Paul didn't write Hebrews

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thanks for confirming.
I have the Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah but I read it many many years ago.
It's a wonderful book and maybe I should read it again.

This is also for @Grailhunter
Was Hebrews written in Greek ORIGINALLY or was it written with a Greek style?
I can't remember and Stan B brought this up.
Hebrews was originally written in Greek. This is, as far as I know, not disputed (academically, anyway).

The reason we know that Hebrews was originally written in Greek (and not "translation Greek" or a Greek style) is the language itself (it is not written in translation Greek or simply a Greek style). The option remains that there was another source for Hebrews that was in another language, but that would make what we have as Hebrews a Greek commentary on another unknown book - not an actual translation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Hebrews was originally written in Greek. This is, as far as I know, not disputed (academically, anyway).

The reason we know that Hebrews was originally written in Greek (and not "translation Greek" or a Greek style) is the language itself (it is not written in translation Greek or simply a Greek style). The option remains that there was another source for Hebrews that was in another language, but that would make what we have as Hebrews a Greek commentary on another unknown book - not an actual translation.
Thanks John.
I think Stan was saying it was written in Hebrew...
Not worth going back to find out.

I'm talking with him about abortion and how God no longer needs to breath life into us.
He did it once when Adam was just dirt...now we already have life.
I think this is more important.


Confirmed: Hebrews was written in Greek.
Thanks.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
GodsGrace>>"But was Calvin led by the Holy Spirit?
He penned a lot of stuff that this theology goes by.
His writings are referred to more than the bible,,,although this is
starting to change."


John was a fetus at the time, and if you check out normal pregnancy, fetuses jump around in the womb about 30 times per hour, and in this instance, all the shouting and exuberance in meeting Mary was enough to shock her fetus into reacting. It must have been an awesome noisy reunion, after Mary, a 13 year old girl had traveled 70 km in the desert on foot to meet Elizabeth!
John the Baptists was a fetus at the time...
SO
If he lept,,,,was he DEAD?
Do dead things move and leap?
Do dead things suck their thumb/fingers?
Do dead things have a heart that beats?

Were YOU dead UNTIL you were BORN?


 

Nancy

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2018
16,818
25,469
113
Buffalo, Ny
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thanks John.
I think Stan was saying it was written in Hebrew...
Not worth going back to find out.

I'm talking with him about abortion and how God no longer needs to breath life into us.
He did it once when Adam was just dirt...now we already have life.
I think this is more important.


Confirmed: Hebrews was written in Greek.
Thanks.

Hi GG,
I have been reading some posts here...not all of them. I did read something by Stan stating that a child in the womb (hate the word "fetus") is dust ¯\_o_O_/¯ This is something that makes no sense to me. Probably should just start reading this thread from the beginning. Hmm...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Hi GG,
I have been reading some posts here...not all of them. I did read something by Stan stating that a child in the womb (hate the word "fetus") is dust ¯\_o_O_/¯ This is something that makes no sense to me. Probably should just start reading this thread from the beginning. Hmm...
He believes abortion is OK because God has not given HIS BREATH to a child that is not born and he says that child is JUST A FETUS.

I've NEVER heard this in all my years.
 

Nancy

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2018
16,818
25,469
113
Buffalo, Ny
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
GodsGrace>>"But was Calvin led by the Holy Spirit?
He penned a lot of stuff that this theology goes by.
His writings are referred to more than the bible,,,although this is
starting to change."


John was a fetus at the time, and if you check out normal pregnancy, fetuses jump around in the womb about 30 times per hour, and in this instance, all the shouting and exuberance in meeting Mary was enough to shock her fetus into reacting. It must have been an awesome noisy reunion, after Mary, a 13 year old girl had traveled 70 km in the desert on foot to meet Elizabeth!

"and if you check out normal pregnancy, fetuses jump around in the womb about 30 times per hour, and in this instance, all the shouting and exuberance in meeting Mary was enough to shock her fetus into reacting."

