Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Note on the Letter of Hebrews

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Nick M View Post

    8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.




    26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

    The author if Hebrews states clearly they can sin their way out of their future inheritance. Yet Paul said;

    14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.


    Yes, there are a few lines that apply to that generation and the powerful wrath that would fall upon Israel in the 6th decade. But just a few. Most of it is for general use.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DAN P View Post
      Hi and I will say it is for Jews only !!

      What verse will to start with ?

      Chapter 6 mabybe ??

      How about Heb 9:15 ??

      dan p


      But there is not a trace of Aramaic, DanP.

      I understand about 9:15, but most people on earth have tried to do some kind of atonement ritual.
      All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
        Does someone still want to say the letter is only for Jews, not to mention the fact that it doesn't have anything about a restored theocracy? Does anyone still want to say that the benefits of the Gospel are not 100% identical to those given in any of Paul's letters? It even ends sounding like him, but that is debated.
        Maybe Hebrews was a compilation (by Luke?) transcribed from notes of the discussions (probably in Hebrew) that Paul was having with the Jews in Rome near the end of his life (Acts 28:17-31). Perhaps the book was written in Greek to be sent to the churches in Asia Minor and read along with Paul's other letters (2 Peter 3:15-16).

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Rivers View Post
          Maybe Hebrews was a compilation (by Luke?) transcribed from notes of the discussions (probably in Hebrew) that Paul was having with the Jews in Rome near the end of his life (Acts 28:17-31). Perhaps the book was written in Greek to be sent to the churches in Asia Minor and read along with Paul's other letters (2 Peter 3:15-16).

          Or is it Apollos. The Greek is more complex than Luke's. At least before the closing in ch 13. It doesn't begin like a letter anyway. It begins like the transcript of a sermon, a declaration.

          The direct warnings it in are for the Jews about their land that is about to be burnt.
          All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
            Or is it Apollos. The Greek is more complex than Luke's. At least before the closing in ch 13. It doesn't begin like a letter anyway. It begins like the transcript of a sermon, a declaration.

            The direct warnings it in are for the Jews about their land that is about to be burnt.
            No it's not...

            Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

            I know, I know, the above is part of your self-deluded Matt. 24b nonsense.

            What an incompetent you are.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
              Or is it Apollos. The Greek is more complex than Luke's. At least before the closing in ch 13. It doesn't begin like a letter anyway. It begins like the transcript of a sermon, a declaration.

              The direct warnings it in are for the Jews about their land that is about to be burnt.
              I'd say that the first 12 chapters are a "sermon" to be delivered in the synagogue. Chapter 13 is an obvious ad-on by someone other than the author. I'd say it was copied and distributed to synagogues in the diaspora and never intended for Jerusalem or Judea. The Kingdom coming was dependent upon National repentance when "all Israel will be saved".

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
                But just a few. Most of it is for general use.
                No, all of it is for Israel. However, all scripture is useful to us for study. We are to know what and why. But it isn't about the Body of Christ.
                Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

                Titus 1

                For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

                Ephesians 5

                11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by beameup View Post
                  I'd say that the first 12 chapters are a "sermon" to be delivered in the synagogue. Chapter 13 is an obvious ad-on by someone other than the author. I'd say it was copied and distributed to synagogues in the diaspora and never intended for Jerusalem or Judea. The Kingdom coming was dependent upon National repentance when "all Israel will be saved".

                  All those who did repent, along with gentiles who repented, were the Israel who were justified from their sins. There is no NT passage about a Davidic theocracy resuming. They are all about Christ's kingdom into which faith transfers a person, Col 1. But there were warnings in Hebrews about the plight of their homeland due to unbelief.
                  All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by beameup View Post
                    The Kingdom coming was dependent upon National repentance when "all Israel will be saved".
                    I agree with that.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      But Rom 11 said 'kai houtos'--in this manner--this partially hardened manner. Ethne Israel always has been and always will be, but the Israel of faith will be justified from its sins.

                      Saved in Romans does not mean 'a restored Davidic theocracy.'

                      Paul said this about Israel because of the assumption that it was automatically 'in.' It never has been, even in the past.
                      All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
                        But Rom 11 said 'kai houtos'--in this manner--this partially hardened manner. Ethne Israel always has been and always will be, but the Israel of faith will be justified from its sins.

                        Saved in Romans does not mean 'a restored Davidic theocracy.'

                        Paul said this about Israel because of the assumption that it was automatically 'in.' It never has been, even in the past.
                        Oh.
                        Originally posted by Interplanner
                        They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                        Originally posted by Interplanner
                        You're too literal to get it.
                        Originally posted by Interplanner
                        The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X