Already addressed above. Even the King James translators -- a very large company of devout and learned men -- identified the writer as Paul. The title of the epistle in the original KJV is "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews".
The Gospel of the Kingdom and the plot twist.
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
Like any of the "names" on the gospels are.....
It's an educated conclusion based on a number of factors.
Rhema
I understand your supporting "evidence" for such a claim, however look at the logic. If Adam was NOT deceived, then HIS was the transgression because he did so willingly.
That passage never made sense to me, but as 1st. Timothy is not our canon, ...
Well, that's truly nothing but conjecture.
Absolutely not. Of all the 92 places where H1847 is used, it never has this meaning. Or give me a verse. Or even a lexicon entry, for that matter. Meaning... you're just making crap up. (Most do.)
Rhema
Appeal to authority fallacy.
The article I linked to, on the other hand, made actual arguments based on the text of scripture and the message therein. Not the least of which, I alluded to by pointing out that Paul received "his gospel" by direct divine revelation.
Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)
21 Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. 23 But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God in me.
2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation (i.e. he was not summoned by the twelve), 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. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
2:6 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. 7 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 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 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.
vs.
From the Epistle to THE HEBREWS...
Hebrews 2: 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord (i.e. during His earthly ministry), and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him (i.e. the twelve),
Paul's office, ministry and message are all categorically antithetical to the idea that he is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. He definitely did not write it.That's only one of several biblical arguments. It's the only one that necessary but there are others that I could present but likely won't because based on your citing of the translators of the King James Bible as your authority, it would be wasted on you as the above likely will be as well.
Clete
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Sounds just like something I would have said before being convicted by the Holy Spirit.
I don't believe Paul wrote Hebrews either because the writing style of Hebrews is much more eloquent than Paul's writings.
True.
I love it too.
It tells about the superiority of Christ in so many ways.
Superior to sabbath.
Superior to Levite priests.
Superior to torah.
etc.
It is only a fallacy to those who recognize no authority. But we do not even need this since I showed from Scripture that Paul is the writer to the Hebrews.
Do you seriously believe that the canon of the New Testament in is question? Or do you like to argue for the sake of arguing?
And is there any reason why Paul could not be extremely eloquent under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? As a matter of fact it is God the Holy Spirit who is the Author of Hebrews and Paul is merely the writer. And yet at the end of the epistle we see the apostle Paul addressing the Hebrew Christians.
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, I've heard people say that before. I'm not sure what it is that they are referring to specifically but I have no reason to doubt that they have good reason to say it. Eloquence is a bit of a subjective thing and so, if it were me, I'd try to make the argument based on more objectively definable aspects of the writing styles but still, the point is well taken. That point being, that you can tell by reading it, that it isn't written by the same author.
Clete
Last edited:
Yes! There's terrific reason!
The Holy Spirit didn't take over the mind and personality of those who authored the bible. Had that been the case then the entire bible would have been in a consistent style.
Further, what sort of evidence that doesn't fit your narrative couldn't be thrown into the "inspired by the Holy Spirit" catch all bin of arguments we don't like?
The Holy Spirit is not the direct author but rather He inspired the authorship of, not just the book of Hebrews, but the entire bible. That's not quite the same thing. If God had been the direct author and the humans that wrote the words on paper weren't really involved except as mindless conduits, then the entire bible would be written in manner where a consistent style was detectable throughout. This is very clearly not the case.
If you then want to argue that the book of Hebrews is a special case then it would be on you to explain why the book of Hebrews would be the only one where God took over the mind and personality of the author to disguise the fact that Paul wrote it?
No, we don't see Paul addressing anyone. The evidence is overwhelming. Paul flat out did not write Hebrews. The only reason anyone has for saying otherwise is based in their doctrine, not on the text, the grammar, the style, the message nor any other objectively substantive issue related to the book itself.
Clete
I can't even believe you actually posted this for the public to read. You really should be embarrassed.
First of all, a fallacy of logic is not a matter of personal opinion. I guarantee that you have no idea what an appeal to authority fallacy is and that you think it means more than it actually does. It is also very likely that you don't care enough to educate yourself on the matter.