I must say, Mr. B. that you have some very different and strange ways of looking at the spiritual. Maybe it is because you tend to relate more to the natural.
Elizabeth's pregnancy was far from a "normal pregnancy". Yes, natural babies do jump and move around but...the Word does NOT say the baby in Elizabeths womb was "shocked" but it DOES say that the baby "...leaped with JOY" not, the "natural" kicking and movement of a "normal pregnancy". Just sayin.
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,501
21,648
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Which council? o_O
I'm realizing how long ago my schooling was . . . sigh!

Not Nicea, I think that was early, it was later in the 300's, I think. Was it Hippo? I'm sorry, I forget.

Much love!
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,224
5,318
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm realizing how long ago my schooling was . . . sigh!

Not Nicea, I think that was early, it was later in the 300's, I think. Was it Hippo? I'm sorry, I forget.

Much love!


There is a reason why you cannot remember...

The Council of Nicea was very significant but contrary to popular belief, it did not suggest or affirm the canon of books that would be included in the New Testament. And also the word canon does not always refer to the approved books of the New Testament but mostly means an approved ruling. The list that finally makes it into the Canon of New Testament books had probably been circulated for a while. But the earliest known complete list of the 27 books of the New Testament is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD. But as a whole, each regional church had its own list of favorite books. Eventually they do agree on it, but there is no historical time stamp, no instant in time for when this happens. Then again there were councils that accepted, affirmed and or agreed with the commonly accepted list of books. The Council of Rome, (382) held by Bishop Damasus I looks to be the first to rule on this as at least an acknowledgement, I say that because you will see the discussion on the canon during other Ecumenical Councils and scholars do not agree on a date, or if there is one, except to say that the canon of books are down the road a ways. For example;

For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692.

Thus, by the 5th century, both the Western and Eastern churches had come into agreement on the matter of the New Testament canon. The Council of Trent of 1546 reaffirmed that finalization for Catholicism in the wake of the Protestant Reformation.

So whether there was an official declaration or finalization or not, for sure there was an understanding that the canon was set. Once they move out of the 5th century, bibles were being produced with the canon that we have today. The Protest bibles will change things in Old Testament, but that is a denominational decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,501
21,648
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is a reason why you cannot remember...

The Council of Nicea was very significant but contrary to popular belief, it did not suggest or affirm the canon of books that would be included in the New Testament. And also the word canon does not always refer to the approved books of the New Testament but mostly means an approved ruling. The list that finally makes it into the Canon of New Testament books had probably been circulated for a while. But the earliest known complete list of the 27 books of the New Testament is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD. But as a whole, each regional church had its own list of favorite books. Eventually they do agree on it, but there is no historical time stamp, no instant in time for when this happens. Then again there were councils that accepted, affirmed and or agreed with the commonly accepted list of books. The Council of Rome, (382) held by Bishop Damasus I looks to be the first to rule on this as at least an acknowledgement, I say that because you will see the discussion on the canon during other Ecumenical Councils and scholars do not agree on a date, or if there is one, except to say that the canon of books are down the road a ways. For example;

For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692.

Thus, by the 5th century, both the Western and Eastern churches had come into agreement on the matter of the New Testament canon. The Council of Trent of 1546 reaffirmed that finalization for Catholicism in the wake of the Protestant Reformation.

So whether there was an official declaration or finalization or not, for sure there was an understanding that the canon was set. Once they move out of the 5th century, bibles were being produced with the canon that we have today. The Protest bibles will change things in Old Testament, but that is a denominational decision.

Yeah, that sounds right! Thank you for the refresher!

I think I was trying to come up with "the Council of Rome". But yes, they already know what was and wasn't the Word of God.

