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

[ok doser]

Guess I win?

Was there ever any doubt?

 

[Idolater]

You know: because it's so blasphemous and provocative. In the OT the Rock is God almighty Father, the angel of Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit. When Jesus calls Simon Peter He's being provocative----why? Then says, "And upon this Rock, I'm going to build My Church." He calls Simon Rock and then says He's going to build the Church on that Rock. "You are the Rock, and upon this 'rock' I will build My Church." Provocative, and mysterious, what exactly does He mean? We'll keep reading. Whatever this Rock is, Peter isn't the complete embodiment of it. He's definitely associated with this Rock, but Peter isn't the entirety of it.

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

So the Rock is given keys. Not literal keys, "keys" is a symbol of authority, and harks back to Isaiah. Jesus gives keys to the Rock, so obviously, Jesus isn't the Rock either, in Matthew 16. Again, provocative, because in the OT God is the only Rock, 1st Corinthians 10:4. But here Jesus, Who has the keys, gives the keys to this Rock. Peter is associated with the Rock, but he is not the whole thing, but he is associated with the Rock, there is a relationship between Peter and the Rock. But they are not identical.

It sounds like a title. It sounds like a name for an office. Like you are the president, and upon this presidency I will build my Church. And I will give the presidency My authority. In other verses there's clearly a relationship between all the Apostles including Peter and Christ's authority, but in Matthew 16 there's also clearly a special relationship between the Rock and Christ's authority. Perhaps the other Apostles get to use Christ's authority, but it's because He gives His authority to the Rock, and it's the relationship between the Apostles and the Rock which enables them to use Christ's power. Like a library card enables you to borrow books from the library. You have to have a relationship with the Rock to use Christ's power, because Christ gives His power to the Rock, right in Matthew 16. Peter is then called Peter the whole rest of the Bible, which makes sense because he's the president. The president and the Apostles did this or that. The president said this or that, the other Apostles responded to the president. Paul and the president had a dispute. The president's personal letters to the Church, the Rock's 1st & 2nd epistles.

 

[Right Divider]

You know: because it's so blasphemous and provocative. In the OT the Rock is God almighty Father, the angel of Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit. When Jesus calls Simon Peter He's being provocative----why? Then says, "And upon this Rock, I'm going to build My Church." He calls Simon Rock and then says He's going to build the Church on that Rock. "You are the Rock, and upon this 'rock' I will build My Church." Provocative, and mysterious, what exactly does He mean? We'll keep reading. Whatever this Rock is, Peter isn't the complete embodiment of it. He's definitely associated with this Rock, but Peter isn't the entirety of it.

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

So the Rock is given keys. Not literal keys, "keys" is a symbol of authority, and harks back to Isaiah. Jesus gives keys to the Rock, so obviously, Jesus isn't the Rock either, in Matthew 16. Again, provocative, because in the OT God is the only Rock, 1st Corinthians 10:4. But here Jesus, Who has the keys, gives the keys to this Rock. Peter is associated with the Rock, but he is not the whole thing, but he is associated with the Rock, there is a relationship between Peter and the Rock. But they are not identical.

It sounds like a title. It sounds like a name for an office. Like you are the president, and upon this presidency I will build my Church. And I will give the presidency My authority. In other verses there's clearly a relationship between all the Apostles including Peter and Christ's authority, but in Matthew 16 there's also clearly a special relationship between the Rock and Christ's authority. Perhaps the other Apostles get to use Christ's authority, but it's because He gives His authority to the Rock, and it's the relationship between the Apostles and the Rock which enables them to use Christ's power. Like a library card enables you to borrow books from the library. You have to have a relationship with the Rock to use Christ's power, because Christ gives His power to the Rock, right in Matthew 16. Peter is then called Peter the whole rest of the Bible, which makes sense because he's the president. The president and the Apostles did this or that. The president said this or that, the other Apostles responded to the president. Paul and the president had a dispute. The president's personal letters to the Church, the Rock's 1st & 2nd epistles.

Firstly, this post is OFF-TOPIC.

Secondly, the whole post is Romanist Baloney.

Christ was not planning on building His church on a man named Peter.

Peter was one of twelve apostles for the nation of Israel. Paul is the one apostle for the one body.

Paul was NEVER under the authority of Peter. Paul was directly under the authority of Christ. Period. That fact alone disproves the false claim of the RCC.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You know: because it's so blasphemous and provocative. In the OT the Rock is God almighty Father, the angel of Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit.

