ECT Another Note on the Letter of Hebrews

[Interplanner]

As you may know, most of the NT is in Koine Greek which is relatively easy to work in. One exception is Luke-Acts which has triple the vocabulary and gets more complex in sentence structure. Still Greek was the market language of the day, so everything important was published in Greek.

But then we get to Hebrews which is even more difficult than Luke-Acts. It has more complex sentences. It is to the Hebrews, yet it is in Greek that very influential Greeks would read and those Jews who had seemingly left Judaism called Hellenists, or had found some middle ground.

So here is a document about the state of the faith called Judaism, now that the Gospel has come, and it is not even in street Aramaic! It could be read by the most educated of the population along the north shore of the Mediterranean.

Does someone still want to say the letter is only for Jews, not to mention the fact that it doesn't have anything about a restored theocracy? Does anyone still want to say that the benefits of the Gospel are not 100% identical to those given in any of Paul's letters? It even ends sounding like him, but that is debated.

 

[DAN P]

As you may know, most of the NT is in Koine Greek which is relatively easy to work in. One exception is Luke-Acts which has triple the vocabulary and gets more complex in sentence structure. Still Greek was the market language of the day, so everything important was published in Greek.

But then we get to Hebrews which is even more difficult than Luke-Acts. It has more complex sentences. It is to the Hebrews, yet it is in Greek that very influential Greeks would read and those Jews who had seemingly left Judaism called Hellenists, or had found some middle ground.

So here is a document about the state of the faith called Judaism, now that the Gospel has come, and it is not even in street Aramaic! It could be read by the most educated of the population along the north shore of the Mediterranean.

Does someone still want to say the letter is only for Jews, not to mention the fact that it doesn't have anything about a restored theocracy? Does anyone still want to say that the benefits of the Gospel are not 100% identical to those given in any of Paul's letters? It even ends sounding like him, but that is debated.

Hi and I will say it is for Jews only !!

What verse will to start with ?

Chapter 6 maybe ??

How about Heb 9:15 ??

dan p

 

[TweetyBird]

Hi and I will say it is for Jews only !!

What verse will to start with ?

Chapter 6 mabybe ??

How about Heb 9:15 ??

dan p

Gal 3

 

[DAN P]

Gal 3

Hi and Galatians and what verse ?

dan p

 

[TweetyBird]

Hi and Gakl and what verse ?

dan p

The whole chapter. Would you like me to quote the chapter and hi-light it for you?

 

[jamie]

Hi and I will say it is for Jews only !!

Are all Hebrews Jews?

Or had most of the Hebrews been dispersed throughout the world?

 

[DAN P]

Are all Hebrews Jews?

Or had most of the Hebrews been dispersed throughout the world?

Hi and during the Gospels , Jews were scattered all over the Roman empire !!

And that is who Jews were to preach to Matt 28:19 and 20 !!

When you have time start an OP on Matt 28:19 and tell all what ENTNOS /GENTILE means ?? LOL

Dan p

 

[jamie]

Hi and during the Gospels , Jews were scattered all over the Roman empire !!

How about the Hebrews? Were they limited to the Roman empire?

 

[Interplanner]

How about the Hebrews? Were they limited to the Roman empire?

You would think then that part of the NT appeal was that whole ethne would be brought back to their land and they would all be thrilled. I don't see that anywhere in the NT.

 

[Danoh]

You would think then that part of the NT appeal was that whole ethne would be brought back to their land and they would all be thrilled. I don't see that anywhere in the NT.

Because you are not only unable to see it where it was clearly still on the table (still being offered), nor when it was declared temporarily off the table.

 

[Interplanner]

Dan 2:44 was being put in place, not a restored kingdom to Israel. That (2:44) is prep for 9's vision in which the land and temple are disintegrated. This is not complicated.

 

[Danoh]

Dan 2:44 was being put in place, not a restored kingdom to Israel. That (2:44) is prep for 9's vision in which the land and temple are disintegrated. This is not complicated.

