The Gospel of the Hebrews and Jesus

[Jayhawker Soule]

It has been suggested that the Gospel of Hebrews provides support for the contention that Jesus was altogether mythical. Specific reference was made to Hebrews 8:1-6 which NET Bible (http://www.bible.org/netbible/) renders as ...
Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We have such a high priest, one who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
a minister in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle that the Lord, not man, set up.
For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. So this one too had to have something to offer.
Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.
The place where they serve is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, just as Moses was warned by God as he was about to complete the tabernacle. For he says, “See that you make everything according to the design shown to you on the mountain.”
But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises.Verse 4 was emphasized as being particularly telling. Is it?

No, and certainly not based on a straight forward reading of the text. It a Jewish text, addressed to Jews circa 50-95 CE. Even if their Messiah were alive, they were told, he would not rule as a Priest. No. Jesus was the High Priest of a new covenant. There is nothing in a straight forward reading of the text to suggest that its author believed that Jesus was never on earth.

What is the author addressing?
It's the close of the 2nd Temple Period. The Priesthood is being increasingly viewed as ineffectual lackeys. Certainly Roman oppression indicated, as all past oppression indicated, that the leadership did not "walk right in the eyes of YHWH". It was the time of messianic expectations. Soon there would be not one messiah but two - a Davinic leader and an Aronite Priest - annoited by YHWH and prepared to usher in the reascendency of the Covenant.

So, where is this Jesus of yours. Where is this Priest-Messiah?

He's not on earth but with his Father in Heaven. And even if he were on earth, he would not be found among the banal and discredited Priesthood. No - his is a new form of religious leadership befitting a new covenant.What we have in Hebrews 8 is, to the best of my knowledge, apologetics addressing the messianic and eschatological expectation of the Jews. It was not proclaiming some Jesus that was never on this earth but, rather, seeking to justify a now dead cult leader.

But, is there any indication of an earthly Jesus in Hebrews? Yes, in Hebrews 2, in a section described by NET Bible as "Exposition of Psalm 8: Jesus and the Destiny of Humanity"
...
...
...
...
For he did not put the world to come, about which we are speaking, under the control of angels. 2:6 Instead someone testified somewhere: “What is man that you think of him or the son of man that you care for him?
You made him lower than the angels for a little while.
You crowned him with glory and honor.
You put all things under his control.” For when he put all things under his control, he left nothing outside of his control. At present we do not yet see all things under his control,
but we see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone.
For it was fitting for him, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
For indeed he who makes holy and those being made holy all have the same origin, and so he is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters,
saying, “I will proclaim your name to my brothers; in the midst of the assembly I will praise you.”20
Again he says, “I will be confident in him,” and again, “Here I am, with the children God has given me.”
Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he likewise shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death (that is, the devil),
and set free those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death.
For surely his concern is not for angels, but he is concerned for Abraham’s descendants.
Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.
For since he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.This is not some gnostic, esoteric Jesus, but a Jesus who "shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death" - again, justification apologetics. If anything, the Gospel of the Hebrews is precisely what one would expect from those seeking to paint a crucified sect leader as Messiah.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I don't approve of the title of this thread. It should be something like "Does Heb 8 constitute positive evidence for a mythical Jesus?"

Jayhawker Soule:
It has been suggested that the Gospel of Hebrews provides support for the contention that Jesus was altogether mythical.

POWELL:
Do you deny that I used Hebrews to support the contention that Jesus is mythical? Do you deny that Hebrews contains evidence that Jesus was mythical?

The debate here should not be whether or not I did that or whether there is evidence in Hebrews for a mythical Jesus. If that's the debate then you're in a terrible position.

The debate should be whether the passage I used constitutes positive evidence for a mythical Jesus or it constitutes merely another appeal to silence evidence. That is the relevant issue.

In SeaSanctuary's thread / survey your question suggested the mythical position might only contain appeal to silence evidence. I posted Hebrews 8 as a counter example. Are you now prepared to concede my point?

