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

[JudgeRightly]

it was the most popular guess at who wrote it

OR, and is far more reasonable:

It's the first book, to the Hebrews, of the rest of the Bible, written for a future generation of Israel, and thus placed at the end of the Bible.

Current Israel (at the time of writing) => Four gospels.
Transition book => Acts
Gospel of Grace, ministry to Gentiles => Paul's epistles.
Looking forwards to future plans for Israel (consistent with "endure and you will be saved") => Hebrews, Jewish epistles, and Revelation.

 

[Clete]

The Holy Spirit knew. And it was up to Him. Nothing got handed down to us He didn't want to get handed down to us, and the opposite is also true. He decided in His wisdom to permit us to know who wrote some of the Bible, and He didn't permit us to know who wrote Hebrews. Why and why not? is a legitimate question.

Maybe He (God) doesn't care who wrote it. Maybe everyone knew who wrote it when it was new and the authorship just got lost over the centuries and the book's existence in scripture is sufficient by itself without any need to know who wrote it. In other words, just because we don't know who the author was, doesn't mean that God wanted us to be ignorant of that detail of history.

It's placed in the Bible after all the Pauline epistles on purpose, because it was the most popular guess at who wrote it, so they tucked it right in after Paul's letters.

This is only partially true. The questioned authorship did have a significant influence on where it was placed in the cannon but considerations like this was not the diving force behind the decision making process concerning which books went where.

The order of New Testament books generally follows groupings by genre and length. The New Testament begins, as it should, with the Gospels and forms the foundation for the rest. The books of Acts bridges between the decidedly Jewish nature of the Gospels to the current Body of Christ, where there is no Jew or Gentile, allowing Paul's epistles to make sense. The Pauline epistles (Romans through Philemon) are grouped together by length, not chronology. Then Hebrews is placed as a bridge between the Pauline epistles and the General Epistles and Revelation. Hebrews acts as a kind of transitional document, bridging theology focused on the Body of Christ (Pauline) and theology focused on Jewish believers (General Epistles). This doctrinal point was the primary reason for it's placement after the Pauline epistles.

Isn't it fascinating that the grouping of the books of the bible follows a pattern consistent with Mid-Acts Dispensational teaching?

From a Mid-Acts Dispensational lens....

• Acts transitions from Israel to the Body of Christ. That matches exactly the dispensational shift recognized in Acts 9.
• Paul’s letters follow Acts and lay out the doctrine of the Body of Christ.
• Hebrews then follows. The book is addressed to Hebrews, rooted in Old Testament priesthood, sacrifices, and covenants. This placement is not arbitrary, but reflects a dispensational pivot back toward Israel.
• Then come the General Epistles (James through Jude), which are decidedly Jewish in focus and language (e.g., “To the twelve tribes scattered abroad,” James 1:1).
• Revelation then concludes the canon with explicit judgments, tribulation, and millennial reign. Again, distinctly Jewish and prophetic in scope.
• This structure (Acts to Paul, then Hebrews to Revelation) mirrors the dispensational distinction between the mystery revealed to Paul concerning the Body of Christ, and the prophetic program concerning Israel.

This means one of two things...

Either God intentionally arranged the order of the canon in such a way that reinforces the dispensational distinctions, even if the compilers were unaware of what they were doing.

Or...

Some early Christians understood more than we give them credit for, and the structure we inherited reflects an instinctive grasp of doctrinal flow, even if it wasn’t yet articulated as Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

In short, the structure of the New Testament, when viewed through Mid-Acts eyes, makes more sense, not less. The placement of Hebrews is not just a relic of authorship speculation but reflects its theological function as a bridge from the mystery of the Body back to the prophetic program for Israel. Whether by accident or design, the canon itself affirms the very dispensational distinctions that most today resist. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism couldn't be more biblical if it tried! Indeed, it is even more biblical than anyone ever attempted to make it!

 

[Right Divider]

It's placed in the Bible after all the Pauline epistles on purpose, because it was the most popular guess at who wrote it, so they tucked it right in after Paul's letters.

Yes, it was put AFTER ALL the PAULINE EPISTLES, since it's NOT Pauline!

