest forever. (emphasis mine)

This, at least, is how the first century Jewish mind would understand the use of "without father, without mother, without geneology" in Hebrews 7:3.  Why? Because of the rabinncal argument from silence.

In rabbinical logic and reasoning, statements could be made which were "arguments from silence." If the Bible didn't specifically say something about a person, place, or incident, various conclusions could be drawn for the sake of the claim or discussion being presented. The author of Hebrews (probably Paul) was obviously familiar with the law, the Temple service, and forms of rabbinical discourse. He uses the rabbinical method of argument from silence in verse 3.

... Thus, Melchizedek could be said to be "without father,without mother, and without genealogy" because the Scriptures didn't identify his lineage. While this argument might seem unconvincing to the modern mind, it would have been understandable and reasonable to a first century Jew.(source)

This same argument applies to Melchizedek being without beginning or without end, and continuing in the office of priest. 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Raki
Superfan
Raki's picture
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: It does

Christos wrote:

It does mean if he were on Earth now. Flemming totally misuses that verse in his movie. He leads the viewer to believe that this was a verse written by Paul. In fact, Paul did not write the book of Hebrews. Then he takes the verse out of context to lead the viewer to an incorrect conlcusion. Great intellectual honesty from Brian Flemming!

 

All of the Christian Pastors i know accept Paul as the writer of Hebrews.

Nero(in response to a Youth pastor) wrote:

You are afraid and should be thus.  We look to eradicate your god from everything but history books.  We bring rationality and clear thought to those who choose lives of ignorance.  We are the blazing, incandescent brand that will leave an "A" so livid, so scarlet on your mind that you will not go an hour without reflecting on reality.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Raki wrote:  All of the

Raki wrote:

 All of the Christian Pastors i know accept Paul as the writer of Hebrews.

 

Well then, you should tell those pastors that they are wrong. Hebrews was not written by Paul. You can research it for yourself online. I've even heard Richard Carrier say that Paul did not write Hebrews. 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Raki

Christos wrote:
Raki wrote:

All of the Christian Pastors i know accept Paul as the writer of Hebrews.

 

Well then, you should tell those pastors that they are wrong. Hebrews was not written by Paul. You can research it for yourself online. I've even heard Richard Carrier say that Paul did not write Hebrews.

This is a bold assertion. There is nothing conclusive that anyone other than Paul wrote this letter. I have researched this issue also, and I conclude that Paul may not have put the pen to the paper to write the letter, but he is clearly the mastermind of it (so to speak).  Hebrews is infused with Paul's thoughts through and through, though it certainly isn't Paul's typical style.

Majority opinion remains with Paul as the author of this epistle

But all of this is peripheral to the issue under discussion, which is the misuse of Hebrews 8:4.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
I disagree Cory T. Hebrews

I disagree Cory T. Hebrews 2:3-4 makes the claim that the author recieved the Christian message from others. In Galatians, Paul claims to have recieved a vision from the resurrected Jesus.

Furthermore, the style of Koine Greek is much different in Hebrews then the authentic letters of Paul such as Galatians or Romans.  

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Tankalish
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-07-06
User is offlineOffline
I don't understand why this

I don't understand why this is such a big deal. When read with the preceding and following verses it  suggests that he wouldn't be a priest for a couple reasons. One, the sacrifice has been made, our sins have all ready been forgiven. Two, the sacrifices of priest's, made according to the law, pale in comparison to the entirety of the sacrifice made by Christ.


Tankalish
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-07-06
User is offlineOffline
I don't understand why this

Also, for Christians it's cannon either way, so it doesn't matter who wrote it. Unless you support the historical perspective to a point that will necessarily vacate the Bible of any presence of the transcendental.


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: I disagree

Christos wrote:

I disagree Cory T. Hebrews 2:3-4 makes the claim that the author recieved the Christian message from others. In Galatians, Paul claims to have recieved a vision from the resurrected Jesus.

Furthermore, the style of Koine Greek is much different in Hebrews then the authentic letters of Paul such as Galatians or Romans.