Jayhawker Soule:
Specific reference was made to Hebrews 8:1-6 which NET Bible (http://www.bible.org/netbible/) renders as ...
Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We have such a high priest, one who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
a minister in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle that the Lord, not man, set up.
For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. So this one too had to have something to offer.
Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.
The place where they serve is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, just as Moses was warned by God as he was about to complete the tabernacle. For he says, “See that you make everything according to the design shown to you on the mountain.”
But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises.Verse 4 was emphasized as being particularly telling. Is it?

No, and certainly not based on a straight forward reading of the text.


POWELL:
Why don't you assume, for the sake of argument, the NEB translation (which I'm copying from Doherty's Jesus Puzzle site) and then repeat your analysis.

Hebrews 8 (NEB):
3 Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: hence, this one too must have something to offer.

4 Now if he had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts which the Law prescribes,

5 though they minister in a sanctuary which is only a copy and shadow of the heavenly. . . . [NEB]


Jayhawker Soule:
It['s] a Jewish text, addressed to Jews circa 50-95 CE. Even if their Messiah were alive, they were told, he would not rule as a Priest. No. Jesus was the High Priest of a new covenant. There is nothing in a straight forward reading of the text to suggest that its author believed that Jesus was never on earth.


POWELL:
The question is not about the "living" status of Jesus, but the "being on Earth" status. Their Jesus did His priestly ministry, His death and presentation of His blood, in higher realms than Earth. That's why He wasn't on Earth. In order for His ministry to be the heavenly pattern that the earthly priests were following, then Jesus needed to be in a higher realm. If Jesus were merely an Earthly being, that would ruin the model.

Jayhawker Soule:
What is the author addressing?

It's the close of the 2nd Temple Period. The Priesthood is being increasingly viewed as ineffectual lackeys. Certainly Roman oppression indicated, as all past oppression indicated, that the leadership did not "walk right in the eyes of YHWH". It was the time of messianic expectations. Soon there would be not one messiah but two - a Davinic leader and an Aronite Priest - annoited by YHWH and prepared to usher in the reascendency of the Covenant.


POWELL:
What passage(s) in Hebrews are you using to support the idea that the writer was viewing in this way the Earthly priests that he was talking about?

Jayhawker Soule:
So, where is this Jesus of yours. Where is this Priest-Messiah?


POWELL:
He's been in spiritual realms doing His thing for us.

Jayhawker Soule:
He's not on earth but with his Father in Heaven.


POWELL:
Correct. He was in a realm intermediate between Earth and the highest heaven, but now He's sitting on the right hand of God waiting to have all his enemies subdued.

Jayhawker Soule:
And even if he were on earth, he would not be found among the banal and discredited Priesthood.


POWELL:
What passage(s) in Hebrews are you using to support the idea that the writer was viewing in this way the Earthly priests that he was talking about?

Jayhawker Soule:
No - his is a new form of religious leadership befitting a new covenant.


POWELL:
That part seems right.

Jayhawker Soule:
What we have in Hebrews 8 is, to the best of my knowledge, apologetics addressing the messianic and eschatological expectation of the Jews. It was not proclaiming some Jesus that was never on this earth but, rather, seeking to justify a now dead cult leader.


POWELL:
A now living leader. One living in a higher realm, a Melchizedek-order priest forever.

Jayhawker Soule:
But, is there any indication of an earthly Jesus in Hebrews?


POWELL:
I concede that there is evidence in Hebrews supporting the position that Jesus was historical. The fact that you quoted it as such makes it so. The off topic issue is whether that part of Hebrews best fits with the "Jesus is historical" position or the "Jesus is mythical" position.

