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

[Nick M]

We are not joint-heirs with Israel, we are joint-heirs with Christ.

I didn't say with Israel, only that Paul says we are now heirs. Even though were strangers to the covenants of promise.

5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,

 

[Idolater]

While this will not make you Mid Acts, it will help you grasp appreciatively the point(s) of difference. Most 2nd Acts reject Mid Acts outright. In my 2nd Acts seminary, we didn't even get to study them because they were 'way off base.'

So how did they do that? What was their primary argument?

Of course a 2nd Acts college would uphold 2nd Acts and eschew all contenders as is in keeping with the doctrinal statement and professors in good 2nd Acts standing.

Calvinist professors would do the same for Calvinism too ofc, your point being that this is not abnormal, which I agree is true.

I really wish they'd have at least spent a week on Mid Acts, however. Am I Mid Acts? Many would say so. Some might not, but I think I'm pretty close. <-- Good thread for your consideration concerning my theology.

Speaking of which, is it possible to set aside the question of early Hebrews appearing to say that the author of Hebrews (Who is regardless the Holy Spirit, Who has spoken through the prophets and so we presume also by the Apostles, and by those the Apostles recognized as writing Scripture, such as Luke and Mark and whoever the author of Hebrews was, if it wasn't Paul) was taught only by other men and not by God Himself, as we know Paul was? and then to consider if there's anything ELSE in Hebrews that we think can positively rule out Paul from writing Hebrews? I mean certainly he was an expert in the Law, there's no possibility that the content of Hebrews was above his head–iow the depth of thought and breadth of Scripture citation are both right in line with what we'd expect from something that Paul would write.

Certainly Church tradition hasn't preserved the author's name, for whatever reason. Seems it wasn't important enough to preserve and transmit by all the bishops. We don't have any reason to think that isn't the APOSTOLIC tradition though, meaning we don't know that the Apostles themselves, didn't fail to emphasize that we always remember who wrote Hebrews. Nobody thought to shore up that knowledge for posterity.

I think that's interesting in [and] of itself, but that's another thread.

 

[Nick M]

What was their primary argument?

They are self righteous and emoting. Just like here. They insist they were in that upper roof for the Jewish festival.

 

[Lon]

So how did they do that? What was their primary argument?

I want to say 'heresy' thus we didn't get further than that.

Calvinist professors would do the same for Calvinism too ofc, your point being that this is not abnormal, which I agree is true.

Yes, I think a professor has to keep tenure. We had one professor who had a short-leash (wasn't 2nd Acts Disp any longer). He was my favorite professor.

Speaking of which, is it possible to set aside the question of early Hebrews appearing to say that the author of Hebrews (Who is regardless the Holy Spirit, Who has spoken through the prophets and so we presume also by the Apostles, and by those the Apostles recognized as writing Scripture, such as Luke and Mark and whoever the author of Hebrews was, if it wasn't Paul) was taught only by other men and not by God Himself, as we know Paul was? and then to consider if there's anything ELSE in Hebrews that we think can positively rule out Paul from writing Hebrews? I mean certainly he was an expert in the Law, there's no possibility that the content of Hebrews was above his head–iow the depth of thought and breadth of Scripture citation are both right in line with what we'd expect from something that Paul would write.

Yes.

Certainly Church tradition hasn't preserved the author's name, for whatever reason. Seems it wasn't important enough to preserve and transmit by all the bishops. We don't have any reason to think that isn't the APOSTOLIC tradition though, meaning we don't know that the Apostles themselves, didn't fail to emphasize that we always remember who wrote Hebrews. Nobody thought to shore up that knowledge for posterity.

I think that's interesting in [and] of itself, but that's another thread.

No, I think it is exactly this thread, and good post.

 

[Nick M]

They (the Catholics) decorate their church better than any other I have been in. I have also never been in a LDS building. And they go all out for the Christmas concerts. And I love it.