DOES HEBREWS SAY THAT JESUS SERVED AS PRIEST LONG BEFORE THE FIRST CENTURY
The letter to the Hebrews gives no hint that Jesus lived in the first century. Good evidence indicates that the gospels lied that he did. The letter is clear that Jesus may have lived at the beginning of time and was crucified in Heaven. Its data is confused but the main message stands out, there was no first century Jesus on earth.
Hebrews 5:1-6 tells us that every high priest has been taken out of mankind
to act for men in their relationship with God and to offer gifts and sacrifices
for sins. So he can sympathise with those he acts for because like them he
suffers from ignorance and uncertainty which causes weakness. Because of his
ignorance and uncertainty which produce weakness he has to make sacrifices for
his sins as well as those of others. It then goes on to say that no priest takes
this honour to himself but has to be called by God and even Jesus was no
exception. (Incidentally, Jesus then could not have been God. If he was God and
a man then he had to have been a priest automatically for he would naturally
offer his sufferings and works as a man to God.)
This says that ignorance and uncertainty cause weakness and weakness causes sin.
The gospel Jesus never made any claim to know all. In fact he listened to the
Devil’s temptations which shows that there was weakness there and that he wanted
to be tempted which is a sin in itself. This Jesus from Hebrews who didn’t need
to make sin offerings for himself is definitely not the Jesus of the gospels.
The gospels were lies. Hebrews says that men priests are necessarily ignorant
and weak. So he is denying then that Jesus was a man like us that way. He might
have been another species of man living on another world or at the gate of
Heaven but he wasn’t a man like us that way.
The Law of Moses speaks of sin not necessarily as doing wrong deliberately but
as making mistakes as well. That is why it made provision for unknown offences.
This totally contradicts all human laws of decency and fairness for nobody
should be punished or have to pay for unknown or unintentional mistakes to God.
(We might have to make people pay for mistakes on earth but that is so that the
suffering caused may be corrected but our mistakes do God who is all-powerful no
harm.) We have enough to worry about without that nonsense. Hebrews seems to be
speaking of that kind of sin, unintentional sin, here. It speaks of ignorance
and uncertainty causing the weakness that results in sin so it must be on about
unintentional sin primarily. If Jesus was free from this kind of sin then he
wasn’t ignorant or uncertain about anything. He wasn’t like us that way. Nobody
could write that way about a man that had actually lived recently and if the
gospels were even partly true.
Hebrews 7:23 states that the reason there had to be a huge number of priest
under the old covenant was because the priests were subject to dying. But Christ
because he doesn’t die never loses his priesthood. The old covenant could have
had the one priest only. When he dies then replace him. God ordains priests so
God can decide how the successor priest is ordained perhaps by election or
something. One priest would have been a better picture of the priesthood of
Christ assuming that Christians are right in saying that the Old Testament
priesthood existed only to point to the work of Christ whether these priests
realised it or not. Hebrews is actually being silly in saying many priests were
needed because priests die and the supply had to be kept up. It was an attempt
to justify the idea that Jesus wasn’t dead anymore. Again this desperation to
show that Jesus was alive speaks of how poor the evidence for his resurrection
was. Also Jesus must have lost his priesthood when he died so is Hebrews
accidentally telling us that Jesus never died? If it is then the gospel evidence
for Jesus is nonsense for if the death was doubtful though it was the main event
in these works then everything else is more doubtful. Is it the reflection of a
tradition in Christianity that Jesus never died?
If Jesus became a priest after his death when he became alive again then the
gospels are lying that Jesus offered his death to God before it happened.
If Jesus brought in the New Covenant in which he is the High Priest and the
Priest of God meaning that the priests of the Old Covenant which was abolished
by the New does that mean that Jesus lived and died in the latter times – say a
few decades or so before Hebrews was written. It still could have been centuries
before for the old priesthood continued to the day of the author of Hebrews not
knowing it was abolished or so we are led to believe!
Now if 7:23 says that the number of priests had to be big because they were
dying and ceasing to be priests and Christ holds his priesthood forever for he
doesn’t die again then we see something interesting. It is necessary for Christ
to live forever to be a priest forever. This is nonsense. A priest can be a
priest whether he exists or not. If I was born or if I offered sacrifice and I
die nothing can change the fact that I was a born person or a priest.