Jayhawker Soule:
Yes, in Hebrews 2, in a section described by NET Bible as "Exposition of Psalm 8: Jesus and the Destiny of Humanity"
...
...
...
...
For he did not put the world to come, about which we are speaking, under the control of angels. 2:6 Instead someone testified somewhere: “What is man that you think of him or the son of man that you care for him?
You made him lower than the angels for a little while.
You crowned him with glory and honor.
You put all things under his control.” For when he put all things under his control, he left nothing outside of his control. At present we do not yet see all things under his control,
but we see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone.
For it was fitting for him, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
For indeed he who makes holy and those being made holy all have the same origin, and so he is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters,
saying, “I will proclaim your name to my brothers; in the midst of the assembly I will praise you.”20
Again he says, “I will be confident in him,” and again, “Here I am, with the children God has given me.”
Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he likewise shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death (that is, the devil),
and set free those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death.
For surely his concern is not for angels, but he is concerned for Abraham’s descendants.
Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.
For since he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.This is not some gnostic, esoteric Jesus, but a Jesus who "shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death" - again, justification apologetics. If anything, the Gospel of the Hebrews is precisely what one would expect from those seeking to paint a crucified sect leader as Messiah.

POWELL:
What that seems to be saying is that Jesus condescended to descend to a status a little below the angels, to a realm a little below where angels dwell, but still above the Earth. Jesus took on a limited number of Earthlike features and had some Earthlike experiences in that realm so that He could better fulfil His ministry. You see, His ministry is to be intermediate between God and Earthly man.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have a good day ...

[John Powell]

Jayhawker Soule:
Have a good day ...


POWELL:
:noid:

I guess that means you won't admit that mythicists have more than just appeal to silence type evidence.

Cheers,

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

I guess that means you won't admit that mythicists have more than just appeal to silence type evidence.No, John Powell, it means that I'm willing to let others judge our respective understanding of the text. Take care.

[John Powell]

No, John Powell, it means that I'm willing to let others judge our respective understanding of the text. Take care.


POWELL:
That's an important, but separate issue.

My purpose in the other thread was to counter the impression your question promoted that the mythicist position is based solely on appeal to silence evidence.

You now seem unwilling to challenge my position on that as if you agree with it, but you pursued some other issue. It's fine to pursue other issues, but I'm disappointed that you don't clearly concede my point.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

You now seem unwilling to challenge my position on that as if you agree with it, but you pursued some other issue. It's fine to pursue other issues, but I'm disappointed that you don't clearly concede my point.I'm sorry that you're disappointed, John Powell. You are correct: I do not concede your point. Furthermore, I believe that I have adequately made mine. Whether or not the latter is true is up to others to judge. Again, have a good day.

[John Powell]

Jayhawker Soule:
I'm sorry that you're disappointed, John Powell. You are correct: I do not concede your point. Furthermore, I believe that I have adequately made mine. Whether or not the latter is true is up to others to judge. Again, have a good day.


POWELL:
I don't think you've adequately justified your position that the mythicist position is based solely on appeal to silence evidence.

Furthermore, I don't think you've adequately explained the apparently contradictory position that Hebrews 8 does not constitute evidence for a mythical Jesus while you concede that it's appeal to silence evidence.

Perhaps the confusion is partly because you don't understand what constitutes evidence.

John Powell

[Seasanctuary]

Perhaps the confusion is partly because you don't understand what constitutes evidence.

Evidence are those things -- identifiable only after you know the truth -- which hint at that truth.

[John Powell]

Seasanctuary:
Evidence are those things -- identifiable only after you know the truth -- which hint at that truth.


POWELL:
Then, apparently, the only side of a court case that can provide evidence is the side that happens to be correct.

Judge: Ok, prosecution, present your evidence.

Defense: Objection, your honor. The prosecution has no evidence because my client is innocent.

Given your definition, it would seem that there is no evidence for science since scientists never do know whether they have the truth.

John Powell

[Seasanctuary]

Happy to be of service.

[MegaHertz]

[4] Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.
Verse 4 was emphasized as being particularly telling. Is it?
No, and certainly not based on a straight forward reading of the text. It a Jewish text, addressed to Jews circa 50-95 CE. Even if their Messiah were alive, they were told, he would not rule as a Priest. No. Jesus was the High Priest of a new covenant. There is nothing in a straight forward reading of the text to suggest that its author believed that Jesus was never on earth.

