Paul didn't write Hebrews

[Helen]

Did Paul ascend into the third heaven?

Paul said he wouldn't brag about himself, but that he would brag about this other dude, who went into the third heaven.

What of that?

I read it that Paul is speaking humbly about himself ...he is as he did in Roman , make a difference between who he was as a man, and who he was in the inner man. It is shown here:-

"Of such an one will I glory:( the spiritual man) yet of myself I will not glory, ( the natural man) ........but in mine infirmities. ( see, he references himself)
For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me."
Right here proves to me, that it was his own experience which happen "fourteen years ago"

my two cents....H

 

[Stranger]

@marks

Explain your post #(17) better. It makes no sense.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Wouldn’t Paul agree that learning something directly from God and through others can be reconciled? I’ve certainly learned directly from God, through the mouthpiece of others. Jesus did as well

Matt 16:15-17

No, Paul wouldn't. He received his gospel directly from the Lord. You have a problem with that?

Stranger

 

[Stan B]

That sounds reasonable, and he may have been led by the Spirit to do that. Also, the normal introductions of Paul's epistles could not apply in this case, since the epistle was not written to a specific church but to all Hebrew Christians in all churches (and to all Christians in all ages). Christians need to know why Christ and the New Covenant are so much better than Moses and the Old Covenant.

Only Paul -- a trained Pharisee of the Pharisees -- had a deeper grasp of both the Old and the New Covenants, in order to show the superiority of the latter against the former. But at the end he reveals himself by mentioning Timothy and how he would accompany him.

Yeah, it sounds reasonable, if just on the basis of common sense.

But there is no need to speculate on the authorship of the Hebrews. It was given the stamp of approval over and over by the early church. But as always, there have been 'scholars' and such, whose only objective has been the discredit Scripture.

Eusebius AD 265 – 340 became Bishop of Caesarea in 313. He is known, not so much as a "Church Father" but as the "Father of Church History." His specialty was separating the true canon of Scripture from all the bogus stuff. He confirms the authorship of Hebrews in his "Ecclesiastical History Chapter III The Epistles of the Apostles." The Epistles of Paul were so well known in the church, that he didn't even bother to name them:

"The Epistles of Paul are 14, all well known and beyond doubt."

The 14 Epistles of Paul were each named a few years later by Athanasius AD367. Similar to Eusebius, He prefaces his list by almost apologizing over tedium of recording them yet once again, something that had been so frequently recorded 'from the beginning':

Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria Easter/Festal Epistles Letter xxxix

"5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John."

 

[Stan B]

Yes indeed

I am sure Marks posted it for 'discussions sake'... ( some of the threads are getting long, boring , and very repetitive..)

I'm interested in any 'new' discussion....

Hebrews does not "for me" have Paul's stamp on it ...and is much different in style.
But, as I mentioned...one of my favourites .

I have provided the answer for you in #24. For me, it is important to know who the author of a particular book, and in this case, is not just an anonymous letter, but one that is held within the global context of everything else Paul wrote.

 

[Stan B]

Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. If one reads the epistles of Paul and then reads (Hebrews), you can tell that it is of Paul. Read the closing statement in (Heb. 13:15-25) and tell me that isn't Paul.

Grant it, the strongest argument against Paul's authorship is the comparison of (Heb. 2:3-4) and (Gal. 1:11-12).

We are told in (Gal. 1:12) that Paul did not receive his gospel from man. It came directly from Jesus Christ.

We are told in (Heb. 2:3) that the writer of Hebrews states that he has received his knowledge of this salvation from others whom the Lord taught.

But look again at (Heb. 2:3) "How shall we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;"

Compare this to (Rom. 15:8) "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers."

The message in the book of (Hebrews) does not concern Paul's gospel at all. (Heb. 2:3) would be true of Paul as a Jew. Jesus Christ was not preaching Paul's gospel. He was preaching the gospel of the Kingdom to the circumcision, which was directly to the Jews. (Rom. 15:8) It concerned the promises made to the fathers. (15:8) That is the salvation (Heb. 2:3) is speaking of.

Do you see? That which was confirmed in (Heb. 2:3) was that which was confirmed in (Rom. 15:8). Which was the gospel of the kingdom to the Jews. Of which Paul was as much a recipient as any other Jew.

So, why didn't Paul identify himself. Because as soon as he identified himself, he would have lost most of the Jewish readers. You do realize they were spreading lies about Paul and inflaming the Jews against him. So, he didn't put his name to it.

Stranger

>>"So, why didn't Paul identify himself. Because as soon as he identified himself, he would have lost most of the Jewish readers."

I don't accept your hypothesis. First, Paul never had a reputation for backing down. Second, it is not as if you could buy his book on Amazon. The only place these books/scrolls could be accessed was within the temple, churches or synagogues. So the ones who would be reading it, were Christians, and Paul was merely explaining the New Covenant contrasted against the Old with which they were well acquainted. He was the only apostle other than Matthew to write in Hebrew, and the Gospel of Mathew was also directed to the Jews.

