The Gospel of the Kingdom and the plot twist.

SKC

Member
Paul did not write Hebrews.
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".
 

Rhema

Active member
Eve was deceived, Adam was not and...so?
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, ...

Adam partook because he loved how he looked in his wife's eyes.
Well, that's truly nothing but conjecture.

This was the "knowing". ( Intimacy )
Being in love with the things that are of the world.
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
 

Rhema

Active member
This passage below is typical of the apostle Paul, who wrote over half of the New Testament.
Technically Paul wrote "over half" of what was accepted as the New Testament.

Even the King James translators -- a very large company of devout and learned men -- identified the writer as Paul.
Uh.... duh ???

(Hebrews 13:25 KJV) Grace be with you all. Amen. Written to the Hebrews from Italy, by Timothy.

Rhema
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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".
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
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
Is there anything to be gained by knowing who wrote Hebrews?
It won't change a single word of the epistle.
I love the book of Hebrews.
It ties the old ways to Jesus, and to His supersession of them.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Paul did not write Hebrews.

I don't typically post links to other people's arguments but there's too much material and not enough time and I don't want to leave that claim without some support, therefore....

11 reasons why Paul did not write Hebrews

The most compelling argument, in my view, has to do with Paul having been given what he repeatedly refers to as "his (my) Gospel", by direct divine revelation from the risen Jesus Christ Himself.
I don't believe Paul wrote Hebrews either because the writing style of Hebrews is much more eloquent than Paul's writings.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Is there anything to be gained by knowing who wrote Hebrews?
It won't change a single word of the epistle.
True.


I love the book of Hebrews.
It ties the old ways to Jesus, and to His supersession of them.
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.
 

SKC

Member
I don't believe Paul wrote Hebrews either because the writing style of Hebrews is much more eloquent than Paul's writings.
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
It is only a fallacy to those who recognize no authority.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
But we do not even need this since I showed from Scripture that Paul is the writer to the Hebrews.
No, you have not. You've simply confirmed you own bias. Great job!

A few things to note:
  • Many people could call Timothy OUR brother.
  • This could be a different person named Timothy.
  • Anyone can write "Pray for us", etc.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
And is there any reason why Paul could not be extremely eloquent under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
We have no evidence of Paul writing with the eloquent style of the writer of Hebrews.

As a matter of fact it is God the Holy Spirit who is the Author of Hebrews and Paul is merely the writer.
Every writer of scripture was inspired, but they didn't have the same style of writing.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I don't believe Paul wrote Hebrews either because the writing style of Hebrews is much more eloquent than Paul's writings.
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:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
And is there any reason why Paul could not be extremely eloquent under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
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?

As a matter of fact it is God the Holy Spirit who is the Author of Hebrews and Paul is merely the writer.
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?

And yet at the end of the epistle we see the apostle Paul addressing the Hebrew Christians.
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
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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.
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:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Is there anything to be gained by knowing who wrote Hebrews?
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.

It won't change a single word of the epistle.
Quite true but it would significantly alter the context.

I love the book of Hebrews.
It ties the old ways to Jesus, and to His supersession of them.
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

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
... @Idolater The ONLY authority we have comes from God, and then directly from Scripture.

"The Plot" is NOT authoritative in the sense that you mean it, in the way that you think that the Catechism is "authoritative."
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.
It IS, however, authoritative in that, compared to any other work written by men and NOT directly inspired by God (as Scripture is), it compresses (I'd use "condense," but that sort of implies that some material is left out) Bob's 35+ years (the Second Edition of The Plot was finished just before he passed) of Bible study into a three-hundred page book, in a manner that is easily accessible and even easier to understand, while still taking into account EVERYTHING that is in the Bible.
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.
I don't know of any errors in it, if there are any. But it is internally consistent, and consistent with what the Bible teaches.

Bob said that if there was one thing He would ask God before he died, it's if there was any error in what he taught. That principle of wanting to teach what is right is evident in "The Plot."
But that principle exists in Catholicism's Magisterium too, so that's a wash.
I would go so far as to say that, if there ARE any errors in what he taught, and/or what is written in "The Plot," they are not significant enough to affect the rest of what he taught. And that's the same argument I make about the Bible itself: That any errors contained within do not affect the overarching story, the plot, of the Bible, the overview, which is a testament to how well it is written, and why it was written as a book, and not just a list of principles for people to follow. I'd even go so far as to say that it is second only to the Bible itself: you will never obtain a better understanding or overview of the Bible (aside from just reading the Bible itself) through any other man-made document than "The Plot."
"['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.
I cannot give it any higher praise than that, for to do so would put it on the same level as the Bible, and I refuse to do that, and is something I caution @Jefferson and anyone else in calling "The Plot" authoritative, as explained above, which is by no means an exhaustive list.
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.
Idolater, the only way you're going to find out whether "The Plot" is worth reading or not is to just read it.
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?


The convo itt is resembling a fallacy of the stone rn to me iow.
It WILL open your eyes.
Begging the question that they're shut.
 
Last edited:

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
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.
Why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire Paul to be equally as eloquent when Paul wrote his other epistles?
 
Top