2 Samuel 22:2 (among others) calls God "Petra."

When Jesus calls Simon Peter He's being provocative----why? Then says, "And upon this Rock, I'm going to build My Church." He calls Simon Rock and then says He's going to build the Church on that Rock. "You are the Rock, and upon this 'rock' I will build My Church."

Your oversimplification of the text has led you to confusion.

"You are Peter [petros, little rock, a boulder, larger than "lithos"], and upon this rock [petra, mass of rock, a cliff or ledge, distinct from petros] I will build My church."

Whatever this Rock is, Peter isn't the complete embodiment of it. He's definitely associated with this Rock, but Peter isn't the entirety of it.

Peter is not Petra. He may have entered Petra, at some point, but he's just a boulder, certainly not a strong foundation.

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Yes, Christ the Rock Petra gave Peter Petros the keys to the kingdom.

So the Rock is given keys. Not literal keys, "keys" is a symbol of authority, and harks back to Isaiah. Jesus gives keys to the Rock, so obviously, Jesus isn't the Rock either, in Matthew 16.

Again, your oversimplification has you confused.

Again, provocative, because in the OT God is the only Rock, 1st Corinthians 10:4. But here Jesus, Who has the keys, gives the keys to this Rock. Peter is associated with the Rock, but he is not the whole thing, but he is associated with the Rock, there is a relationship between Peter and the Rock. But they are not identical.

Peter is not God, Petra.

It sounds like a title. It sounds like a name for an office. Like you are the president, and upon this presidency I will build my Church. And I will give the presidency My authority. In other verses there's clearly a relationship between all the Apostles including Peter and Christ's authority, but in Matthew 16 there's also clearly a special relationship between the Rock and Christ's authority. Perhaps the other Apostles get to use Christ's authority, but it's because He gives His authority to the Rock, and it's the relationship between the Apostles and the Rock which enables them to use Christ's power. Like a library card enables you to borrow books from the library. You have to have a relationship with the Rock to use Christ's power, because Christ gives His power to the Rock, right in Matthew 16. Peter is then called Peter the whole rest of the Bible, which makes sense because he's the president. The president and the Apostles did this or that. The president said this or that, the other Apostles responded to the president. Paul and the president had a dispute. The president's personal letters to the Church, the Rock's 1st & 2nd epistles.

Peter isn't the president of anything. He was one of the twelve, not ruler of eleven.

Petros is not petra. Peter is not God.

God is called Petra, a firm foundation. Peter is called Petros, which is not something you build upon.

Jesus:
"YOU are Petros" pointing away from Himself.
"Upon THIS Petra" pointing at Himself.

Please get back on topic.

 

[Hoping]

That's what Scripture says. I'm just the messenger.

How about providing that scripture?

it's too bad you disagree with Scripture.

Please provide that scripture.
Certainly not Rom 12:5..."So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."
Or Gal 3:28..."There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Or 1 Thes 2:14..."For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus:"

And one Apostle...
...for the Body of Christ, the second church.

If you feel you need to add to scripture to make your point we can stop now.

But for Israel, twelve Apostles, twelve tribes, twelve thrones, twelve gates, one Messiah.

It bewilders me why you would deny the Gentiles a Savior?

And when was that Epistle written?

Who knows?
I wasn't aware that epistles had a freshness date.

Speaking to and about Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, Bartholomew, Judas Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who was later replaced by Matthias, according to Scripture.
Revelation confirms what Jesus said:
Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. - Revelation 21:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation21:14&version=NKJV

Amen to that.

Paul did not meet Jesus' qualifications in Matthew 19:28. He was not one who had followed Jesus at the time Jesus said what He said:
So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. - Matthew 19:28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew19:28&version=NKJV
Paul wasn't even around back then, and therefore is not qualified to sit on one of the twelve thrones.

Agreed, as He wouldn't have faith till some time later.
Paul even comments on that misfortune..."And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1 Cor 15:8-9)

Matthias, however, was described as one of the men who [had] "accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22)

Agreed.

What are you talking about?

How many "day of judgement" do you think will happen?

Not what Scripture says.

Pardon me for using the term "tiers" to describe "foundations".

So you agree that Matthias is one of the Twelve? Good!

Absolutely.
Even Barnabas preceded Paul.

Thanks for conceding the discussion.

You are welcome.

Why would someone else have taken the apostles place in that hypothetical situation? What's the reasoning for it? Can you explain? Or are you just spouting whatever comes across your mind?

