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

glorydaz

glorydaz

Well-known member
This is something God would require from His chosen people. As many times as the Jews failed, it makes perfect sense that more would be required of the Jews than would be required of the gentiles.

Enduring to the end. Indeed. We see that requirement of the Jews throughout the gospels.

Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
 
glorydaz

glorydaz

Well-known member
musterion said:
Somebody needs to explain chapter 6 if they think Paul wrote it. Better make it good.
Click to expand...
Because it was true for the Jews. It certainly isn't true for the body of Christ, but the Jews did have to endure to the end. Their sins wouldn't be blotted out until Jesus returned in His glory.

The Jews had been so unfaithful, that God required them to be faithful to the end. If they turned back, they were lost.

Perhaps that isn't the part you're talking about. Let me know.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
glorydaz said:
Because it was true for the Jews. It certainly isn't true for the body of Christ, but the Jews did have to endure to the end. Their sins wouldn't be blotted out until Jesus returned in His glory.

The Jews had been so unfaithful, that God required them to be faithful to the end. If they turned back, they were lost.

Perhaps that isn't the part you're talking about. Let me know.
Click to expand...
It is, but does ch. 6 seem present tense to you?
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
DAN P said:
And here are strong reasons for believing that Paul wrote HEBREWS

#1 The closing words of this letter are common to all of Paul's letters, GRACE BE WITH YOU ALL . Heb 13:25

#2 , The mention of Timothy in Heb 13:23 He was a co-worker with the apostle . Paul considered him as his son in the faith , 1 Tim 1:2 , as a deadly beloved son , 2 Tim 1:2

#3 Paul was instructed IN all aspects of the Law of Moses , and was qualified to write to his brethren after the flesh , Gal 1:14

#4 Peter said that Paul had written a letter to his people , and it was to be considered as scripture , 2 Peter 3:15-16 . If it is not Hebrews , then where is it ? If it was LOST , THEN teh Canon of Scripture is not complete . Hebrews is that letter .

# 5 Paul did have a ministry with Israel . Acts 9:15 . That was part of his commission to him by the ASCENDED Christ . Hebrews belongs to this part ofnhis minstry , and accounts for why the GREEK is different from his letters to Gentile churches .

#6 Paul is the only writer to quote Habakkuk 2:4 in the new testament 3 times , each with different emphasis , Rom 1:17 , Gal 3:11 and Heb 10:38 .

#7 Paul is the only apostle to ask for prayer for himself , Heb 13:18 -- pray for us .
8 Paul is the ONLY witer in the New Testament who wrote about the PASSING away of thr Law of Moses , the Old Covenant , Heb 8:13in line with what He wrote in 2 Cor 3:10--18 , Eph 2:15 anf Col 2:14 .

#1 ,Does the writing of Hebrews contradict the MANY revelations that Paul recieved from the risen Christ concerning the MYSTERY and the BODY of Christ ?? NO , it doesn't because he wrote to Hebrews If Pal has written this letter to Gentiles or to the BODY of CHRIST , then HEBREWS wopuld be contradictory in nature .

#2 In believing that Paul wrote Hebrews , does this belief make VOID his commission to the GENTILES as stated in Acts 9:15 ??No , of course not !

In fact it tends to enhance it because his commission was TWOFOLD ;

#1 To Gentiles and Kings

#2 , To the children of Israel , NOT the NATION of ISRAEL .

All of this is from Robert C Brock as he wrote a booklet of 227 pages and have left out , more of this words

dan p
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that "strong reasons" is accurate but they are reasons and what I love about this post is that it makes an actual argument! I don't have to persuaded to appreciate when people actually engage with something intelligent and substantive.

I'd have to say that this is the first time I've ever seen anyone put out the idea that Paul could have written Hebrews without it blurring the distinction between Israel and the Body of Christ. That's an interesting take.

Clete
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Right Divider said:
The doctrine in Hebrews are very much related to Israel; their history and their future.
The doctrine in Hebrews do not match with the doctrine in all of Paul's epistles.
Click to expand...
I don't think that this much is in dispute, is it?

Isn't it a main feature of the argument presented in favor of Paul's authorship the idea that since it was written to the Hebrews, that there's no need to reconcile what it teaches to the Hebrews with that which Paul taught to the Gentiles?