Incidentally it shows that there are no real priests but Christ and that being
in danger of death or if death is possible indicates that one cannot be a true
priest. It refutes the Roman Catholic doctrine that Christ lets men share in his
priesthood so that they can offer his sacrifice, the sacrifice he made of his
life on the cross, with him in the Mass. These priests die so they are not
priests.
The suggestion of all this is that Jesus’ death didn’t happen on earth or in
time but outside of time. Jesus is a priest forever for he is outside time and
offers his death timelessly. It's like in dying he rose again to offer this death
so that both are present forever. In timelessness two separate events can happen
at the one time. The view that Jesus died in time and rose in eternity to offer
his sacrifice forever has the following problem. It doesn’t explain why he had
to live forever to be a priest and Hebrews says that Jesus had to live forever
to hold his priesthood forever. Jesus could be a priest once and he would be one
forever like a man offering a sacrifice is a priest forever for nothing can
change his having made the sacrifice. But Hebrews means though his death is once
for all it's actively offered to God so it’s a timeless event and Jesus rises
again timelessly so both happen at once. The death of Jesus and his resurrection
were not events in time. This denies the gospel Jesus.
Hebrews speaks of Jesus entering the Heavenly Tabernacle. Just like Moses had a
tabernacle set up in the wilderness so there is one in Heaven. There is no
reason to believe that the Heavenly one is merely symbolic so it is not. The
Jewish laws about what priests do is said in Hebrews to picture what Jesus does.
The priest sacrifices animals in the Tabernacle before the most holy section and
puts their blood on the tabernacle before he enters it. Jesus does the same
according to Hebrews 9:12 therefore Jesus did not die and rise on earth but in
Heaven. This must have been made known on earth by visions. Hebrews is saying
that there is no evidence that Jesus lived apart from religious experience. And
that is not much good to wiser people. The gospel stories about the healing
miracles, the empty tomb and the resurrection are all shown to be fraudulent.
Hebrews 9:24-27 says that if Jesus had to offer more than one atonement
sacrifice he would have been sacrificing and dying over and over again from the
foundation of the world. What a strange statement. Why bring in the reference to
the foundation of the world? Why not say if Jesus died in 30AD or whenever he
would have to die again and again from then on? If Jesus had to die over and
over again he didn’t need to start at the foundation of the world unless he came
at the foundation of the world and died first then. If he died in 30AD for the
first time and died forever and ever all over and over again it would still make
an infinite number of deaths so the when doesn’t matter in itself. Hebrews by
saying Jesus would have to die over and over again forever after his first death
and that he would have been dying from the foundation of the world is saying
that was when he died the first time.
Clearly the author is suggesting that Jesus died at the start of the universe.
The flesh Jesus had is probably not human flesh as we know it.
The research of Earl Doherty has shown that Hebrews 8:1-6 which says that Jesus
could not be a priest if he sacrificed on earth and not in Heaven for there are
priests (indicating that Hebrews is provably earlier than the gospels for the
priests ministered before the cataclysm of 70 AD) in the earthly sanctuary who
serve a poor copy of the sanctuary in Heaven implies that Jesus never gave his
life for sinners on earth but in Heaven (A Sacrifice in Heaven,
http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/supp09.htm).
This also denies that Jesus was literally God for God can atone for sin by
giving his life wherever he is and even if there are priests on earth for he is
the one that enables them to minister and makes them priests. If priests on
earth stopped Jesus offering his life here then he atoned for sins by his blood
in Heaven or some celestial world. The translators change the bit saying Jesus
would not be a priest if he were on earth for there are priests on earth to that
he would not be a priest if he were still on earth which obviously makes no
sense. If Jesus had been on earth before and was a priest him still being on
earth would not stop him being a priest now for there are priests on earth even
to the time the writer of Hebrews was engaged in his little book. The
translators just assume the still should be in there as Doherty’s research has
noted. The grounds they present for that is that the context meaning the setting
of the whole letter demands it which is untrue. So they assume Hebrews has a
Jesus who was sacrificed on earth and because they want Hebrews to say that they
feel entitled to make 8:1-6 fit the assumption by adding the word still for
without that word it denies that Jesus was on earth.