Much love!
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,224
5,318
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There are those that believe that the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Part of this maybe because people feel that the Hebrew language is more religious and wonder why the New Testament would be written in a Pagan language…Greek. The reason for this wonder, is because most Christians are not historians. As it was the language of the Jews were always influenced by who ruled over them. When the Jews were under Babylonian rule they leaned their languages. When Persia conquered Babylonia, the Jews were ruled by the Persians and they treated the Jews with much more respect and these two cultures did influence each other. The fact that the Persians helped the Jews restore the temple in Jerusalem is recorded in the Bible. After Alexandra the Great conquered Persia the Jew fell under Greek rule and their relations were not quite as friendly and even got worse when the Romans took hold of the reins of power. During all of this the Hebrew language began to diminish as a common tongue among the Jews, and their ability to read Hebrew was even further diminished, and the reminisce that was left was a variation of Hebrew and other languages that we refer to as Aramaic.

By the time of Christ the Jews had been under Greek/Roman rule for 3 centuries. The common tongue of the Roman Empire was Greek It had been over 700 years since the fall of the “Davidic Kingdom” and due to the influence of those that ruled over them there language and knowledge of it had been reduced to a small percentage of the Jewish population. So when it comes to the writing of the Gospels we see that they are written in Greek…usually by scribes. (All surviving ancient manuscripts are written in Greek, no Hebrew.) The Apostles are Jews, but keep in mind that Mark and Luke were not numbered in the original 12 Apostles. Mark and Luke are Greek speaking Jews that were taught by Peter and Paul respectively.

The reason that the NT is communicated in the Greek, is because if these Gospels, Epistles, and letters were sent out in Hebrew, very few could read them and that would pretty much defeat their purpose. If the 72 disciples that Christ sent out with the mission to spread the Good News spoke only Hebrew…very few would understand them. This goes for the Apostles as they traveled abroad. Speaking Hebrew to Greeks…. Romans would never go well because they considered it a heathenistic language. If the letters that Paul sent out to the churches were in Hebrew, very few could read them. Since by the turn of the first century most Christians were of Greek origin, there would be no reason to translate the NT to Hebrew.

The topic of the Jewish language is very complicated and the study is nearly a college course. The evolution and variations of the language is complicated enough but the western influence on the study of it, has made it much worse. The western cultures have a tendency to overlay other cultures with their own description, designations, and labels. And in the study of the Hebrew language it is no easy task to unravel this mesh of understandings. It is even hard to pin point the origin of the English word Hebrew or its meaning. Try pronouncing Hebrew in their language. lol

The word Hebrew is an English word denoting the Israelites/Jews and their language. But the Jews never called themselves, nor their language Hebrew and the word Hebrew does not appear in the Bible. Note that the title for the book of Hebrews was added well after the fact. The modern English word "Hebrew" is derived from Old French… Ebrau …In the Bible they refer to themselves as Yehudit or Yehudim or עבריים, Ivrîm, ʿIḇriyyîm, Ibrim. Yes there are few terms.

Then also the English word Hebrew does not designate the language of the Israelites/ Jews. They call their language Ivri, as in the past their language evolves. An alternative form of Ivri is Yiddish, which mean Jewish. In other words those that speak English say Jewish and those that speak Ivrit, say Yiddish. Yiddish is a high Germanic language of Ashkenazi Jewish origin, spoken throughout the world. It developed as a fusion of German dialects with Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavic languages. Often times when we study the languages of the Jews, we go to reach for that ancient dictionary, just to find out there is none. There are several meanings to a lot of things and in the Jewish language and it gets worse….

If you look into this you will notice that the English uses “J’s” for Jewish terms and names, and the Jews use “Y’s” As I said the western world has a tendency to label and assign names to other cultures, particularly ancient cultures and societies. The letter “J” first appeared in 1400 AD and did not come into common use until 1600 AD, that is 1600 years after Christ. When the Bibles were translated in that era they removed the “Y’s” and replaced them with “J.s” for any nouns…person, place, or thing….the confusion that that has caused still haunts us. How many understand that Yeshua, Yahweh, Yob, Yohn, and Yerushalayim are the correct words and pronunciations. This is so engrained into the western cultures and religions that people will argue with you, that they know the Jewish language better than the Jews and the Jews laugh at us because we do not know the names of the people in our own Bible. There is no good explanation for why they did this (and there are many) because these words are easily pronounced and spelled in English, no good reason for changing them. Beyond that, there are some that believe that there is power in God’s name and only one name can be called upon for salvation. What does that do to everything!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marks and Helen