Again, I say: Hebrews has Paul's philosophical and theological fingerprints all over it.  It was certainly written by someone who knew the Law inside and out--it even used a rabbinical arguement from silence (as I pointed out earlier).  Style choices certainly vary, it is definately written far more eloquently.

But, I don't think it matters who actually wrote it.  It fits a niche right where it sits: the testimony that Jesus is the perfect high priest is the perfect finish to Paul's epistles. 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Bart Barber (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Authorship of Hebrews. Greek of Heb 8:4

Cory T wrote:
Christos wrote:

I disagree Cory T. Hebrews 2:3-4 makes the claim that the author recieved the Christian message from others. In Galatians, Paul claims to have recieved a vision from the resurrected Jesus.

Furthermore, the style of Koine Greek is much different in Hebrews then the authentic letters of Paul such as Galatians or Romans.

Again, I say: Hebrews has Paul's philosophical and theological fingerprints all over it.  It was certainly written by someone who knew the Law inside and out--it even used a rabbinical arguement from silence (as I pointed out earlier).  Style choices certainly vary, it is definately written far more eloquently.

But, I don't think it matters who actually wrote it.  It fits a niche right where it sits: the testimony that Jesus is the perfect high priest is the perfect finish to Paul's epistles. 

I'm a Christian pastor. I think that Luke may well have written Hebrews. Although it is pressing the matter too far to say that we know for certain that Paul did not write it, it is not credible to suggest that every Christian pastor is committed to Pauline authorship of Hebrews.

Also, I've got my Greek New Testament open to Hebrews 8:4. This is a second-class conditional sentence out of standard Greek grammar. Such sentences express a contrary-to-face protasis (if-clause), followed by what would be the case if the hypothetical condition were met in the apodosis (then-clause).

The rhetorical importance of the sentence is simply this: The author is asserting Jesus as the great High Priest of all time, and yet Jesus of Nazareth was not any sort of a priest at all (for the genealogical reasons indicated above). That's a serious objection to the line of argumentation in Hebrews, depending as it does so heavily upon the idea of the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and the author is going out of his way here to address it.

So, ironically, at that time opponents of Christianity, rather than denying the historicity of Jesus, were using the facts and details of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth as key elements of their arguments against the idea that Jesus was God incarnate bringing salvation to mankind. It is quite difficult to imagine the need for this sentence apart from the idea that both the author and his anticipated opponents had heard and had received as fact the idea that Jesus of Nazareth lived, was not a priest of any sort, and was the central figure of the Christian faith as advanced by this book.


THE WAY (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Authorship of Hebrews

No one knows who wrote Hebrews. Or any of the bible for that matter. The "titles" of the chapters were added hundreds of years after the scribes got to them. It is all second hand information at best, passed from generation to generation. Till the Greek put the stories to words.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
If he was physically

Pathofreason wrote:
Hebrews 8:4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.

 

 Does anyone know anymore about this verse? I mean I have gotten many different rationalizations from Christians/Catholics. Some say that it means if he were on earth now, some say that it's a mistranslation. What did this verse originally mean and what does it say in the original Greek translation? Does anyone know?

present (JC) he wouldn't be of the Hebrew beliefs. The laws that are referred to are the rules of the temple, The Levites were the priest class that over saw the temple   and the  offerings and sacrifices. What the passage is about is- JC isn't about the Jewish law as the Jewish law is a presiding over a material religion. JC is of a religion that he himself is of and is, which would be of a spiritual nature. There-fore he would never be a High Priest in the Hebrew religion. JC is of Hebrew genetics but not of the Hebrew religion. 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:present (JC)

Old Seer wrote:

present (JC) he wouldn't be of the Hebrew beliefs. The laws that are referred to are the rules of the temple, The Levites were the priest class that over saw the temple   and the  offerings and sacrifices. What the passage is about is- JC isn't about the Jewish law as the Jewish law is a presiding over a material religion. JC is of a religion that he himself is of and is, which would be of a spiritual nature. There-fore he would never be a High Priest in the Hebrew religion. JC is of Hebrew genetics but not of the Hebrew religion. 