It was the time of messianic expectations. Soon there would be not one messiah but two - a Davinic leader and an Aronite Priest - annoited by YHWH and prepared to usher in the reascendency of the Covenant.

So, where is this Jesus of yours. Where is this Priest-Messiah?



He's not on earth but with his Father in Heaven. And even if he were on earth, he would not be found among the banal and discredited Priesthood. It was not proclaiming some Jesus that was never on this earth but, rather, seeking to justify a now dead cult leader.

But, is there any indication of an earthly Jesus in Hebrews? If anything, the Gospel of the Hebrews is precisely what one would expect from those seeking to paint a crucified sect leader as Messiah.

"Even if their Messiah were alive, they were told, he would not rule as a Priest."

Why would He keep acting with that part which was to offer a sacrifice for sin?
In His case, it was Himself that was the sacrifice, the very last blood spilled as an offering to God for the forgiveness of sin. Did it stop, no, was it viewed as 'proper', apparently not seeing what happened after 40 years (why is that number so familar, oh yes, the earthquake that took all the idol lovers at the end of the 40 years in the wilderness).

He is still standing at the alter, certainly, and the only thing He will find acceptable from any man is an offering made with the lips.


"not one messiah but two - a Davinic leader and an Aronite Priest - annoited by YHWH
So, where is this Jesus of yours. Where is this Priest-Messiah?"

Joseph would have supplied the proper background for the Davinic part.
Why do you discount the background that Mary gave Him from her being a daughter of Aaron?

I'm sorry if I mis-understand what you are saying (without really saying it) but Israel is just the first people to be gathered. i
Is there even an issue if these are not the only ones to be gathered.
Even if gathering the nations takes XXXX number of years, it is still a 'little thing' to those who do the gathering;

Isa:40:15:
Behold,
the nations are as a drop of a bucket,
and are counted as the small dust of the balance:
behold,
he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.

Even if the last ones who are saved are the ones just before this verse; I hope I do not act like the ones in the verses after the one from Revelations;

Re:20:15:
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I hope I do not act like the ones who have been in the field all day, these are the only ones who complain, none of the ones who were offered work during the rest of day complained;

M't:20:8:
So when even was come,
the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward,
Call the labourers,
and give them their hire,
beginning from the last unto the first.
M't:20:9:
And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour,
they received every man a penny.
M't:20:10:
But when the first came,
they supposed that they should have received more;
and they likewise received every man a penny.
M't:20:11:
And when they had received it,
they murmured against the goodman of the house,
M't:20:12:
Saying,
These last have wrought but one hour,
and thou hast made them equal unto us,
which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
M't:20:13:
But he answered one of them,
and said,
Friend,
I do thee no wrong:
didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
M't:20:14:
Take that thine is,
and go thy way:
I will give unto this last,
even as unto thee.
M't:20:15:
Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?
Is thine eye evil,
because I am good?

Again, I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying, I assumed it was basically, yes, there was a man named Jesus who was nothing more than "a now dead cult leader".

Heb:7:12:
For the priesthood being changed,
there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb:7:13:
For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe,
of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb:7:14:
For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda;
of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Heb:7:15:
And it is yet far more evident:
for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Heb:7:16:
Who is made,
not after the law of a carnal commandment,
but after the power of an endless life.
Heb:7:17:
For he testifieth,
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb:7:18:
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb:7:19:
For the law made nothing perfect,
but the bringing in of a better hope did;
by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Heb:7:20:
And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
Heb:7:21:
(For those priests were made without an oath;
but this with an oath by him that said unto him,
The Lord sware and will not repent,
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
Heb:7:22:
By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Heb:7:23:
And they truly were many priests,
because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Heb:7:24:
But this man,
because he continueth ever,
hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Heb:7:25:
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him,
seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Heb:7:26:
For such an high priest became us,
who is holy,
harmless,
undefiled,
separate from sinners,
and made higher than the heavens;
Heb:7:27:
Who needeth not daily,
as those high priests,
to offer up sacrifice,
first for his own sins,
and then for the people's:
for this he did once,
when he offered up himself.
Heb:7:28:
For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity;
but the word of the oath,
which was since the law,
maketh the Son,
who is consecrated for evermore.

