Paul did not write Hebrews; we do not know who did

Right Divider

Body part
What do you think, that Paul just cherry picks proof texts?
No, he did not cherry-pick... he used them for a purpose that was different than their original context. Paul often did that.
Come on. Be consistent. If you quote an excerpt of a prophecy, aren't you necessarily implying the whole prophecy?
Nope! Paul was NOT talking about all of the things that the prophecy calls out.
You can't just pick and choose, and so Paul is not just picking and choosing either.

You're reading your own theology into this verse.
Nope... but I can see how a spiritual retard, like yourself, would say that.
 

Derf

Well-known member
There was no "church" started in Act 2, especially not the church which is His body (i.e., the body of Christ). The body of Christ started with Paul (around the Acts 9 time-frame).
When did the other church start? You know, the one that Jesus said He would build (future tense) on that Rock. Has He not yet built it? When Paul spoke of the middle wall of partition being broken down, was he referring to the wall between two churches? Or between something else?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
When did the other church start? You know, the one that Jesus said He would build (future tense) on that Rock. Has He not yet built it?

At the death of Christ.

When Paul spoke of the middle wall of partition being broken down, was he referring to the wall between two churches? Or between something else?

He was referring to the wall that separated Circumcision from Uncircumcision, that being, "the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (verse 15).
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Someone should just use Hugging Face and make a generative A.I. natural language model of the current database, then purge the stuff that's not good. You won't lose anything, it will all just be in the model now, it won't store all the posts, but it will store the model, and for TOL users like @oatmeal and @God's Truth and all the other non-Trinitarians, the model will store all of those users' posts with a very simple model. Whatever post you want to know from those TOL users, fits in a very slim model, because they were broken records. They always said the same wrong thing. There's no need to store all of that. Just maybe keep their posts when they're in important threads, but if they destroy a thread, then you might as well get rid of that thread. And they destroyed a lot of threads. Oh yeah @keypurr too. Destroyed threads. @meshak who else? There were lots of them, all trolls, they filled up the database here with broken records, just all the same stuff, stuck in a rut, what a mess.

Edit
You can't let the good stuff drown in the undertow of that wave, by accident. Hugging Face could provide a natural language processing generative A.I. model that could be used on the whole TOL database. The resultant A.I. model would be the compacted data of the entirety of TOL. Users mentioned above and others who became repetitive, would be compacted very much. In fact the model might be able to quantify how many resources are required to store each user's entire catalog of content. Users like those above and others who were broken records will take the least resources. The model will work much harder for someone like @Lon and AMR @AskMrReligion (I'm guessing on AMR's actual handle here) and @SaulToPaul who have nuance to their thinking. And ofc @john w the legend—that king.

You should do this @Right Divider you'd be perfect for this, a retired computer guy is exactly what you'd need to do this. You gotta figure out transformers and tokenization and all the rest, but apparently Hugging Face has open source A.I. model building software, I think they prefer Python so you just have to bone up on that, definitely not going to take long for a career coder. I'm sure you could code the software to perfectly model the whole of TOL, for posterity. It wouldn't be modeling the whole internet, so it should be reasonable in terms of compute resources.

I vote you check into it anyway. You'd definitely be the guy to do this.
 

Derf

Well-known member
At the death of Christ.
So it was a new church (group, congregation), right? One that was required to follow those laws you mention below? And another church (group, congregation) was built that did not have to follow those laws. In terms of buildings, then, there was a wall of separation between the two, right?
He was referring to the wall that separated Circumcision from Uncircumcision, that being, "the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (verse 15).
Now, in terms of building, how many churches are there, since there's no wall separating them?
 

Nick M

Born that men no longer die
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Is that the one Jesus was going to build?
Correct. He will divide his sheep from the goats. To the left (the tards with purple hair and a door knocker for a nose ring) and to the right he will divide them.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Why are there 2 words in both Greek and English? Why don't we call Simon bar Jonah "Rock" instead of "Peter"? I'll wait.

"Jesus" is the Anglicized, Latinized, Hellenized, Hebrew name "Joshua."

This is proven in the book of Hebrews where the KJB talks about Joshua the successor of Moses but calls him Jesus instead, because the Hellenized (Greek) version of Joshua is the same as the Greek name of Jesus.

The Greek word for rock has ... pronouns. We talk about a boat having "she-her" pronouns, in Greek, rock had "she-her" pronouns too. So Peter was named Rock, but with "he-him" pronouns, ofc. If Jesus had spoken of Himself metaphorically as a rock, then it would make sense for Him to keep the "she-her" pronouns, since it was only a metaphor, but whereas He was actually giving Peter a new first name, it makes sense his new name should have "he-him" pronouns.