 

[Idolater]

A conspiracy theory, where God secretly controls the order of the New Testament (which sounds extremely Calvinist to me, tbh, afaic), to be in PERFECT accord with ONLY Acts 9erism, has just been proposed, I can only assume, with a straight face.

It's not fascinating that the grouping of the books of the bible follows a pattern consistent with Acts 9erism. That's BEGGING THE QUESTION that you're experiencing, in your "lived experience," you're misidentifying the phenomenon. That isn't fascination. The reason it looks that way to you, is because you already accept the conclusion of your argument as fact, and if it IS fact, then you've every RIGHT to evangelize and try to promote Acts 9erism—ofc—but it is ONLY true if ACTS 9ERISM is true.

And even if it IS true, and I'm not saying that it is, that, if I'm being honest, still sounds a little like Calvinism, or as I like to call it, as a disciple of St. John the Great, CLAVINISM.

And I know Clavinism, because I used to be Clavinist, and, as far as even current Clavinist apologists go, I can defend Clavinism with the best of them still, even though I am 100 percent Catholic.

 

[Right Divider]

A conspiracy theory, where God secretly controls the order of the New Testament (which sounds extremely Calvinist to me, tbh, afaic), to be in PERFECT accord with ONLY Acts 9erism, has just been proposed, I can only assume, with a straight face.

Your inability to use logic and reason has many hilarious outcomes... like this ridiculous post of yours.

Is it possible that the "PERFECT accord" of the ordering and contents of the books of the Bible with the Mid-Acts understanding is simply because that understanding is true?

 

[Lon]

A conspiracy theory, where God secretly controls the order of the New Testament (which sounds extremely Calvinist to me, tbh, afaic), to be in PERFECT accord with ONLY Acts 9erism, has just been proposed, I can only assume, with a straight face.

It's not fascinating that the grouping of the books of the bible follows a pattern consistent with Acts 9erism. That's BEGGING THE QUESTION that you're experiencing, in your "lived experience," you're misidentifying the phenomenon. That isn't fascination. The reason it looks that way to you, is because you already accept the conclusion of your argument as fact, and if it IS fact, then you've every RIGHT to evangelize and try to promote Acts 9erism—ofc—but it is ONLY true if ACTS 9ERISM is true.

I don't believe you have to be Mid Acts at all to see Divine arrangement. What you'd expect to see, is that as Christians organized these books, they'd have placed them in a semblance of order. If such points to Mid Acts, we'd all be well encouraged to consider the theology thereof. What we do know is 1) God did put these books in our hands 2) God did use godly men to arrange them (you'd have a hard criticism against Catholics yourself at that venture). 3) Could you, personally, think or work up a better arrangement?

And even if it IS true, and I'm not saying that it is, that, if I'm being honest, still sounds a little like Calvinism, or as I like to call it, as a disciple of St. John the Great, CLAVINISM.

Off topic, other than the slight unlikelihood: Hard to take this line seriously without the solid marks of disdain, almost as "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" John 1:46 I'm a Spurgeon, Packer, and Piper fan, to be sure. Calvinism isn't at all involved in the order of the books, Catholic actually. Amyraldian? Yet likely not.

And I know Clavinism, because I used to be Clavinist,

Off-topic: Your departure sounds a lot harsher than mine. I yet value Stephen Charnock, Jonathan Edwards, BB Warfield, John Bunyan, and Sproul.

and, as far as even current Clavinist apologists go, I can defend Clavinism with the best of them still, even though I am 100 percent Catholic.

Calvinism is on your mind, but not really the topic of this tangent. The topic is 'why' the order of the canon.

 

[Idolater]

Either God intentionally arranged the order of the canon in such a way that reinforces the dispensational distinctions, even if the compilers were unaware of what they were doing.

Or...

Some early Christians understood more than we give them credit for, and the structure we inherited reflects an instinctive grasp of doctrinal flow, even if it wasn’t yet articulated as Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

The latter's impossible, there's literally zero evidence Acts 9erism appeared in any way, anytime before the 1800s.