[John Powell]

Seasanctuary:
Happy to be of service.


POWELL:
:nsm:

[Seasanctuary]

POWELL:
:nsm:

I just noticed that people get confused when you use "evidence" to describe hints at things which aren't true. There's an insistence that if someone is wrong, there is zero evidence for their position.

It's similar to the "eyewitness" argument over in the locker room. Whether something is evidence or whether something is an eyewitness account is understood first as means of figuring out the truth...as opposed to figuring out the truth and only subsequently identifying evidence and eyewitness accounts.

[John Powell]

Seasanctuary:
I just noticed that people get confused when you use "evidence" to describe hints at things which aren't true. There's an insistence that if someone is wrong, there is zero evidence for their position.


POWELL:
They are confused. What does the statement "preponderance of the evidence" mean if only the side that is correct has any? What does the statement "weigh the evidence" mean if there's none on the false side?

Seasanctuary:
It's similar to the "eyewitness" argument over in the locker room. Whether something is evidence or whether something is an eyewitness account is understood first as means of figuring out the truth...as opposed to figuring out the truth and only subsequently identifying evidence and eyewitness accounts.


POWELL:
We use evidence to come to conclusions whether they turn out to be correct conclusions or not. The same fact can be used as evidence by both the prosecution and the defense in support of their opposing positions.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

The same fact can be used as evidence by both the prosecution and the defense in support of their opposing positions.Then it is 'evidence' of an uncontested subordinate claim.

Somewhere around Jr. High School most people begin to realize that language is nuanced, and that purely semantic arguments are juvenile at best. It is far more productive to simply (a) request clarification when you feel that the communication is ambiguous, and (b) offer clarification when asked.

As for the term 'evidence', it is my understanding that it means "that which makes evident or manifest" [Webster] with 'evident' being derived from the Latin 'evidentia' (proof).

Similarly, law.com (url=http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=671&bold=||||) offers n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. The problem, of course, is that - other than with formal mathematical systems - proof can be a rather illusive concept. So ...

What does the statement "preponderance of the evidence" mean if only the side that is correct has any? What does the statement "weigh the evidence" mean if there's none on the false side?It means that we are dealing with the quantity and quality of subordinant claims:
An item of evidence may confirm that the defendent had motive.
An item of evidence may confirm that the defendent owned a gun.
An item of evidence may confirm that this gun was the murder weapon.
An item of evidence may confirm that the gun was previously repoted stolen.
An item of evidence may confirm that the defendent was attending a conference in a different country at the time of the crime.In each case, two things are relevant: each item warrants the designation 'evidence' because it proves a subordinant claim, and each item is offered on the belief that the weight of these now proven subordinant claims will prove sufficient to warrant a verdict on the principle claim.Finally, there is a distinction between an item serving as evidence, and an item being offered as evidence.The jurist, for example, is expected to judge testimony to determine whether or not it rises to the level of evidence.

The bottom line is this: an item offered as evidence is expected to prove something, i.e., it is expected to make something "evident or manifest". If it fails to do so, it lacks evidentiary value and is rejected as evidence. Otherwise, the question becomes one of weighing the relevancy of what has just been confirmed.

[John Powell]

POWELL (to Seasanctuary):
The same fact can be used as evidence by both the prosecution and the defense in support of their opposing positions.


JayHawker Soule:
Then it is 'evidence' of an uncontested subordinate claim.


POWELL:
I don't think so. The unconstested claim is the "fact of the case". What the fact is being used to support in that situation are two opposing claims that are controversial.

JayHawker Soule:
Somewhere around Jr. High School most people begin to realize that language is nuanced, and that purely semantic arguments are juvenile at best.


POWELL:
Then when they properly learn deductive reasoning they come to realize that deductive arguments are largely semantic arguments.

JayHawker Soule:
It is far more productive to simply (a) request clarification when you feel that the communication is ambiguous, and (b) offer clarification when asked.


