Saying it doesn't make it so.That shows not who the author of Hebrews isn't, but how fragile your theology system is.
Contradictions are false, Derf.
Saying it doesn't make it so.That shows not who the author of Hebrews isn't, but how fragile your theology system is.
We unequivocally know who did not write Hebrews.Whoever was in charge of what was going to get handed down to us, and what wasn't, decided that WHO wrote Hebrews, WASN'T going to get handed down to us. For whatever reason.
We can only speculate, about who wrote Hebrews, and about WHY WE DON'T KNOW who wrote Hebrews.
Contradictions often stem from false presuppositions, as you well know. Since Hebrews was written by someone who knew Timothy, that person also must have known Paul and his teachings. So it is very likely that he wrote from Pauls doctrinal position. Therefore making it out to be non-Pauline is purely based on a desire to maintain a crumbling theological system.Saying it doesn't make it so.
Contradictions are false, Derf.
Talk about false presuppositionContradictions often stem from false presuppositions, as you well know. Since Hebrews was written by someone who knew Timothy, that person also must have known Paul and his teachings. So it is very likely that he wrote from Pauls doctrinal position. Therefore making it out to be non-Pauline is purely based on a desire to maintain a crumbling theological system.
If so, then they aren't actually contradictions.Contradictions often stem from false presuppositions, as you well know.
Okay.Since Hebrews was written by someone who knew Timothy, that person also must have known Paul and his teachings.
This conclusion does not follow from its premise.So it is very likely that he wrote from Pauls doctrinal position.
I think you knew this was false when you stated it. I don't understand what profit you get from saying such things but it has the opposite effect you intend. It is you that looks ridiculous when you make such blatantly idiotic statements.Therefore making it out to be non-Pauline is purely based on a desire to maintain a crumbling theological system.
Paul’s gospel was a direct revelation from the risen, glorified Christ concerning the formation of the Body of Christ and the dispensation of the grace of God (Ephesians 3:1–9). He ministered as the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13), sent to proclaim the unprophesied mystery that had been “kept secret since the world began” (Romans 16:25). His sphere was heavenly, his calling distinct, and his message entirely new.“But I certify 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 revelation of Jesus Christ.”
— Galatians 1:11–12
That statement alone disqualifies Paul. He did not receive his message from those who heard the Lord on earth, but directly from Christ in glory. To say Paul wrote Hebrews is to make Paul contradict his own testimony.“Which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.”
— Hebrews 2:3
Paul’s gospel proclaims a salvation that is already secured by grace through faith alone, without works, and irrevocable because it depends entirely on Christ’s finished work. Hebrews warns of forfeiting salvation; Paul declares eternal security in Christ (Romans 8:1, 38–39). Both cannot be simultaneously true for the same audience under the same dispensation.“If we hold fast the confidence…” (Hebrews 3:6)
“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins…” (Hebrews 10:26)
I'm going to focus on this point, because i don't have time to deal with the rest right now. Paul"s ministry was continually to Hebrews (Jews). In every town he visited, he went to the synagogue first, if they had one, or to the God-fearing Jews who met together if there were any. Throughout the book of Acts, which gives the account of Paul"s missionary journeys, the same theme holds: he would preach to the Jew first, and then to Gentiles. When the Hebrews of a town rejected his message, he woukd turn to the Gentiles. Such continued until the very last chapter of Acts. To say otherwise makes YOU look ridiculous, or at least like you've never read the book of Acts, which I'm sure is not true.And it ignores the fact that Paul's ministry wasn't to Hebrews
If it was Paul, then we know why...because a lot of the Jews still hated him for bringing in Gentiles without circumcision. He omitted, or somebody delivering the letter probably deleted, the greeting and closing sections that would have confirmed Paul's authorship to keep the messenger from being killed.
This misses the point. Once again, I think you knew this when you wrote it.I'm going to focus on this point, because i don't have time to deal with the rest right now. Paul"s ministry was continually to Hebrews (Jews).
Once again, it seems you would have to be intentionally missing the point here. Or is it that you think that your copy of Acts reads entirely different than mine and that the fact that I call myself a "Mid-Acts Dispensationalists" somehow means that I've never read the book of Acts and know nothing at all about what it says?In every town he visited, he went to the synagogue first, if they had one, or to the God-fearing Jews who met together if there were any. Throughout the book of Acts, which gives the account of Paul"s missionary journeys, the same theme holds: he would preach to the Jew first, and then to Gentiles. When the Hebrews of a town rejected his message, he woukd turn to the Gentiles. Such continued until the very last chapter of Acts.
I have no doubt that you are indeed entirely certain that I've read the book of Acts which should be, by itself, sufficient to tell you that you've missed the point. The question is whether you missed on purpose or not.To say otherwise makes YOU look ridiculous, or at least like you've never read the book of Acts, which I'm sure is not true.
Paul’s gospel was a direct revelation from the risen, glorified Christ concerning the formation of the Body of Christ and the dispensation of the grace of God (Ephesians 3:1–9). He ministered as the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13), sent to proclaim the unprophesied mystery that had been “kept secret since the world began” (Romans 16:25). His sphere was heavenly, his calling distinct, and his message entirely new.“But I certify 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 revelation of Jesus Christ.” — Galatians 1:11–12
That statement alone disqualifies Paul. He did not receive his message from those who heard the Lord on earth, but directly from Christ in glory. To say Paul wrote Hebrews is to make Paul contradict his own testimony.“Which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.” — Hebrews 2:3
I think Luke is an excellent candidate for the authorship of Hebrews! It would fit both stylistically and doctrinally.$$ Heb 2:3
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him];
This clearly sets the author, whoever it is, apart from the Disciples. And those disciples who weren't among the Twelve as well (the 70 set out two-by-two, Luke 10:1). The author is definitely saying he is not among those who heard the Lord during His Earthly ministry. This as far as I can tell is the point of contention with those who deny it is Paul. They argue this is contradictory with Paul's words in Galatians:
$$ Ga 1:11
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
$$ Ga 1:12
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 2:3 is doing a lot of work for those who argue it wasn't Paul, but I can't say they're wrong. It reminds us of what Luke said, another man who as far as we know, never heard the Lord personally either:
$$ Lu 1:2
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luke here is saying, like the author of Hebrews, that he wasn't taught the Gospel directly from the Lord on Earth. He is saying he heard it from others. This is why those arguing against Pauline authorship do so, because it sounds more like Luke than like Paul. (Not saying Luke authored Hebrews, just that there is a similarity between Luke 1:2 and Hebrews 2:3.)
Is it possible for Paul to write Hebrews 2:3, and him only mean that he was not among the Twelve nor the Seventy, when Christ walked the Earth? I guess it's not impossible.