And I'm not saying this makes Acts 9erism false—that's not my argument. Even if there's no writing corroborating Acts 9erism in all history, that doesn't foreclose Acts 9erism's potential truth. Still could be true. I'm just saying there's no way there were any primordial, nascent, inchoate Acts 9ers when the order of the New Testament was set. That part isn't true, which means Clete's first option is the only available option. viz. “ God intentionally arranged the order of the canon ”

What I mean is, the order of the New Testament isn't what it is because Acts 9ers set the order of the New Testament. That's not true.

 

[Idolater]

I don't believe you have to be Mid Acts at all to see Divine arrangement. What you'd expect to see, is that as Christians organized these books, they'd have placed them in a semblance of order. If such points to Mid Acts, we'd all be well encouraged to consider the theology thereof.

If. But it doesn't. It only "points to" Acts 9erism once you've already accepted Acts 9erism. Which is begging the question. Which is what I said.

What we do know is 1) God did put these books in our hands 2) God did use godly men to arrange them (you'd have a hard criticism against Catholics yourself at that venture). 3) Could you, personally, think or work up a better arrangement?

Off topic

Nope. Saying it doesn't make it so. That's your opinion. Topic is "Paul did not write Hebrews we do not know who did," disco's gone toward the order Hebrews appears in the New Testament, I claimed it was because it was the most popular guess at the time that it was Paul (not that this is decisive, merely acknowledging that it was POPULAR), but also, also by virtue of its order, they were saying "we really just don't know" (because Paul's other epistles are ordered by length roughly, from the longest to the shortest, and Hebrews is a long letter).

, other than the slight unlikelihood: Hard to take this line seriously without the solid marks of disdain, almost as "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" John 1:46 I'm a Spurgeon, Packer, and Piper fan, to be sure. Calvinism isn't at all involved in the order of the books

Never said it was, except where Clavinism and Clete both would agree that the order of the New Testament is providently decided.

, Catholic actually.

That's obv the surface reality, no argument. Clete's claim is that in spite of it being a decidedly Catholic endeavor, these Catholics were, in spite of themselves secretly compelled—by God—to arrange the order of the New Testament in exactly the way Acts 9ers would arrange it, which is 100 percent begging the question if Acts 9erism is false, and even if it is true, then it's very reminiscent of Clavinism, and I know, being a former Clavinist myself. God pulls strings and works behind the scenes to bring about what comes to pass. That's just Clavinist.

You are not and have never been a Clavinist, though you've dabbled in it. We are not the same.

Amyraldian? Yet likely not.

Off-topic: Your departure sounds a lot harsher than mine. I yet value Stephen Charnock, Jonathan Edwards, BB Warfield, John Bunyan, and Sproul.

I own all of Warfield's work in print, and I used to love Sproul. Ever read either of the Hodges? Berkof? Calvin and even Martin Luther are also very Calvinistic in their writings, how'd you like those guys?

All I'm doing is echoing @john w in calling it Clavinism. Am I allowed to echo the Great One here at TOL? or nah? without being called "harsh" or that "Calvinism is on my mind"?

Calvinism is on your mind, but not really the topic of this tangent.

I didn't bring up Clavinism—Clete did. Whether he knew he was doing it, or not.

The topic is 'why' the order of the canon.

Which is why it's on-topic. I stay on topic.

 

[Clete]

A conspiracy theory, where God secretly controls the order of the New Testament (which sounds extremely Calvinist to me, tbh, afaic), to be in PERFECT accord with ONLY Acts 9erism, has just been proposed, I can only assume, with a straight face.

You're a lunatic.

Is this really what you got from my post? I very simply cannot fathom living my life with this level of INTENTIONAL intellectual dishonesty!

It's not fascinating that the grouping of the books of the bible follows a pattern consistent with Acts 9erism.

Of course it is and you know it.

That's BEGGING THE QUESTION that you're experiencing, in your "lived experience," you're misidentifying the phenomenon.

No! It is actually just the precise opposite of question begging. It would have to be a premise rather than a conclusion in order to be question begging. In other words, no one noticed it in advance and then formulated a doctrine around it and then attempted to argue for the doctrine on the basis of the canonical order.

In fact, no one has ever made any such argument. At most it is usually pointed to as basically a happy accident of history, if at all.

That isn't fascination. The reason it looks that way to you, is because you already accept the conclusion of your argument as fact, and if it IS fact, then you've every RIGHT to evangelize and try to promote Acts 9erism—ofc—but it is ONLY true if ACTS 9ERISM is true.