 

Are you full of it or what?  JC was not a priest - true.  JC was Jewish and a practicing Jew.  Just what the heck does being a rabbi in the temple otherwise entail?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
How can it be

cj wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

present (JC) he wouldn't be of the Hebrew beliefs. The laws that are referred to are the rules of the temple, The Levites were the priest class that over saw the temple   and the  offerings and sacrifices. What the passage is about is- JC isn't about the Jewish law as the Jewish law is a presiding over a material religion. JC is of a religion that he himself is of and is, which would be of a spiritual nature. There-fore he would never be a High Priest in the Hebrew religion. JC is of Hebrew genetics but not of the Hebrew religion. 

 

Are you full of it or what?  JC was not a priest - true.  JC was Jewish and a practicing Jew.  Just what the heck does being a rabbi in the temple otherwise entail?

 

JC is/was the propagator of a new religion. The religion isn't Hebrew. That was the reason he was in trouble with the civil authorities, the San Hedran ---the high priests of the temple. I don't recall off hand or know of evidence that he was a practicing Jew. Would it not be so that if he was teaching Christianity (of which he him self is) he wasn't a Jew by religion. They are two different religions. He was regarded as a hieratic. He was never a Jewish Rabbi. The term "Rabbi) also means teacher, but he wasn't teaching the Jewish religion.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:JC is/was the

Quote:
JC is/was the propagator of a new religion.

So? Actually all the so called "evidence" is second hand hearsay way after the alleged time period. BUT don't care in any case. Christianity does exist because someone started it and successfully marketed it, but that doe not make virgin births or magic claims of death real.

Starting a religion does not make any god real, otherwise the sun would be a god because someone started the Egyptian polythiesm. L Ron Hubbard started Sceintology, but you don't believe he is a magic man, nor are you a Scientologist. Mohammed started Islam, but you are not a Muslim.

And please tell me how any polytheist or monotheist today thinks there is any lick of evidence of a non material magic man in the sky by any label?

All the existence of the bible proves is that people wrote it, it does not make the god real nor would it make Jesus a magic super hero regardless if he actually existed or not.

The bible is popular, not because the claims in it are true, the bible is popular much like if you own a business you can sell anything if you market it properly, even junk food and booze and cheap crap from China.

We can prove that George Washington existed but no one takes the cherry tree story literally and no sane person would claim he could fart a Lamborghini out of his ass, or claims that he was born of a virgin.

You have a book of myth, just like the other books of myths and your comic book is no different than any other human invented myth.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:It does mean

Christos wrote:

It does mean if he were on Earth now. Flemming totally misuses that verse in his movie. He leads the viewer to believe that this was a verse written by Paul. In fact, Paul did not write the book of Hebrews. Then he takes the verse out of context to lead the viewer to an incorrect conlcusion. Great intellectual honesty from Brian Flemming!

 

"Out of context" yea, because there is only one sect of Christianity, there is only one version of the bible and Christians never disagree with each other as to the "right way" to interpret the bible.

Brian did nothing wrong. Just because he views that text differently than you means that he has a different POV.

Regardless, this also says tons about your claimed "perfect being" who seems to have sat on his hands for 500,000 years of our current species evolution, and most of our time we spent in caves and filth, most of that time nomadic at the mercy of weather and disease and only after all that time suddenly decides "hey, maybe I should give my toys a manual now" And at the point of the earliest known human writing we barely were in the age of not needing to be nomadic.

So how does he do it? He creates "poof" the universe but cant write one book in one language, has to go through humans and takes over 1,000 years and 40 authors, and several different versions all so we can fight over it's meaning.

I seriously would not hire such an inept being to write assembly instructions for a bicycle company. The bikes would end up with PBJ sandwiches for seats, squids for spokes, and the buyer would murder anyone who suggested he wasn't reading the instructions properly.

WAKE UP, the bible is a book of myth written by humans at a very tribal and scientifically ignorant time in human history. No different than the Egyptian myths you don't believe in.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37