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

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Because he's writing those other epistles to Gentiles.

Galatians 2:7-9 says that Paul agreed to go to the uncircumcision, while the Twelve agreed to go to the circumcision. (AKA, Gentiles, Jews, respectively).

We've been over this. Paul was preaching to the Jews throughout his ministry.

Do you think that we preach that the gospel of grace is exclusive to the Gentiles?

That Paul went to the Jews in the Gentile cities he traveled to does not mean that Paul was sent to the Jews.

Also, I would like to point out that aside from a few short mission trips, the Twelve (what remained of them, at least) hardly ever left Jerusalem even after being given a direct order by Christ (which Jesus gave them the authority to choose to disregard if they so chose) to go out into the world.

That agreement is not the abject dividing line you are trying to make it.
Acts 28:17 (KJV) And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men [and] brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Acts 28:23 (KJV) And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening.

Reminder, this occurred when Paul was in Rome, a Gentile city.

Paul was not violating his agreement he made with the Twelve in Galatians 2 by preaching to the Jews during his going to the Gentiles. The Gospel of Grace is for all, both Jew and Gentile alike, for in the Body of Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek."

But you would have to show conclusive evidence that Paul wrote to the Jews, to be able to provide evidence that Hebrews was written by Him, whereas we have multiple instances of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Paul did not write Hebrews.

Galatians 2:7-9, Acts 15:23-29, Paul's greetings in the letters we know he DID write versus the lack of such greeting in Hebrews, the usage of some terms and phrases that should be present that refer to the same thing or to the same Jesus Christ, the different styles of writing, all of these things and more point to Hebrews having a different author than Paul.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Galatians 2:7-9 says that Paul agreed to go to the uncircumcision, while the Twelve agreed to go to the circumcision. (AKA, Gentiles, Jews, respectively).



Do you think that we preach that the gospel of grace is exclusive to the Gentiles?

That Paul went to the Jews in the Gentile cities he traveled to does not mean that Paul was sent to the Jews.

Also, I would like to point out that aside from a few short mission trips, the Twelve (what remained of them, at least) hardly ever left Jerusalem even after being given a direct order by Christ (which Jesus gave them the authority to choose to disregard if they so chose) to go out into the world.



Reminder, this occurred when Paul was in Rome, a Gentile city.

Paul was not violating his agreement he made with the Twelve in Galatians 2 by preaching to the Jews during his going to the Gentiles. The Gospel of Grace is for all, both Jew and Gentile alike, for in the Body of Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek."
Such a distinction makes the agreement of little substance. If Paul says he won't go to the Jews, and then he goes to the Jews, what is the agreement about?
But you would have to show conclusive evidence that Paul wrote to the Jews, to be able to provide evidence that Hebrews was written by Him, whereas we have multiple instances of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Paul did not write Hebrews.
I agree there is probably evidence that he didn't write Hebrews, but to use the fact that he didn't elsewhere write to the Jews as evidence that he never wrote to the Jews, including Hebrews, is circular.
Galatians 2:7-9, Acts 15:23-29, Paul's greetings in the letters we know he DID write versus the lack of such greeting in Hebrews,
But you have to offset it by the complete lack of any greeting whatsoever. Who would do that? And why? The other epistle that I can think of which has no greeting is 1 John, which also has little in the form of a closing.

The 13:23 reference to Timothy tells us it was someone who knew Paul's disciples well, and anyone who was a disciple of Paul would likely be true to any agreement he made with the 12.
the usage of some terms and phrases that should be present that refer to the same thing or to the same Jesus Christ, the different styles of writing, all of these things and more point to Hebrews having a different author than Paul.
Let's talk through these a bit. Can one of you explain the writing style reasoning?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Because he's writing those other epistles to Gentiles.
He's writing those to anyone in the body of Christ.
He wouldn't want to refer to their high priests as a comparison, would he?
Since the body of Christ has no priesthood nor priest, it makes sense that he does not teach the body of Christ about it/them.
In some, it's only used in the salutations. If the first page was ripped off, as I suggested, that term could have gotten lost. But he's also making the case for Jesus's lordship to the Hebrews, so he might have reason to avoid its use.
That is a very lame attempt to redirect attention.
Which are all worthy of consideration in this discussion.