 

[Phoneman777]

Just compare . . .

Hebrews 2
3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Galatians 1
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.


The writer of Hebrews received his teaching from those who heard Jesus, Paul received his teaching from Jesus.

Not the same man.

Much love!

Paul never learned anything from "them that heard Him"? Well, I don't see how Peter could fail to tell Paul about the time Jesus made him walk on water...how could he?

 

[Heart2Soul]

In my studies of Revelation...whom John wrote....I came across a bible scholar who said that John actually wrote the Epistles....something to consider.

 

[Stan B]

In my studies of Revelation...whom John wrote....I came across a bible scholar who said that John actually wrote the Epistles....something to consider.

Well yeah, John wrote some epistles. What is there to consider?

 

[Heart2Soul]

Well yeah, John wrote some epistles. What is there to consider?

Don't ask me....I have no quarrel with who wrote what in the Bible...because to me it is all written and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Final answer....lol.

 

[Enoch111]

Let me be more precise. Them that heard Him is not us or me. The writer of Hebrews, according to their own testimony, did not hear directly from Jesus.

That is called making an unjustified assumption. All that means is that the other apostles heard Christ as one group. Then later Paul heard the Gospel directly from Jesus, and here's the proof:

But I certify [GUARANTEE] you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the [DIRECT] revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11,12)

 

[farouk]

Don't ask me....I have no quarrel with who wrote what in the Bible...because to me it is all written and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Final answer....lol.

The author of Hebrews isn't revealed.

 

[Heart2Soul]

The author of Hebrews isn't revealed.

The Holy Spirit is the author of all of God's Word. IMHO...

 

[Enoch111]

The author of Hebrews isn't revealed.

"Isn't stated" is not the same as "isn't revealed". He is revealed to those with eyes to see.

 

[farouk]

The Holy Spirit is the author of all of God's Word. IMHO...

I mean of course the stated human author isn't given

 

[brakelite]

Except for some of the closing remarks, I don't think Paul wrote any of the epistles... He ducted them... And the writer of Hebreway have been of a different class writer than the previous examples.

 

[Enoch111]

Except for some of the closing remarks, I don't think Paul wrote any of the epistles... He ducted them... And the writer of Hebrews may have been of a different class writer than the previous examples.

I'm not sure what you mean by *ducted* them since there was no duct tape at that time to duct them. Did you mean "dictated" them? If so a writer can dictate his words to a secretary or stenographer, but the words are those of the writer.

And for you to deny that Paul wrote any epistles is to deny the veracity of the New Testament. Where do Christians come up with such crazy ideas? Paul definitely wrote Hebrews and again I do not understand why people wish to deny this.

 

[brakelite]

I'm not sure what you mean by *ducted* them since there was no duct tape at that time to duct them. Did you mean "dictated" them? If so a writer can dictate his words to a secretary or stenographer, but the words are those of the writer.

And for you to deny that Paul wrote any epistles is to deny the veracity of the New Testament. Where do Christians come up with such crazy ideas? Paul definitely wrote Hebrews and again I do not understand why people wish to deny this.

Dictate.. Yes. My phone has a mind of its own... Regardless of what I dictate to it.
I wasnt intimating that Paul was not the originator of the epistles... Including Hebrews... Just suggesting that the actual writer have been of a different ethnic background to the the previous writers... Timothy for example was Greek want he? So perhaps his Greek was different to say, Barnabus or even Paul himself... Which may partly explain why Hebrews to some ears may sound unlike Paul's previous letters.

 

[Waiting on him]

Yeah, it sounds reasonable, if just on the basis of common sense.

But there is no need to speculate on the authorship of the Hebrews. It was given the stamp of approval over and over by the early church. But as always, there have been 'scholars' and such, whose only objective has been the discredit Scripture.

Eusebius AD 265 – 340 became Bishop of Caesarea in 313. He is known, not so much as a "Church Father" but as the "Father of Church History." His specialty was separating the true canon of Scripture from all the bogus stuff. He confirms the authorship of Hebrews in his "Ecclesiastical History Chapter III The Epistles of the Apostles." The Epistles of Paul were so well known in the church, that he didn't even bother to name them:

"The Epistles of Paul are 14, all well known and beyond doubt."

The 14 Epistles of Paul were each named a few years later by Athanasius AD367. Similar to Eusebius, He prefaces his list by almost apologizing over tedium of recording them yet once again, something that had been so frequently recorded 'from the beginning':

Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria Easter/Festal Epistles Letter xxxix

"5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John."

Wasn’t there a third epistle written to Corinthians by Paul?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Brakelite, please brother, stop duct taping the word...