No, a restored kingdom is not complicated.

YOU make it so that it is.

A restored kingdom was what one of Israel's greatest Prophets: Daniel, was studying the promised restoration of in the Law and the Prophets; you books based hack :chuckle:

O wait; speaking in operating principles to you is of no avail...

 

[Interplanner]

No, a restored kingdom is not complicated.

YOU make it so that it is.

A restored kingdom was what one of Israel's greatest Prophets: Daniel, was studying the promised restoration of in the Law and the Prophets; you books based hack :chuckle:

O wait; speaking in operating principles to you is of no avail...

And the answer to the prayer as he was studying said--490 years decreed for Messiah to come and start his "kingdom" and for the leader of the rebellion to ruin the country.

The problem (for you) is it fits the Abrahamic promises perfectly as interp'd by Gal 3. The Promise always was about the Seed, not about the Law. Ie, Paul could easily have put down his reading of Daniel and written Gal 3 at that moment; they are that seamless. Which you do not accept--neither in op principle nor in detail. Because you are always fighting with 3:17 and who-switched-what there. That is the fundamental, exclusively flaw of it all--all Judaism, D'ism and MAD. It is alwasy foisting its fraud on the Bible.

 

[Interplanner]

When Dan 2's kingdom comes he's almost at a loss for words about it, but it definitely not one in Israel. And it undoes all the other kingdoms at once, so they are seen as a unit or as one kind and this other kingdom as another kind that will fill the whole earth.

 

[Nick M]

Does someone still want to say the letter is only for Jews, not to mention the fact that it doesn't have anything about a restored theocracy?

8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Does anyone still want to say that the benefits of the Gospel are not 100% identical to those given in any of Paul's letters?

26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

The author if Hebrews states clearly they can sin their way out of their future inheritance. Yet Paul said;

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

 

[Interplanner]

8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.



26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

The author if Hebrews states clearly they can sin their way out of their future inheritance. Yet Paul said;

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Yes, there are a few lines that apply to that generation and the powerful wrath that would fall upon Israel in the 6th decade. But just a few. Most of it is for general use.

 

[Interplanner]

Hi and I will say it is for Jews only !!

What verse will to start with ?

Chapter 6 mabybe ??

How about Heb 9:15 ??

dan p

But there is not a trace of Aramaic, DanP.

I understand about 9:15, but most people on earth have tried to do some kind of atonement ritual.

 

[Rivers]

Does someone still want to say the letter is only for Jews, not to mention the fact that it doesn't have anything about a restored theocracy? Does anyone still want to say that the benefits of the Gospel are not 100% identical to those given in any of Paul's letters? It even ends sounding like him, but that is debated.

Maybe Hebrews was a compilation (by Luke?) transcribed from notes of the discussions (probably in Hebrew) that Paul was having with the Jews in Rome near the end of his life (Acts 28:17-31). Perhaps the book was written in Greek to be sent to the churches in Asia Minor and read along with Paul's other letters (2 Peter 3:15-16).

 

[Interplanner]

Maybe Hebrews was a compilation (by Luke?) transcribed from notes of the discussions (probably in Hebrew) that Paul was having with the Jews in Rome near the end of his life (Acts 28:17-31). Perhaps the book was written in Greek to be sent to the churches in Asia Minor and read along with Paul's other letters (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Or is it Apollos. The Greek is more complex than Luke's. At least before the closing in ch 13. It doesn't begin like a letter anyway. It begins like the transcript of a sermon, a declaration.

The direct warnings it in are for the Jews about their land that is about to be burnt.

 

[Danoh]

Or is it Apollos. The Greek is more complex than Luke's. At least before the closing in ch 13. It doesn't begin like a letter anyway. It begins like the transcript of a sermon, a declaration.

The direct warnings it in are for the Jews about their land that is about to be burnt.

No it's not...

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

I know, I know, the above is part of your self-deluded Matt. 24b nonsense.

What an incompetent you are.