"Cephas" was the Hellenized (Greek) version of the Aramaic word for Rock, and in Aramaic, the word rock has no pronouns, like in English.

Paul used Cephas and Petros (Peter) interchangeably.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Correct. He will divide his sheep from the goats. To the left (the tards with purple hair and a door knocker for a nose ring) and to the right he will divide them.
The division of sheep and goats is the future building of the church mentioned in Deuteronomy? Are you saying there wasn't a church in the wilderness? If there was, and it's the sheep vs goats church Jesus was going to build, then was the building of it incomplete, or not started? Jesus, after all, was still talking about laying a foundation (Rock), so it's hard to imagine the building of a church (congregation) that started as early as Deuteronomy that still didn't have a foundation when Jesus was here.

But if it wasn't even started before Jesus' time, then how could it be the same church as in Deuteronomy, following Moses and the Cloud around?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
"Jesus" is the Anglicized, Latinized, Hellenized, Hebrew name "Joshua."
This doesn't really effect the point you're making but, as usual, your comments lack precision. In actual fact, both "Jesus" and "Joshua" are English transliterations of Latin transliteration of the Greek transliterations of the Hebrew name יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (Yehoshua), which means "Yahweh is salvation" or "The Lord saves."

In earlier Old Testament books the name is fully "יְהוֹשׁוּעַ" (Yehoshua) but later was commonly shortened to "יֵשׁוּעַ" (Yeshua). Both were rendered in the Septuagint as "Ἰησοῦς" (Iēsous). This Greek form was carried into the New Testament to refer to Jesus. Then "Iēsous" became "Iesus" in Latin, and eventually "Jesus" in English. Similarly, Yehoshua entered English as "Joshua."
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
From gotquestions.org


Theologically speaking, scholars generally regard the book of Hebrews to be second in importance only to Paul’s letter to the Romans in the New Testament. No other book so eloquently defines Christ as high priest of Christianity, superior to the Aaronic priesthood, and the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. This book presents Christ as the Author and Perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). However, both the authorship and audience are in question.

hqdefault.jpg



The title “To the Hebrews,” which appears in the earliest known copy of the epistle, is not a part of the original manuscript. There is no salutation; the letter simply begins with the assertion that Jesus, the Son of God, has appeared, atoned for our sins, and is now seated at the right hand of God in heaven (Hebrews 1:1-4).

The letter closes with the words “Grace be with you all” (Hebrews 13:25), which is the same closing found in each of Paul’s known letters (see Romans 16:20; 1 Corinthians 16:23; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Galatians 6:18; Ephesians 6:24; Philippians 4:23; Colossians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:28; 2 Thessalonians 3:18; 1 Timothy 6:21; 2 Timothy 4:22; Titus 3:15; and Philemon 25). However, it should be noted that Peter (1 Peter 5:14; 2 Peter 3:18) used similar—though not identical—closings. It is possible that it was simply customary to close letters like this with the words “Grace be with you all” during this time period.

Church tradition teaches that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, and until the 1800s that issue was closed. However, though a vast majority of Christians scholar still believe Paul wrote the book, there are some tempting reasons to think otherwise.

First and foremost is the lack of a salutation. Some sort of personal salutation from Paul appears in all of his letters. So it would seem that writing anonymously is not his usual method; therefore, the reasoning goes, Hebrews cannot be one of his letters. Second, the overall composition and style is of a person who is a very sophisticated writer. Even though he was certainly a sophisticated communicator, Paul stated that he purposely did not speak with a commanding vocabulary (1 Corinthians 1:17; 2:1; 2 Corinthians 11:6).

The book of Hebrews quotes extensively from the Old Testament. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have been familiar with the Scripture in its original Hebrew language. In other letters, Paul either quotes the Masoretic Text (the original Hebrew) or paraphrases it. However, all of the quotes in this epistle are taken out of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which is inconsistent with Paul’s usage. Finally, Paul was an apostle who claimed to receive his revelations directly from the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23; Galatians 1:12). The writer of Hebrews specifically says that he was taught by an apostle (Hebrews 2:3).

If Paul didn’t write the letter, who did? The most plausible suggestion is that this was actually a sermon Paul gave and it was transcribed later by Luke, a person who would have had the command of the Greek language that the writer shows. Barnabas is another likely prospect, since he was a Levite and would have been speaking on a subject that he knew much about. Martin Luther suggested Apollos, since he would have had the education the writer of this letter must have had. Priscilla and Clement of Rome have been suggested by other scholars.

However, there is still much evidence that Paul wrote the letter. The most compelling comes from Scripture itself. Remember that Peter wrote to the Hebrews (that is, the Jews; see Galatians 2:7, 9 and 1 Peter 1:1). Peter wrote, “Just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him” (2 Peter 3:15). In that last verse, Peter is confirming that Paul had also written a letter to the Hebrews!