Which was the point! You are the one seeing arguments that aren't being made. You're so allergic to anything that gives credence to any position but your own that you break out in hysterics at the elegance of such an observation. The fact is that if my doctrine, which you have have no idea at all how to refute, is correct, then the fact is, as you here admit, the canonical order MAY very well not be entirely coincidental. It is you who were the first in this thread to suggest that God was in control of what books made it into the bible and in what order, not me!

And even if it IS true, and I'm not saying that it is, that, if I'm being honest, still sounds a little like Calvinism, or as I like to call it, as a disciple of St. John the Great, CLAVINISM.

I think you just wanted to accuse me of sounding Calvinistic here. There isn't anything "Calvinistic" about God being in control of the book that He Himself wrote.

And I know Clavinism, because I used to be Clavinist,

I'd be willing to bet that this is false.

At most you attended a Calvinistic church as a child and have a child-like superficial understanding of the doctrinal system. Otherwise, there'd be no way that anything I've said on this thread would have ever occurred to you to be reminiscent of it.

and, as far as even current Clavinist apologists go, I can defend Clavinism with the best of them still, even though I am 100 percent Catholic.

Prove it.

What is the foundational premise of the Calvinistic system and in what way is it related to Reformed soteriology?

Prediction: Idolater will make no attempt to answer that question. If he does, it'll be him parroting Chat GPT.

 

[Clete]

The latter's impossible, there's literally zero evidence Acts 9erism appeared in any way, anytime before the 1800s.

The canonical order of New Testament books is evidence.

Even without that though, your statement is flatly and demonstrably false.

It confuses the systematic articulation of a view with the presence of the underlying doctrine. Just because the label “Acts 9 Dispensationalism” didn’t exist until later doesn’t mean the doctrinal framework didn’t. That kind of reasoning would disqualify the doctrine of the Trinity too, since it wasn’t formally defined until the fourth century.

The idea that Paul received a distinct gospel from the risen Christ, separate from the gospel preached by the Twelve, is as old as Paul’s own letters. And there have always been those who saw it.

Even in the Reformation era, men like William Tyndale and Martin Luther emphasized the unique role and message of Paul in a way that anticipates the key principles of Acts 9 theology. Martin Luther questioned the canonicity of Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation because he felt they either contradicted or failed to measure up to the clarity and centrality of Paul’s "justification by faith apart from works" gospel. Luther’s treatment of Galatians, in particular, draws an extremely sharp distinction between Paul’s gospel of grace and the Judaistic message associated with the law. That contrast became a foundation for later dispensational thought.

Then in the 1600s and 1700s, theologians like Isaac Watts made dispensational distinctions between the message of the kingdom and the gospel of grace. Watts clearly recognized the progressive unfolding of revelation and the uniqueness of Paul’s doctrine.

By the early 1800s, the Plymouth Brethren were distinguishing between Israel and the Church, and though most of them placed the start of the Church at Acts 2 or Acts 13, the system they developed opened the door to a Mid-Acts refinement. Some among them even made that move.

Sir Robert Anderson published The Silence of God in 1897, defending the position that the Body of Christ did not begin at Pentecost, but later with Paul. That is not post-Stam. That is not even post-Bollinger. That is before both! And Anderson was not some backwater fringe writer. He was a respected scholar and Chief Inspector at Scotland Yard.

The point is simple: the label “Acts 9 Dispensationalism” is relatively recent, but the doctrines it organizes are not.

Paul’s claim to have received his gospel directly from the risen Christ, and not from man, was not written in the 1800s. It was written in the first century. The mystery hid from ages and generations but revealed through Paul was not discovered by modern dispensationalists. It was revealed by God and recorded in Scripture. Anyone paying attention could have noticed it at any time in church history. And some did.

So no, the claim that there is “literally zero evidence” for Mid-Acts theology prior to the 1800s is not historically defensible. It is a rhetorical bluff that collapses under scrutiny. The gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul. He was the pattern. He was the first. And his distinct apostleship has never been hidden. It has simply been ignored.

And I'm not saying this makes Acts 9erism false—that's not my argument.

Of course it is!

Again, the level of intellectual dishonesty is almost pathological!