Just as Mattias took Judas' place, someone else could have taken the place of any other apostle who left the church or died.
They are all pegs in a game, so to speak.

That's not what the eternal nation of Israel is promised. They were promised a Messiah King who would reign over them forever.

Are you conceding that Jesus doesn't "rule over" you now?
If you are a member of "God's church.2", but still alienated from the promises of God, it seems the things separating the Gentiles from the Israelites in the years prior to Jesus' death and resurrection still separate you.
Why?
I am elated that I have been made a part of Israel's promises.
Thanks be to God for allowing me to be one with Jesus. (John 17:11, 22)

 

[Idolater]

​

Acts 9

27 But Barnabas took him [Paul], and brought him [Paul] to the apostles, and declared unto them how he [Paul] had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he [Paul] had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.​

​

28 And he [Paul] was with them [the Apostles] coming in and going out at Jerusalem.​

1) Using a verse from around a year after Matthias was chosen to fill the role (and had been filling) that Judas Iscariot was supposed to fill does not help your argument.

2) Yes, Paul stayed with the Apostles for a time. Guess what, though. There were already 12 of them. Scripture says so literally eight chapters before chapter 9. That makes Paul the thirteenth, not the twelfth. In order for you to get Paul as number 12, you have to ignore what was said in chapter 1 regarding Matthias. In other words, your commitment is to your doctrine, rather than letting scripture speak for itself.

3) The very structure of Acts indicates Paul was not part of what was going on with the Apostles.

Paul (then Saul), is first mentioned at the end of chapter 7, and by the end of Acts, it's all Paul wall to wall.

Peter's name, on the other hand, starts out mentioned from Acts 1, gets mentioned more and more to where it's almost all Peter around chapters 11 and 12, and the last time in Acts we see his name is in Acts 15, at the Jerusalem Council.

In other words, Acts shows Peter's influence decreasing as Paul's influence increases.

The following chart from Bob Enyart's "The Plot" pdf shows Peter and Paul's changing influence in Acts, in the number of mentions per chapter:
View attachment 4871

In addition to how often Peter's and Paul's names are used throughout Acts , there's also the three Ananiases, representing the spiritual state of Israel (the only three Ananiases in the entire Bible, by the way), and the three instances immediately following Stephen's martyrdom where God specifically and directly speaks to someone and tells them to do something that, given an overview of what was going on at the time, was unusual, especially considering that it's centered on Paul.

TL;DR: Your attempt at supporting your argument is lacking.

I didn't make an argument.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How about providing that scripture?

Genesis-Revelation

Please provide that scripture.

Genesis-Revelation.

Yes, I'm serious. No, that's not a cop out. The ENTIRE BIBLE is my proof-text.

Certainly not Rom 12:5..."So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."
Or Gal 3:28..."There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Or 1 Thes 2:14..."For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus:"

Supra. Those verses are my prooftexts.

If you feel you need to add to scripture to make your point we can stop now.

If you feel the need to bear false witness against your neighbor to make yours, we can stop now.

It bewilders me why you would deny the Gentiles a Savior?

Quote me doing so. You can't, because that's not what I said. Pay attention, please.

Who knows?

It was written shortly after the Jerusalem council, 17 years after Paul's conversion. Meaning Paul had plenty of time to learn about the details of his gospel from Christ.

I wasn't aware that epistles had a freshness date.

WHEN something was written (and/or when the events occurred that were written about) in the Bible is important when trying to determine in what order things happened, no?

How many "day of judgement" do you think will happen?

Red herring.

Read what I said again, please.

Absolutely.
Even Barnabas preceded Paul.

In what?

Just as Mattias took Judas' place, someone else could have taken the place of any other apostle who left the church or died.

Why?

If they had twelve, why would they need to be replaced?

There were already 12 disciples (after Judas was replaced with Matthias) who were granted a place on twelve thrones ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel. Why replace them again? What reason do you have to think that they needed to be replaced when they died? Judas was replaced because of his betrayal of Christ, and then he killed himself. Do you think that other disciples betrayed Christ before they died, and thus needed to be replaced? The reason given by Peter for replacing Judas was not that he had died, but that he "became a guide to those who arrested Jesus."

Are you conceding that Jesus doesn't "rule over" you now?

Jesus is the King of Israel. Jesus is the head of the Body of Christ. I am a member of the Body of Christ. I am not a citizen of Israel. Thus, Jesus is not my "King," per se. He is the one I obey, because He is the Head. I am a citizen of Heaven, not a citizen of Israel. In THAT sense, He is my King. Don't conflate the two.