We've been over this. Paul was preaching to the Jews throughout his ministry.
Only to unbelieving Jews... i.e., the uncircumcised in heart and mind.
That agreement is not the abject dividing line you are trying to make it.
Acts 28:17 (KJV) And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men [and] brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Acts 28:23 (KJV) And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening.
Still trying to convert unbelieving Jews. i.e., NOT the circumcision.

If you want to believe that Paul wrote to the Hebrews, so be it. But you've never shown that you have any idea why Paul was called in the first place. Since God already had twelve apostles, there is no need for #13.
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
He's writing those to anyone in the body of Christ.
Thank you, that's a valid correction.
Since the body of Christ has no priesthood nor priest, it makes sense that he does not teach the body of Christ about it/them.

The order of Melchizedek superseded the Levitical priesthood, and was recognized by Abraham prior to his own circumcision. Paul applies Abraham's pre-circumcision belief in God's promises to the church's state of grace without the law: "and it was counted to him for righteousness." Therefore we could well be said to have a high priest in Jesus Christ--after the order of Melchizedek.

That is a very lame attempt to redirect attention.
Meaning you have no rebuttal for it. I'll accept that as accolade.
Only to unbelieving Jews... i.e., the uncircumcised in heart and mind.
Circular again--you presume their state based on your desired conclusion.
Still trying to convert unbelieving Jews. i.e., NOT the circumcision.
Supra
If you want to believe that Paul wrote to the Hebrews, so be it.
You're the one that seemed to think the thread was necessary. Are you now wondering why?
But you've never shown that you have any idea why Paul was called in the first place. Since God already had twelve apostles, there is no need for #13.
Again--circular reasoning. And vacuous reasoning.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Jesus, through John, wrote the letters in Revelation 2-3 to the sealed believers of the 12 Tribes of Israel.
The first portion of the book was written to Jewish believers at the time, but the rest of Revelation was written to a future generation, specifically of Israel.
Paul wrote His letter to the Colossians, and told them to greet their bretheren in Laodicea.
Jesus, on the other hand, through John, wrote specifically to the Laodicean church.
This subtle difference, along with the context of the book, and the rest of scripture, shows that the people being written to in these two chapters have their roots specifically in Israel, and that they are not Gentiles.
Wrong. The context of Acts, Paul's Epistles, specifically Galatians 2 (the agreement within which John did not violate even after Paul's death), and the whole of Revelation, shows that John was writing to Jewish Believers, not Gentiles.
So what?
So what?
Everyone left on the earth after the rapture, yes. That includes Israel.



Because Paul is explicit: The Body of Christ is a new creature, an organism, not a corporate entity, a nation, like Israel is.
Yes, the "BODY of Christ." Not "nation." Israel was a nation. The Body of Christ is an organism with many body parts.
So Jesus used John to talk to the nation of Israel who didn't believe in Him.
You are unbelievable.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Thank you, that's a valid correction.
You're welcome.
The order of Melchizedek superseded the Levitical priesthood, and was recognized by Abraham prior to his own circumcision. Paul applies Abraham's pre-circumcision belief in God's promises to the church's state of grace without the law: "and it was counted to him for righteousness." Therefore we could well be said to have a high priest in Jesus Christ--after the order of Melchizedek.
Paul never mentioned that "the order of Melchizedek" was involved. Again, you are making a ridiculous stretch.
Meaning you have no rebuttal for it. I'll accept that as accolade.
Your comment was dumb. With SIXTY FIVE references in thirteen books, it's clearly not used simply as a "salutation".
Circular again--you presume their state based on your desired conclusion.
Nonsense. You are falsely accusing Paul of breaking his solemn agreement with the twelve.
You're the one that seemed to think the thread was necessary. Are you now wondering why?
Nope.
Again--circular reasoning. And vacuous reasoning.
Supra. Paul did not renege on his agreement.
 