Even if there's no writing corroborating Acts 9erism in all history, that doesn't foreclose Acts 9erism's potential truth. Still could be true. I'm just saying there's no way there were any primordial, nascent, inchoate Acts 9ers when the order of the New Testament was set.

UNLESS you're wrong, which I just proved to be the case.

Even if you weren't wrong! If Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is true, then God has always been an "Acts 9erist" and could easily have influenced the canonical order to reflect the biblical narrative.

That part isn't true, which means Clete's first option is the only available option. viz. “ God intentionally arranged the order of the canon ”

Every heard of a book called "A Pilgrim's Progress"?

It happens to be quite dispensational, without using that term, of course. It was written 200 years before Darby.

What I mean is, the order of the New Testament isn't what it is because Acts 9ers set the order of the New Testament. That's not true.

No one would have identified themselves as such but it isn't impossible that the concepts were present.

Regardless, the fact remains that the canonical order mirrors Mid-Acts dispensational doctrine. It mirrors it perfectly. Why insist that it has to be pure coincidence while positing, as you have, that the fact that we don't know the author of Hebrews is divine providence?

 

[Lon]

If. But it doesn't. It only "points to" Acts 9erism once you've already accepted Acts 9erism. Which is begging the question. Which is what I said.

Er, but if it points that way? How addicted to your own theology are you? Lots are, very much here on TOL. It is why I get 'whishy washy' but I'm more honest with God about asking Him to make me more like Him instead of always thinking "I've" found it!" Some call it whishy washy, I call it 'not so much into me that I cannot listen to God correcting me anymore." He is sovereign over all His creation, even me.

Nope. Saying it doesn't make it so. That's your opinion. Topic is "Paul did not write Hebrews we do not know who did," disco's gone toward the order Hebrews appears in the New Testament, I claimed it was because it was the most popular guess at the time that it was Paul (not that this is decisive, merely acknowledging that it was POPULAR), but also, also by virtue of its order, they were saying "we really just don't know" (because Paul's other epistles are ordered by length roughly, from the longest to the shortest, and Hebrews is a long letter).
Good grief, you agree on point, then argue against yourself. Why? Priori?


Never said it was, except where Clavinism and Clete both would agree that the order of the New Testament is providently decided.

Again with the derogatory. I've never claimed to be Calvinist. I certainly do not disdain them as you do. I've a lot of love for those who don't agree with me. TOL pushes the divide too far often enough, instead of realizing the difference between who is in the faith and who happens to get it wrong, we stab one another in the back, here. Should we? I don't think so. It is a very bad habit. When there is enough genuine difference, we think 'stupid' is 2Timothy2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth. Don't fall into what is acceptable here. It isn't the mark for dialogue. Reach a higher calling. I'm convinced those who are rude are very much babes in Christ. Those of us who are mature must reach the higher mark of grace. I can hardly believe anybody was a Calvinist who resides here, they have no empathy for supposedly once being one.

That's obv the surface reality, no argument. Clete's claim is that in spite of it being a decidedly Catholic endeavor, these Catholics were, in spite of themselves secretly compelled—by God—to arrange the order of the New Testament in exactly the way Acts 9ers would arrange it, which is 100 percent begging the question if Acts 9erism is false, and even if it is true, then it's very reminiscent of Clavinism, and I know, being a former Clavinist myself. God pulls strings and works behind the scenes to bring about what comes to pass. That's just Clavinist.

It doesn't matter arguing 'why' as much as discovering 'why.' If it points one way, without resistance, we should look. If it doesn't, fine, but you'd at least have to acquiesce that it'd make sense.

You are not and have never been a Clavinist, though you've dabbled in it. We are not the same.

Of course not. How would iron sharpen iron if we were all the same? I would have always said I was Amyraldian, (not Catholic).

I own all of Warfield's work in print, and I used to love Sproul. Ever read either of the Hodges? Berkof? Calvin and even Martin Luther are also very Calvinistic in their writings, how'd you like those guys?

Of course I enjoy them. Call them "Clavinists?" Never.

All I'm doing is echoing @john w in calling it Clavinism. Am I allowed to echo the Great One here at TOL? or nah? without being called "harsh" or that "Calvinism is on my mind"?