If you are a member of "God's church.2",

I am a member of the Body of Christ.

That does NOT make me a citizen of Israel.

but still alienated from the promises of God,

Why do you assume I am?

The promises of God given to Israel are not promises intended for me (or the Body of Christ, for that matter).

it seems the things separating the Gentiles from the Israelites in the years prior to Jesus' death and resurrection still separate you.

The "things separating the Gentiles from the Israelites in the years prior to Jesus' death and resurrection" continued to separate the Gentiles from the Israelites after Jesus' death and resurrection, for about a year after, actually. Which goes back to what I said before about the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree.

Why?

Because Israel is not the Body of Christ. Nor did the Body of Christ replace Israel, or become Israel, or what have you.

They are two distinct groups of people.

I am elated that I have been made a part of Israel's promises.

Convincing yourself of falsehoods is not something to be elated about.

Thanks be to God for allowing me to be one with Jesus. (John 17:11, 22)

Ignoring what Jesus said in Matthew 15:24 has allowed you to deceive yourself into thinking that you are something that you're not.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I didn't make an argument.

You quoted me four times in that post, and then quoted scripture. Clearly you thought that the passage was important enough to quote, and relevant to what I had said.

So what was the point, then, if not to make an argument against my position?

 

[Hoping]

Genesis-Revelation



Genesis-Revelation.
Yes, I'm serious. No, that's not a cop out. The ENTIRE BIBLE is my proof-text.
Supra. Those verses are my prooftexts.
If you feel the need to bear false witness against your neighbor to make yours, we can stop now.
Quote me doing so. You can't, because that's not what I said. Pay attention, please.
t was written shortly after the Jerusalem council, 17 years after Paul's conversion. Meaning Paul had plenty of time to learn about the details of his gospel from Christ.
WHEN something was written (and/or when the events occurred that were written about) in the Bible is important when trying to determine in what order things happened, no?
Red herring.
Read what I said again, please.
In what?
Why?
If they had twelve, why would they need to be replaced?
There were already 12 disciples (after Judas was replaced with Matthias) who were granted a place on twelve thrones ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel. Why replace them again? What reason do you have to think that they needed to be replaced when they died? Judas was replaced because of his betrayal of Christ, and then he killed himself. Do you think that other disciples betrayed Christ before they died, and thus needed to be replaced? The reason given by Peter for replacing Judas was not that he had died, but that he "became a guide to those who arrested Jesus."
Jesus is the King of Israel. Jesus is the head of the Body of Christ. I am a member of the Body of Christ. I am not a citizen of Israel. Thus, Jesus is not my "King," per se. He is the one I obey, because He is the Head. I am a citizen of Heaven, not a citizen of Israel. In THAT sense, He is my King. Don't conflate the two.
I am a member of the Body of Christ.
That does NOT make me a citizen of Israel.
Why do you assume I am?
The promises of God given to Israel are not promises intended for me (or the Body of Christ, for that matter).
The "things separating the Gentiles from the Israelites in the years prior to Jesus' death and resurrection" continued to separate the Gentiles from the Israelites after Jesus' death and resurrection, for about a year after, actually. Which goes back to what I said before about the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree.
Because Israel is not the Body of Christ. Nor did the Body of Christ replace Israel, or become Israel, or what have you.
They are two distinct groups of people.
Convincing yourself of falsehoods is not something to be elated about.
Ignoring what Jesus said in Matthew 15:24 has allowed you to deceive yourself into thinking that you are something that you're not.

I will continue to celebrate my unity/oneness with Jesus Christ, and rejoice in the hopes of the promises given to the the faithful...both Jew and Gentile.
Those hopes keep me walking in the light !

 

[Right Divider]

I will continue to celebrate my unity/oneness with Jesus Christ, and rejoice in the hopes of the promises given to the the faithful...both Jew and Gentile.

Gal 3:28 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[Hoping]

Gal 3:28 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Amen to that !
Jew and Gentile believers are all one in Christ Jesus.
The promises to the Jewish believers are also to the Gentile believers now.
Thanks be to God !

 

[Right Divider]

Amen to that !
Jew and Gentile believers are all one in Christ Jesus.
The promises to the Jewish believers are also to the Gentile believers now.
Thanks be to God !

Wrong on so many counts.
The body of Christ was never promised a land.

 

[Idolater]

You quoted me four times in that post, and then quoted scripture.

Correct.