The theology presented in Hebrews is consistent with Paul’s. Paul was a proponent of salvation by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8, 9), and that message is strongly communicated in this epistle (Hebrews 4:2, 6:12, 10:19-22, 10:37-39, and 11:1-40), indicating that either Paul wrote the epistle or the writer was trained by Paul. Although it is a small detail, this epistle makes mention of Timothy (Hebrews 13:23), and Paul is the only apostle known to have ever done that in any letter.

So, who actually wrote Hebrews? The letter fills a needed space in Scripture and both outlines our faith and defines faith itself in the same way that Romans defines the tenets of Christian living. It closes the chapters of faith alone and serves as a prelude to the chapters on good works built on a foundation of faith in God. In short, this book belongs in the Bible. Therefore, its human author is unimportant. What is important is to treat the book as inspired Scripture as defined in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Holy Spirit was the divine author of Hebrews and of all Scripture, even though we don’t know who put the physical pen to the physical paper and traced the words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Right Divider

Body part
From gotquestions.org


Theologically speaking, scholars generally regard the book of Hebrews to be second in importance only to Paul’s letter to the Romans in the New Testament. No other book so eloquently defines Christ as high priest of Christianity, superior to the Aaronic priesthood, and the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.
Christianity has no priesthood!
This book presents Christ as the Author and Perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). However, both the authorship and audience are in question.
The audience is quite clear... the HEBREWS! (i.e., ISRAEL).

The placement in the Bible is also quite clear. The book to the Hebrews is placed AFTER Paul's epistles!

I seems that most people (and Christians in particular) have never considered the ordering of the books of the so-called new testament. They are ordered by audience and size.

Romans is largest of the Pauline epistles and is therefore placed first (and right after the historical "gospels" and the book of the Acts of the Apostles).

The book of the Hebrews is the largest of the Hebrew epistles and is therefore placed right after Paul's epistles.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Christianity has no priesthood!
More accurately, the Body of Christ has no priesthood.

The book of the Hebrews is the largest of the Hebrew epistles and is therefore placed right after Paul's epistles.
Interesting.

You think they were entered into the cannon in order of size?

I'm not suggesting that you're wrong. I just hadn't heard that before.
 

Lon

Well-known member
More accurately, the Body of Christ has no priesthood.


Interesting.

You think they were entered into the cannon in order of size?
See here
I'm not suggesting that you're wrong. I just hadn't heard that before.
If the N.T. were ordered chronologically:

New Testament​

  1. Matthew (around 80-90 AD)
  2. Mark (around 68-70 AD)
  3. Luke (around 80-90 AD)
  4. John (around 90-100 AD)
  5. Acts (around 80-90 AD)
  6. Epistles of James (around 61-70 AD)
  7. Epistles of Peter (around 64-68 AD)
  8. Epistles of Paul (in chronological order):
    • Galatians (around 55 AD)
    • 1 Thessalonians (around 51 AD)
    • 2 Thessalonians (around 51 AD)
    • 1 Corinthians (around 55 AD)
    • 2 Corinthians (around 56 AD)
    • Romans (around 57 AD)
    • Colossians (around 61 AD)
    • Philemon (around 61 AD)
    • Ephesians (around 62 AD)
    • Philippians (around 62 AD)
    • 1 Timothy (around 64 AD)
    • Titus (around 64 AD)
    • 2 Timothy (around 67 AD)
    • Hebrews (around 68-70 AD)
    • Revelation (around 90-100 AD)
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
See her

If the N.T. were ordered chronologically:

New Testament​

  1. Matthew (around 80-90 AD)
  2. Mark (around 68-70 AD)
  3. Luke (around 80-90 AD)
  4. John (around 90-100 AD)
  5. Acts (around 80-90 AD)
  6. Epistles of James (around 61-70 AD)
  7. Epistles of Peter (around 64-68 AD)
  8. Epistles of Paul (in chronological order):
    • Galatians (around 55 AD)
    • 1 Thessalonians (around 51 AD)
    • 2 Thessalonians (around 51 AD)
    • 1 Corinthians (around 55 AD)
    • 2 Corinthians (around 56 AD)
    • Romans (around 57 AD)
    • Colossians (around 61 AD)
    • Philemon (around 61 AD)
    • Ephesians (around 62 AD)
    • Philippians (around 62 AD)
    • 1 Timothy (around 64 AD)
    • Titus (around 64 AD)
    • 2 Timothy (around 67 AD)
    • Hebrews (around 68-70 AD)
    • Revelation (around 90-100 AD)

I think you misplaced one of your /LIST tags...
 
Top