Derogatory is derogatory. Would you smile if I called you a Papist? Mary-worshipper? Such tends to cause divides. Somehow, in every conversation, we have to make a bridge for communication. If iron sharpens iron, you use water or oil. We don't just grind away on metal lest we harm its temper. Similarly, TOL must use oil and water (conversation seasoned with salt) else it is just harsh and serving no purpose but promoting Open Theism and Mid Acts theology against all contenders. Without the grace needed, Open Theism will die. The early church had Arians. They were harsh among even one another and died out. God is sovereign, it just died out on its own and I believe connected was the absence of godliness. Our faith is all tied together. Grace Ambassadors (Mid Acts) should show Grace first foot forward.

I didn't bring up Clavinism—Clete did. Whether he knew he was doing it, or not.

He'd say he did. I have to wonder if anyone who ever 'was' Calvinist, had/has any love 'for' what they once were. Why be one, if it didn't/doesn't lift one to the Savior? For me, these men, even if I disagree, have love for the Savior. That is the mark. If we are going to distance and fight, it should be on the grounds of who actually loves the Savior. I started a thread yesterday about whether anyone who rejects Paul's Apostleship can be Christian in any sense. I'd suggest it is impossible, because at that point they begin to pick and choose which book of the bible, if any, they will follow. It'd make 'me'ology rather than theology. That is a dangerous place to be. This particular (to bring it back to discussion), isn't outside of Christian walls over the disagreement. It is okay for me and you to say "I don't think Hebrews is Pauline at all."

Which is why it's on-topic. I stay on topic.

You'll have to explain that to me. How is a discussion on Calvinism attached to Pauline authorship? Or placement of Hebrews?

 

[Derf]

Predictable.

Why should I?

Are you the only one who gets to ignore the other's points? Seems to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You were accusing me of ignoring the plain text, not your points. Why change the conversation?

Yes, you can make any verse you come across say anything you like.

Then you agree that "plain reading of the text" is a mere smokescreen? Or begging the question? Of course everybody claims to believe they have the "plain reading of the text", because otherwise they would have to say they don't believe the text as written.

Go ahead. Tell me how Acts 13:46 means that Paul didn't turn to the Gentiles.

All Gentiles? Away from All Jews? Is that what you think the plain reading of the text is? Then why did Paul go to the synagogue in the next chapter, and apparently in the next town and the next that--every one that had a synagogue? Was Paul plainly only looking for Gentile converts when he went to the synagogues?

Tell me how Galatians 1:12 means that his gospel wasn't unique but was the some old stuff that the same Jesus that gave it to Him by revelation spent three years teaching it to the Twelve all of whom had been given the Holy Spirit in order to effectively preach it.

How does Paul stating that he received the gospel directly from Jesus in any way indicate that it was a unique gospel?

Tell me how Romans 16:25 means that Paul's gospel was that which was prophesied since before Moses.

Well, for one, I would hope that you would also read those verses before and after rather than just taking the "plain reading of the text" from a verse out of context. I'll start with the latter (verse after Rom 16:25):
[Rom 16:26 KJV] But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

If the scriptures of the prophets means anything, then it must be that the gospel Paul was preaching was foretold in some way.

A former verse talks about what that gospel related to:
[Rom 16:20 KJV] And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you. Amen.
This is a reference back to the earliest narrative of human sin and salvation in the bible:
[Gen 3:15 KJV] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Tell me how Galatians 2:2 means that Paul went to explain how he was preaching the exact same thing everyone else was preaching.

What does the following verse say? That Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. Compelled by whom, you might ask. Compelled by the apostles and other leaders in Jerusalem, of course. So what you have, apparently, is that Jews are compelled to be circumcised and non-Jews are not, as related by Peter after he met with Cornelius. So, at least part of the "good news" Paul was communicating to the Gentiles was that they did not have to follow the law to be saved. And Peter, though he might have been slow to do so, also preached the same thing after the Cornelius episode. Eventually Peter even recognized that he could eat with Gentiles, though sometimes he was afraid to do so, "fearing them which were of the circumcision." (from a little later in the same chapter, vs 12).