Clearly you thought that the passage was important enough to quote, and relevant to what I had said.

So what was the point, then, if not to make an argument against my position?

Contrasts. I like em.

 

[Hoping]

Wrong on so many counts.
The body of Christ was never promised a land.

And all this time I thought Jesus was a Jew !
And that we in Him have been afforded all that was promised to Him.
Like eternal life, (John 3:15), and freedom from fear of our enemies. (Luke 1:71,74)
And freedom from bondage. (John 8:32-34)

 

[Right Divider]

And all this time I thought Jesus was a Jew !

During His earthly life as a human, yes.
As the Head of the body of Christ, NO!

2Cor 5:16-17 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:16) Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more. (5:17) Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he][ is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

As Paul clearly says, WE (i.e., the body of Christ) are no longer to know Christ after the flesh (i.e., as a Jewish man).

And that we in Him have been afforded all that was promised to Him.

Misdirection.

Like eternal life, (John 3:15), and freedom from fear of our enemies. (Luke 1:71,74)

Luke as NOT writing about the body of Christ. He was writing about the nation of Israel.

And freedom from bondage. (John 8:32-34)

Don't forget to read the WHOLE passage:

John 8:31 (AKJV/PCE)
(8:31) Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;

Jesus, the Jew, speaking to His people.

 

[Hoping]

During His earthly life as a human, yes.
As the Head of the body of Christ, NO!
2Cor 5:16-17 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:16) Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more. (5:17) Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he][ is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
As Paul clearly says, WE (i.e., the body of Christ) are no longer to know Christ after the flesh (i.e., as a Jewish man).

He was a Jewish, male, human being.
He is now a new creature, and so are all those believers in Him.
Thanks be to God.

Misdirection.

Sure.

Luke as NOT writing about the body of Christ. He was writing about the nation of Israel.
Don't forget to read the WHOLE passage:
John 8:31 (AKJV/PCE)
(8:31) Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;
Jesus, the Jew, speaking to His people.

But wait...Jesus isn't a Jew anymore, as you alluded to above !
His words apply to all who are no longer of a worldly nation.
That would be the body of Christ, as everyone else claims an affiliation with some worldly nation or other.
I am glad I believe on Him, and am His disciple.

 

[Right Divider]

He was a Jewish, male, human being.

Yes, that's what I said.

He is now a new creature,

Scripture please.

and so are all those believers in Him.

In the body of Christ, yes. For the nation of Israel, not so much.

Thanks be to God.

Thanks be to God that the scripture is here to let us know what's what.

But wait...Jesus isn't a Jew anymore, as you alluded to above !

No, but He will be again when He returns to establish His restored nation of Israel on the earth.

His words apply to all who are no longer of a worldly nation.

You were never "a worldly nation". That you cannot rightly divide the word of truth is your own personal problem.

That would be the body of Christ, as everyone else claims an affiliation with some worldly nation or other.

Confusion reigns with you.

I am glad I believe on Him, and am His disciple.

You have so much to learn but are totally stubborn and confused.

 

[Hoping]

Yes, that's what I said.

Scripture please.

Do you think Jesus is still a Jewish, male, human being?
Is Jesus still without His glorified body?
No, so He is a new creature with a glorified body now.

In the body of Christ, yes. For the nation of Israel, not so much.

Not the unbelievers, for sure.
But for the believing Jews...Yes.

Thanks be to God that the scripture is here to let us know what's what.

Amen.

No, but He will be again when He returns to establish His restored nation of Israel on the earth.

Why?

You were never "a worldly nation". That you cannot rightly divide the word of truth is your own personal problem.

I was of a worldly nation when I was an American.
I have a better allegiance now, thanks be to God.

Confusion reigns with you.

I don't know if I have heard the word of God and righteousness described as confusion before.

You have so much to learn but are totally stubborn and confused.

Thank God my "confusion and stubbornness" can't cause me to return to sinning.

 

[Idolater]

... so He is a new creature ...

How can He be a new creature when He wasn't a creature to begin with Hoping. Don't you remember your creed? "Begotten not made."

 

[Right Divider]

Do you think Jesus is still a Jewish, male, human being?

Why do you think that He's not?
He ascended into the clouds as a Jewish male. Scripture says that He will return "in like manner" (Acts 1:11).

Is Jesus still without His glorified body?
No, so He is a new creature with a glorified body now.

That is some convoluted thinking.

Why?

Because that's what the Bible says.

I was of a worldly nation when I was an American.

Silly stuff again.