Derf

Well-known member
You're welcome.

Paul never mentioned that "the order of Melchizedek" was involved. Again, you are making a ridiculous stretch.
Circular. That's the question, whether Paul mentioned Melchizedek (when he wrote Hebrews)
Your comment was dumb. With SIXTY FIVE references in thirteen books, it's clearly not used simply as a "salutation".
Not "simply", but it clearly was used so.
Nonsense. You are falsely accusing Paul of breaking his solemn agreement with the twelve.
Your comprisal of the "agreement" is so loose as to allow anything you say it to be, so it's merely a tool to help you win arguments. If you don't agree, please give a full description of what the agreement comprised, including who was off limits to whom and how could one tell?
Nope.

Supra. Paul did not renege on his agreement.
Supra.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
So Jesus used John to talk to the nation of Israel who didn't believe in Him.
You are unbelievable.
What?

John's ministry (along with the rest of the Twelve and James (i.e. the writer of the book of James) was toward BELIEVING members of the nation of Israel. Their writings will become primary, as Paul's are now, when the Body of Christ is removed at the rapture and Christ turns again toward Israel and completes their 70th week (see Daniel 9) and then during His reign from Jerusalem where He will rule the world, under the law, with wisdom, righeousness and an iron fist.

Is that idea really so hard to understand?

I mean, if you want to disagree then that's fine! That's supposedly what we're all here for, right? But can't you come up with something that isn't so totally insipid? Put some actual effort into it and make a real argument. Either that, or admit that you cannot and then go do some serious thinking about what that ought to mean about what you've been taught to believe.


P.S. I have Hoping on ignore because he is stupid and incapable of allowing any argument about anything to move him an inch off his heresy. The above wasn't really written for his benefit and I'm not likely to ever see any response he might write. The sentiment expressed above doesn't just apply to him, however. The so called "arguments" against Pauline Dispensationalism (a.k.a. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism) have been ridiculous around here for decades and this thread is no different except that they seem to be even worse than normal. Hoping's contribution taking the prize for the most insipid that I've seen in quite a long time and thus prompting this post.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Right Divider said:
But you've never shown that you have any idea why Paul was called in the first place. Since God already had twelve apostles, there is no need for #13.
Again--circular reasoning. And vacuous reasoning.
In what conceivable way is that argument circular?

Did Jesus not spend years training His apostles?
Did Jesus give the Twelve the "Great Commission" or didn't He?
Where not ALL TWELVE of the apostles (i.e. including the newly added, Matthias) filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?

Where is the need for a thirteenth apostle who not only did not confer with the Twelve about "his gospel" but states plainly that it was not taught to him (i.e. by an regular person) but that it was given to him by divine revelation (Galatians 1:11-12)!

If that's a circular argument, or if it begs the question (same thing), then that would be an effective rebuttal to it, but an argument is not circular because you declare it to be so. You have to actually demonstrate how it presupposes the premise its attempting to support. Can you do that or where you just blowing so much smoke?

Clete
 

Hoping

Well-known member
What?

John's ministry (along with the rest of the Twelve and James (i.e. the writer of the book of James) was toward BELIEVING members of the nation of Israel.
Agreed, but some don't seem to be able to differentiate the believing Israelites from the unbelieving Israelites.
Their writings will become primary, as Paul's are now, when the Body of Christ is removed at the rapture and Christ turns again toward Israel and completes their 70th week (see Daniel 9) and then during His reign from Jerusalem where He will rule the world, under the law, with wisdom, righeousness and an iron fist.
The believers are not going to be removed before anyone else.
Is that idea really so hard to understand?
I can never understand false beliefs.
I mean, if you want to disagree then that's fine! That's supposedly what we're all here for, right? But can't you come up with something that isn't so totally insipid? Put some actual effort into it and make a real argument. Either that, or admit that you cannot and then go do some serious thinking about what that ought to mean about what you've been taught to believe.
Thank you for the exhortation.
P.S. I have Hoping on ignore because he is stupid and incapable of allowing any argument about anything to move him an inch off his heresy. The above wasn't really written for his benefit and I'm not likely to ever see any response he might write. The sentiment expressed above doesn't just apply to him, however. The so called "arguments" against Pauline Dispensationalism (a.k.a. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism) have been ridiculous around here for decades and this thread is no different except that they seem to be even worse than normal. Hoping's contribution taking the prize for the most insipid that I've seen in quite a long time and thus prompting this post.
Do you feel that name calling bolsters your opinions?
I am tempted to try your methods, but having the Holy Spirit allows me to resist the devil so he will flees from me with his "insipid" temptations.
 