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,501
21,648
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There are those that believe that the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Part of this maybe because people feel that the Hebrew language is more religious and wonder why the New Testament would be written in a Pagan language…Greek. The reason for this wonder, is because most Christians are not historians. As it was the language of the Jews were always influenced by who ruled over them. When the Jews were under Babylonian rule they leaned their languages. When Persia conquered Babylonia, the Jews were ruled by the Persians and they treated the Jews with much more respect and these two cultures did influence each other. The fact that the Persians helped the Jews restore the temple in Jerusalem is recorded in the Bible. After Alexandra the Great conquered Persia the Jew fell under Greek rule and their relations were not quite as friendly and even got worse when the Roman took hold of the reins of power. During all of this the Hebrew language began to diminish as a common tongue among the Jews, and their ability to read Hebrew was even further diminished, and the reminisce that was left was a variation of Hebrew and other languages that we refer to as Aramaic.

By the time of Christ the Jews had been under Greek/Roman rule for 3 centuries. The common tongue of the Roman Empire was Greek It had been over 700 years since the fall of the “Davidic Kingdom” and due to the influence of those that ruled over them there language and knowledge of it had been reduced to a small percentage of the Jewish population. So when it comes to the writing of the Gospels we see that they are written in Greek…usually by scribes. (All surviving ancient manuscripts are written in Greek, no Hebrew.) The Apostles are Jews, but keep in mind that Mark and Luke were not numbered in the original 12 Apostles. Mark and Luke are Greek speaking Jews that were taught by Peter and Paul respectively.

The reason that the NT is communicated in the Greek, is because if these Gospels, Epistles, and letters were sent out in Hebrew, very few could read them and that would pretty much defeat their purpose. If the 72 disciples that Christ sent out with the mission to spread the Good News spoke only Hebrew…very few would understand them. This goes for the Apostles as they traveled abroad. Speaking Hebrew to Greeks…. Romans would never go well because they considered it a heathenistic language. If the letters that Paul sent out to the churches were in Hebrew, very few could read them. Since by the turn of the first century most Christians were of Greek origin, there would be no reason to translate the NT to Hebrew.

The topic of the Jewish language is very complicated and the study is nearly a college course. The evolution and variations of the language is complicated enough but the western influence on the study of it, has made it much worse. The western cultures have a tendency to overlay other cultures with their own description, designations, and labels. And in the study of the Hebrew language it is no easy task to unravel this mesh of understandings. It is even hard to pin point the origin of the English word Hebrew or its meaning. Try pronouncing Hebrew in their language. lol

The word Hebrew is an English word denoting the Israelites/Jews and their language. But the Jews never called themselves, nor their language Hebrew and the word Hebrew does not appear in the Bible. Note that the title for the book of Hebrews was added well after the fact. The modern English word "Hebrew" is derived from Old French… Ebrau …In the Bible they refer to themselves as Yehudit or Yehudim or עבריים, Ivrîm, ʿIḇriyyîm, Ibrim. Yes there are few terms.

Then also the English word Hebrew does not designate the language of the Israelites/ Jews. They call their language Ivri, as in the past their language evolves. An alternative form of Ivri is Yiddish, which mean Jewish. In other words those that speak English say Jewish and those that speak Ivrit, say Yiddish. Yiddish is a high Germanic language of Ashkenazi Jewish origin, spoken throughout the world. It developed as a fusion of German dialects with Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavic languages. Often times when we study the languages of the Jews, we go to reach for that ancient dictionary, just to find out there is none. There are several meanings to a lot of things and in the Jewish language and it gets worse….