POWELL:
It is often productive to do that, yes.

JayHawker Soule:
As for the term 'evidence', it is my understanding that it means
"that which makes evident or manifest" [Webster]
with 'evident' being derived from the Latin 'evidentia' (proof).


POWELL:
Yes. However, I prefer the American Heritage definition "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment" where "thing or things" is understood to be things like claims, arguments, or experiences, rather than including things like a piece of paper and pencil.

JayHawker Soule:
Similarly, law.com offers
n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case.


POWELL:
Recall that sometimes a lawyer attempts to present evidence that isn't permissible. It's not that the thing isn't evidence, but that it isn't permissible evidence, such as hearsay evidence in a criminal case.

JayHawker Soule:
The problem, of course, is that - other than with formal mathematical systems - proof can be a rather illusive concept. So ...


POWELL:
A proof is a sound deductive argument. I realize that the courts speak of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" but I interprete that to be an effort to impress upon the minds of the jury the need to be confident beyond a reasonable doubt. To merely believe very strongly isn't good enough to justify a conviction.

POWELL (to SeaSanctuary):
What does the statement "preponderance of the evidence" mean if only the side that is correct has any? What does the statement "weigh the evidence" mean if there's none on the false side?


JayHawker Soule:
It means that we are dealing with the quantity and quality of subordinant claims:


POWELL:
It means that the courts recognize that both sides of the case have evidence.

Evidence can include more than just claims. It can include arguments and experiences.

JayHawker Soule:
An item of evidence may confirm that the defendent had motive.
An item of evidence may confirm that the defendent owned a gun.
An item of evidence may confirm that this gun was the murder weapon.
An item of evidence may confirm that the gun was previously repoted stolen.
An item of evidence may confirm that the defendent was attending a conference in a different country at the time of the crime.


POWELL:
Yes. However, it's not required that the item CONFIRM the conclusion to count as evidence, it merely needs to be used as SUPPORT for the conclusion.

JayHawker Soule:
In each case, two things are relevant:
each item warrants the designation 'evidence' because it proves a subordinant claim,


POWELL:
Wrong.

Proof is a very strong kind of evidence, but most evidence doesn't muster to that level. Perhaps you mean something more like "supports."

JayHawker Soule:
and
each item is offered on the belief that the weight of these now proven subordinant claims will prove sufficient to warrant a verdict on the principle claim.


POWELL:
Is it possible that the subordinate claim is proven true yet is actually false? If "yes" then I suggest you use a different word such as "demonstrated" or "shown" or "supported." If "no" then you need sound deductive arguments.

JayHawker Soule:
Finally, there is a distinction between
an item serving as evidence, and
an item being offered as evidence.


POWELL:
Correct.

If you offer X as evidence that Y, J might not use it as evidence that Y. J might use it as evidence that ~Y since J has come to believe that you are a fabricator. I, the onlooker, would acknowledge that it appears that X is evidence to you that Y and it's evidence to J that ~Y.

JayHawker Soule:
The jurist, for example, is expected to judge testimony to determine whether or not it rises to the level of evidence.


POWELL:
That's fine. However, that a particular jurist does not use it as evidence, as helpful to them to come to a conclusion, does not prevent others from doing so.

JayHawker Soule:
The bottom line is this: an item offered as evidence is expected to prove something, i.e., it is expected to make something "evident or manifest". If it fails to do so, it lacks evidentiary value and is rejected as evidence. Otherwise, the question becomes one of weighing the relevancy of what has just been confirmed.


POWELL:
An item offered as evidence is expected to SUPPORT a conclusion. If it proves the conclusion true (via a sound deductive argument) then it's especially strong evidence. However, in that case it's likely to be a semantic argument.

Notice that in this post you made claims and arguments. Presumably, you believe that those claims and arguments justify believing as you do. You are offering those claims and arguments as evidence that you're correct, as reasons to believe as you do. Yet, you didn't prove the conclusions true (via sound deduction).

John Powell