Also, remember that Paul was preaching to the Jews before he "turned to the Gentiles". Did he change his message when he turned from the Jews? If not, then we have one of his sermons to the Jews (that was also heard and received by the Gentiles of that city). It's in the chapter you mentioned, Acts 13. He starts it with these words:
[Act 13:16 KJV] Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with [his] hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.
Notice that (underlined) he is talking to "Men of Israel" (so Paul definitely preached his gospel to people of Israel) and "ye that fear God", which seems to include Gentiles who were interested.

Here's the sermon
Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with [his] hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience. The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it. And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness. And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot. And after that he gave [unto them] judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years. And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the [son] of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man's seed hath God according to [his] promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not [he]. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of [his] feet I am not worthy to loose. Men [and] brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled [them] in condemning [him]. And though they found no cause of death [in him], yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took [him] down from the tree, and laid [him] in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead: And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another [psalm], Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. Be it known unto you therefore, men [and] brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you. [Act 13:16-41 KJV]

You might recognize the Greek word for the bolded phrase, "εὐαγγελίζω", which is the verb form of the word Paul uses when he says stuff like "my gospel" and "that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles", which is "εὐαγγέλιον". You might say it means Paul was "gospelizing" both the Jews and the Gentiles.

How does this compare with the other apostles' sermons? We don't have very many, but Peter gave a couple and Stephen, who was under Peter's teaching, gave another. The first part of Paul's "gospel" sermon looked a whole lot like Stephen's, in that it gave history of the Jewish people. The second part looks a whole lot like Peter's sermons in Acts 2 and 3.

When he was done, the Gentiles wanted to hear more. They responded to the gospel Paul preached, even though it was more aimed at the Jews. "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." [Act 13:42 KJV]
.

It is entirely driven by the words on the page and its support is supplemented by all of the other points which you've been presented and which you also ignore. Points like the fact that Hebrews is entirely and only about ISRAEL and the priestly ministry that Paul's ministry and message had nothing to do with. Points like the fact that Hebrews teaches very clearly not only that one can lose their salvation but that one's salvation has everything to do with what you not only believe but what you do and what you continue to do during this life. It, in short, teaches a gospel based on the law, which is completely the opposite and totally incompatible with Paul's gospel, which was so radically different than was anyone else was preaching that God sent Him, BY REVELATION, to Israel for the express purpose of explaining his gospel, (what is for us THE gospel), to Peter, James and John, who, after hearing it, agreed with Paul that he (Paul) would go to the GENTILES, while they would remain in Israel and minister to Israel - in direct contradiction to the so called "Great Commission", I might add.

So, no! This is not me being myopic or fixated on some underlying premise where I need to twist the meaning of the text to suit my doctrine. It is just the exact opposite of that. I do not need Hebrews 2:3 to mean anything other than what it seems to mean by a simple surface reading of it.

Are you saying that Paul never had anything confirmed to him by the other apostles? You don't think he listened to their stories of Jesus feeding the 5 thousand, or how He calmed the sea or walked on water? Just because Paul had direct communication with Jesus doesn't mean he never heard anything from the others. Heb 2:3 is not exclusive of such direct communication, and if the author is trying to point his readers back to the gospel as told by the 12, surely he would refer to what they had heard, as well as what he had heard from them. Paul wasn't in competition with the 12, despite how you must think he was.

The same goes for the entire book of Hebrews. I don't need to figure out a way to make it so that it doesn't teach that people can lose their salvation. It entirely and absolutely does teach that. In fact, if it didn't teach it, THAT would be a problem for my doctrine!!

Your doctrine has plenty of problems.

So while you spend your time figuring out how verse after verse means something other than what it says, I get to read the bible and take it to means just exactly what it says, AND I get to have a biblical worldview that is completely coherent both with itself and with such common and foundational concepts as love, righteousness and justice, leaving me with an entire doctrinal system that is FULLY integrated with the reality of the life was are all forced to live on this Earth.

Maybe it's fully integrated, but if it splits the churches into factions that are believing different gospels, including one that says you can be saved by following the law, when Paul says explicitly to the Jews that you can't be saved by following the law, then is it really what we should be promoting?
[Act 13:39 KJV] And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye (the Jews following the law) could not be justified by the law of Moses.
These words were spoken by Paul to Jews. If then they could be saved by just hearing the other apostles say "you CAN be justified by the law of Moses", was Paul lying?