Derf

Well-known member
In what conceivable way is that argument circular?

Did Jesus not spend years training His apostles?
Did Jesus give the Twelve the "Great Commission" or didn't He?
Where not ALL TWELVE of the apostles (i.e. including the newly added, Matthias) filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?

Where is the need for a thirteenth apostle who not only did not confer with the Twelve about "his gospel" but states plainly that it was not taught to him (i.e. by an regular person) but that it was given to him by divine revelation (Galatians 1:11-12)!

If that's a circular argument, or if it begs the question (same thing), then that would be an effective rebuttal to it, but an argument is not circular because you declare it to be so. You have to actually demonstrate how it presupposes the premise its attempting to support. Can you do that or where you just blowing so much smoke?

Clete
Remember that the thread is about whether Paul wrote Hebrews. The assumption that Paul needs to be excluded from the 12 apostles is partly based on the idea that he never wrote anything to the Jews. But if you then use that "fact" to say he didn't write anything (like Hebrews) to the Jews, the conclusion is a restatement of the starting assumption, which is circular reasoning.

If he did write Hebrews, then he might hold a position among the 12, which would destroy much of the MAD distinction between the two gospels. I can see why MADs so vehemently deny that Paul taught the same gospel.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Remember that the thread is about whether Paul wrote Hebrews. The assumption that Paul needs to be excluded from the 12 apostles is partly based on the idea that he never wrote anything to the Jews. But if you then use that "fact" to say he didn't write anything (like Hebrews) to the Jews, the conclusion is a restatement of the starting assumption, which is circular reasoning.

If he did write Hebrews, then he might hold a position among the 12, which would destroy much of the MAD distinction between the two gospels. I can see why MADs so vehemently deny that Paul taught the same gospel.
The Bible makes it clear that Paul's ministry is separate from the twelve. That you cannot understand this plain teaching is your own fault. If you'd like to try to argue that "he might hold a position among the 12", start a thread and have at it.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Remember that the thread is about whether Paul wrote Hebrews. The assumption that Paul needs to be excluded from the 12 apostles is partly based on the idea that he never wrote anything to the Jews. But if you then use that "fact" to say he didn't write anything (like Hebrews) to the Jews, the conclusion is a restatement of the starting assumption, which is circular reasoning.
Paul wrote 1st Corinthians 11 (about the Lord's Supper) to Jews.
After all the Lord's Supper was only celebrated by Jews since it is part of the New Covenant, which only included Jews and all Israel and not Gentiles who didn't convert to Levitical Temple Judaism.
Otherwise why is it in there? It was Corinth and a Gentile church, not Jewish.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Your bragging is a sin.
Speaking about the ability to resist the devil that God has provided me isn't bragging.
It is the glorification of God.
Plus, it is available to all who will repent of sin and get water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their past sins.
Praise be to God !

James writes..."Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)
Is James bragging?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The assumption that Paul needs to be excluded from the 12 apostles is partly based on the idea that he never wrote anything to the Jews.

Have you even bothered to read Acts 1?

It's not an assumption that Paul isn't of the Twelve. It's a matter of fact. The one who filled Judas's position was Matthias. "He was numbered with the eleven apostles" is pretty explicit...
 
Top