If you look into this you will notice that the English uses “J’s” for Jewish terms and names, and the Jews use “Y’s” As I said the western world has a tendency to label and assign names to other cultures, particularly ancient cultures and societies. The letter “J” first appeared in 1400 AD and did not come into common use until 1600 AD, that is 1600 years after Christ. When the Bibles were translated in that era they removed the “Y’s” and replaced them with “J.s” for any nouns…person, place, or thing….the confusion that that has caused still haunts us. How many understand that Yeshua, Yahweh, Yob, Yohn, and Yerushalayim are the correct words and pronunciations. This is so engrained into the western cultures and religions that people will argue with you, that they know the Jewish language better than the Jews and the Jews laugh at us because we do not know the names of the people in our own Bible. There is no good explanation for why they did this (and there are many) because these words are easily pronounced and spelled in English, no good reason for changing them. Beyond that, there are some that believe that there is power in God’s name and only one name can be called upon for salvation. What does that do to everything!
Good stuff!

Didn't "J" used to be pronounced as "Y"? So that when it was written, Jesus was a transliteration of Iesous?

Much love!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,224
5,318
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Good stuff!

Didn't "J" used to be pronounced as "Y"? So that when it was written, Jesus was a transliteration of Iesous?

Much love!

What you are referring to is the progression of the translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin and to several languages. But none of this is "J" until they change them. The Hebrew names for persons, places, or things do not have to follow that path because they can be spelled and pronounced in English. If you talk to a Jew, they will tell you this. It is always best and more accurate to translate from the original language, to your language. The Hebrew "Y" has a e tang to it when it is pronounced, nothing close to a "J"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen and marks

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,501
21,648
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What you are referring to is the progression of the translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin and to several languages. But none of this is "J" until they change them. The Hebrew names for persons, places, or things do not have to follow that path because they can be spelled and pronounced in English. If you talk to a Jew, they will tell you this. It is always best and more accurate to translate from the original language, to your language. The Hebrew "Y" has a e tang to it when it is pronounced, nothing close to a "J"
Rather, I'm talking about the English pronunciation of "J". If we pronounce Jesus according to the pronunciation in those days, we would read "Jesus", and say "Yay-sous".

The vowel "i" may also be spelt y or j. The pronunciation is the same. The letter i can be used torepresent the consonant j, as in ioi (or ioy) for
joy.

http://scottkleinman.net/medlit/ReadingMiddleEnglish.pdf

Much love!
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,224
5,318
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Rather, I'm talking about the English pronunciation of "J". If we pronounce Jesus according to the pronunciation in those days, we would read "Jesus", and say "Yay-sous".



http://scottkleinman.net/medlit/ReadingMiddleEnglish.pdf

Much love!

Just as a matter of interest for "29.95" lol You can have the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance that will verify everything I am saying. A close pronunciation is e'Yes-shua. A "Y" with an e tang as I describe it. Sorry I edited this...Keep in mind that there is no J sounds or alphabet until 1400 years after Christ. The only way Mary the mother could have heard a word like Jesus, is if someone sneezed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen and marks

Stan B

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
1,967
983
113
81
Toronto
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
"and if you check out normal pregnancy, fetuses jump around in the womb about 30 times per hour, and in this instance, all the shouting and exuberance in meeting Mary was enough to shock her fetus into reacting."

I must say, Mr. B. that you have some very different and strange ways of looking at the spiritual. Maybe it is because you tend to relate more to the natural.
Elizabeth's pregnancy was far from a "normal pregnancy". Yes, natural babies do jump and move around but...the Word does NOT say the baby in Elizabeths womb was "shocked" but it DOES say that the baby "...leaped with JOY" not, the "natural" kicking and movement of a "normal pregnancy". Just sayin.

As to whether it was a 'natural' pregnancy is another matter. If it was not natural, then whatever happened in that instance may not be a defence that many use. And BTW, if you check the Greek, it does not say "baby". It uses "fetus". But there was something different about John's experience in the womb in that he was filled with the Holy Spirit, either before he was born, or as he was being born; while the remainder had to wait until Pentecost for that to happen.