 

[JudgeRightly]

So what you have, apparently, is that Jews are compelled to be circumcised and non-Jews are not,

Something isn't adding up then:

He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 17:12, Genesis 17:13, Genesis 17:14 - New King James Version

He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant.

www.biblegateway.com

And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it. In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.”

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 12:43, Exodus 12:44, Exodus 12:45, Exodus 12:46, Exodus 12:47, Exodus 12:48, Exodus 12:49 - New King James Version

Passover Regulations - And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it.

www.biblegateway.com

When you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to defile it—My house—and when you offered My food, the fat and the blood, then they broke My covenant because of all your abominations. . . . Thus says the Lord God: “No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner who is among the children of Israel.

Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 44:7, Ezekiel 44:9 - New King James Version

When you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to defile it—My house—and when you offered My food, the fat and the blood, then they broke My covenant because of all your abominations.

www.biblegateway.com

Why are Gentiles no longer (as the Old Testament clearly shows that had to, before) required to circumcise, yet Jews still are?

 

[Lon]

That shows not who the author of Hebrews isn't, but how fragile your theology system is.

Why?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are you saying that Paul never had anything confirmed to him by the other apostles? You don't think he listened to their stories of Jesus feeding the 5 thousand, or how He calmed the sea or walked on water? Just because Paul had direct communication with Jesus doesn't mean he never heard anything from the others.

I mean, this is pretty clear:

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 1:11, Galatians 1:12, Galatians 1:15, Galatians 1:16, Galatians 1:17, Galatians 1:18, Galatians 1:19, Galatians 1:21, Galatians 1:22, Galatians 2:1, Galatians 2:2, Galatians 2:6, Galatians 2:7, Galatians 2:9 - New Kin

Call to Apostleship - But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

www.biblegateway.com

No. Paul rarely spoke with the Twelve. He hardly had any contact with them, to the point where their congregations didn't even know what he looked like.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Something isn't adding up then:

He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 17:12, Genesis 17:13, Genesis 17:14 - New King James Version

He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant.

www.biblegateway.com

And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it. In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.”

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 12:43, Exodus 12:44, Exodus 12:45, Exodus 12:46, Exodus 12:47, Exodus 12:48, Exodus 12:49 - New King James Version

Passover Regulations - And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it.

www.biblegateway.com

When you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to defile it—My house—and when you offered My food, the fat and the blood, then they broke My covenant because of all your abominations. . . . Thus says the Lord God: “No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner who is among the children of Israel.

Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 44:7, Ezekiel 44:9 - New King James Version

When you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to defile it—My house—and when you offered My food, the fat and the blood, then they broke My covenant because of all your abominations.

www.biblegateway.com

Why are Gentiles no longer (as the Old Testament clearly shows that had to, before) required to circumcise, yet Jews still are?

The only, repeat, the ONLY way to resolve this is for there to be two peoples, two programs...

The first people group is Israel, a nation. The first program is the establishment of her kingdom with Christ on her throne.

The second people group is the Body of Christ, a creature. The second program is the dispensation of the grace of God.

... And for there to be different people called to minister to those two groups...

Peter and the other of the Twelve to Israel.
Paul to the Body of Christ.

... And that just because some things from both programs overlap, doesn't mean that they are the same program, nor should they be considered as such...

Both programs teach everlasting life.
Both programs teach forgiveness, and other such things.
Both programs teach love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

Both programs are based in grace.

... But one is law, undergirded by grace, and the other is grace through faith.

The law teaches "you must be circumcised."

And under that law, that included Gentiles.

But under Paul's program, there is no requirement, no law, to be circumcised...

... Because circumcision as part of the law was symbolic (yet still a very real thing) for cutting off the flesh, while Paul's program circumcision of the flesh is a process brought about not through a physical blade, but a spiritual one wielded by the Holy Spirit, to cut off the "flesh," the desires of the body.

 

[Clete]

You were accusing me of ignoring the plain text, not your points. Why change the conversation?

This demonstrates a level of dishonesty that I don't understand and am unwilling to deal with. I hope you had a fun time writing that post. I didn't read a word of it past that sentence.