More importantly, did you actually intend to imply that you hold yourself under the authority of those who translated a version of the bible that you've not ever even seen and would have a hard time reading if you did see it?
The likelihood is that you know almost nothing at all about the history of the King James Bible and think that the one you own reads like the one they published in 1611. Not only that, but there is exactly zero doubt that you know even less about those who translated the 1611 King James Bible. You don't know anything about who they were, why they were chosen, what their doctrinal beliefs where or even their names. In short, you know NOTHING about what you're talking about.
Regardless of all that, it is the scripture itself that is authoritative, not those who made a translation of it into English (and thus the fallacy). If you think otherwise, then good luck to you. There wouldn't be any point in even attempting to discuss such a blatantly irrational position. Just go believe whatever it is you feel like believing and stop worrying about whether it makes any sense.
Clete
Last edited:
It isn't important to affirmatively know who the author was but it would be a significant problem if it were proven that Paul was the author. It would be heavy, insurmountable, evidence that the New Testament was self-contradictory and therefore false.
Quite true but it would significantly alter the context.
I'm not sure "supersede" is quite the right concept to use there but the point is well taken. The Epistle to the Hebrews is an amazing book that is just filled to overflowing with super-substantive stuff from beginning to end that, while useful for the member of the Body of Christ even to this day, was just utterly indispensable for any Jewish believer who had come to Christ while the previous dispensation was still in effect as it will be again for those who believe after that Body of Christ is removed and God turns back to Israel.
Clete
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It's not "in the way that [I Idolater] think that the Catechism is authoritative," the Catechism is authoritative by any measure of that word. It is authoritative Catholicism.
What I'm looking for is authoritative Mid Acts Dispensationalism.
I'm not looking for authoritative Bob Enyart though, I'm looking for authoritative MAD, and so if you can tell me that Enyart's book contains authoritative MAD, then it is worth reading. I'm not saying the whole thing must contain nothing but all the positive propositions concerning MAD, but that there are authoritative MAD tenets in the book, and please inform me which ones are the authoritative MAD and which ones are more just Enyart's opinion, however learned they may be.
But that principle exists in Catholicism's Magisterium too, so that's a wash.
"['The Plot'] is second only to the Bible itself [in authority]"
This indicates to me that "The Plot" at least contains authoritative MAD, but your refusal to commit to "The Plot" containing authoritative MAD contrariwise indicates to me that that's not the case. Can you tell me which is it? is "The Plot" authoritative MAD or not? I'm looking for the authoritative narrative or teaching or deposit of doctrine for MAD.
btw I'm saying the same about the Catechism that you say about "The Plot," except that the Catechism, because it includes Apostolic Oral Tradition as well as Scriptures, is equal with the Bible in authority. But that is distinct from saying the Catechism is authoritative Catholicism, you don't have to believe Catholicism's true to believe the Catechism contains all the authoritative tenets of Catholicism's narrative.
You don't have to believe in the content (e.g. in the Trinity or in the hypostatic union dual nature of Christ) to believe the Catechism is authoritative Catholicism.
All I want to know is if "The Plot" contains authoritative MAD tenets or doctrines or teachings. Is "The Plot" the authoritative MAD narrative, as I'm saying the Catechism contains the authoritative Catholic narrative.
I'm not here at this moment arguing Catholicism is correct, I'm trying to identify exactly what MAD is.
All I need to know whether "The Plot" is worth reading is to know that it is authoritative MAD teaching. If it is, then it's worth reading, and if it's not, then it's not. I want to know, what is MAD. Can "The Plot" tell me the authoritative, definitive MAD narrative?
I want to know what you ALL agree to. Like, this thread here, OP @chickenman, does this contain anything at all that all of you Mid Acts Dispensationalists all agree to?
For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained
GO AWAY Let me start by asking that troublemakers and opposers who are already convinced of themselves please refrain from posting in this thread. I would appreciate it if people like godrulz, andyc, cistercian, and others with similar agendas stay away. I'll respectfully ask that the...
theologyonline.com
The convo itt is resembling a fallacy of the stone rn to me iow.
Begging the question that they're shut.
Last edited:
