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,

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.


No Copyright