In other words, your argument is that if Paul was the author then there'd be this irreconcilable contradiction because what is taught in Hebrews isn't compatible with what Paul taught in the books that we know for a fact that he wrote. But why would that have to be the case? Would it really cause a big problem for Paul to have written an epistle to his countrymen? Isn't knowing who the audience is sufficient to allow us to still rightly divide the teachings for Israel from those for the Body of Christ?

Clete

P.S. Don't take this post to mean that I accept Paul as the author of Hebrews. I don't. I'm merely addressing the veracity of the particular argument quoted above.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
glorydaz said:
I have a thought about that P.S. Notice the "Jew first", and remember the love and loyalty Paul had for his fellow Jews. Early on after his Road to Damascus experience, Paul was just preaching Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. It was only after the Lord sent Paul off to Asia that he began preaching his own gospel.

Romans 9:1-3
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

  • Romans 1:16
    For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

  • Romans 2:9
    Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

  • Romans 2:10
    But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

I really need to read Hebrews with that in mind. I haven't even read this thread yet, so I'm excited.
Click to expand...
Paul is clearly NOT talking about the body of Christ where there is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek when he writes about the "Jew first".
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Clete said:
I don't think that this much is in dispute, is it?
Click to expand...
It certainly seems to me that there is. Many people posting here on TOL claim that "Hebrews is for the church today".
Clete said:
Isn't it a main feature of the argument presented in favor of Paul's authorship the idea that since it was written to the Hebrews, that there's no need to reconcile what it teaches to the Hebrews with that which Paul taught to the Gentiles?
Click to expand...
I assume that most who believe that Paul wrote it would believe that.
Clete said:
In other words, your argument is that if Paul was the author then there'd be this irreconcilable contradiction because what is taught in Hebrews isn't compatible with what Paul taught in the books that we know for a fact that he wrote. But why would that have to be the case? Would it really cause a big problem for Paul to have written an epistle to his countrymen? Isn't knowing who the audience is sufficient to allow us to still rightly divide the teachings for Israel from those for the Body of Christ?
Click to expand...
I don't believe that the content alone excludes Paul as the author. But I do think that it might be a bit confusing that he wrote one anonymous and thoroughly non-BOC book of the Bible in addition to his other thirteen epistles.
Clete said:
Clete

P.S. Don't take this post to mean that I accept Paul as the author of Hebrews. I don't. I'm merely addressing the veracity of the particular argument quoted above.
Click to expand...
(y)
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Right Divider said:
It certainly seems to me that there is. Many people posting here on TOL claim that "Hebrews is for the church today".
Click to expand...
Yeah, well there are people here who claim to not ever sin anymore, too! So...

Right Divider said:
I assume that most who believe that Paul wrote it would believe that.
Click to expand...
Would believe what; that there's no need to reconcile the two?

Right Divider said:
I don't believe that the content alone excludes Paul as the author. But I do think that it might be a bit confusing that he wrote one anonymous and thoroughly non-BOC book of the Bible in addition to his other thirteen epistles.
Click to expand...
Well, there's confusion on that point anyway, right?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Clete said:
Would believe what; that there's no need to reconcile the two?
Click to expand...
Sorry for the confusion... Most people that think that Paul wrote Hebrews also do not believe that there is any difference in the doctrines of Peter (and the eleven) and Paul. So it's natural for them to force agreement in those conflicting doctrines.
Clete said:
Well, there's confusion on that point anyway, right?
Click to expand...
Yes, just like the other Hebrew epistles.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Why would the sole masterbuilder, who boldly magnified his Christ-given office, NOT sign his name to a part of the foundation he was given by Christ to lay, when he signed everything else? I've never read a good answer to this question.

There is no sensible reason Paul would have chosen to remain anonymous.

Doctrinal content aside, the simple fact that the writer isn't named satisfies me that it was not Paul.

Do I know who it was? No.

Do I care? Not really.
 
Last edited:
glorydaz

glorydaz

Well-known member
musterion said:
Why would the sole masterbuilder, who magnified his Christ-given office, NOT sign his name to a part of the foundation he was given by Christ to lay, when he signed everything else? I've never read a good answer to this question.

Doctrinal content aside, the fact that the writer isn't named satisfies me that it was not Paul.
Click to expand...
Would you stop? I haven't had a chance to look at this with fresh eyes. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top