Look it up for yourself, don't take MAD's word for it. I think Paul wrote parts of Hebrews but MANY authors are listed. Look it up
THERE IS AN ADVANTAGE TO NOT TRUST IN OSAS.
- Thread starter Grosnick Marowbe
- Start date
Look it up for yourself, don't take MAD's word for it. I think Paul wrote parts of Hebrews but MANY authors are listed. Look it up
No ,
I am sad that many do not heed the warnings in scripture as if they will not need them.
You have too much confidence in yourself.
It will be broken in due course.
LA
heir
TOL Subscriber
Why would I say that Paul wrote Hebrews when the evidence points to the contrary? I am fully persuaded that Paul didn't write Hebrews for the aforementioned reasons that brother steko mentioned and others too. Much of what was said in Hebrews does not line up with that which Paul preached in Romans through Philemon. One example I already showed in response to TL's comment and here's another example. The writer of Hebrews (written to Hebrews) writes:
Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Hebrews 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
While Paul writes that those of us who have trusted the Lord after hearing and believing the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise until the redemption of the purchased possession!
Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Ephesians 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
It's not hard to see that we have eternal security while the Hebrews don't!
How's the baloney business coming along? I've heard you have a very lucrative franchise.
Are you sobbing day and night? Hopefully, your eyes won't get so
filled with tears that you develop an irritation/infection?
musterion
Well-known member
Now you've made him mad. Workers and grace deniers NEED Hebrews, mostly for ch. 6.
heir
TOL Subscriber
It's why they rebel against 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV!
Right Divider
Body part
I guess that you think that they're full-time TOL employees.
Amen
achduke
Active member
I do not understand why you think only part of the bible applies to certain groups.
Are you a Roman?
Are you a Corinthian?
Are you a Galatian?
Are you a Ephesian?
Are you a Philippian?
Are you a Colossian?
Are you a Thessalonian?
Is your name Timothy?
Is your name Titus?
Is your name Philemon, Apphia or Archippus?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You do not believe Leviticus is for your direct obedience, for example.
achduke
Active member
Much of Leviticus cannot be applied without a physical temple. I believe we are all Israel grafted onto the root.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Our approach uses the same principle.
Some things in the Bible aren't meant for my direct obedience.
Your problem is, you don't know how to rightly divide the written word
of God. (The Bible) For instance, Matthew through John is pertaining
to and written to the House of Israel. It's not pertaining to/written to
the gentiles and the Body of Christ. If one doesn't know who is being
spoken to, they'll get confused and see contradictions that aren't there.
James says: "faith without works is dead." James was speaking to the
scattered sheep of Israel. Paul, speaking to the gentiles, tells them
faith alone is necessary without works. Sounds like a contradiction,
right? But, it's not. James was speaking to the House of Israel whereas,
Paul is speaking (His Gospel) to the gentiles.
There were two distinct Gospels being taught back then. The Kingdom
Gospel to the House of Israel and the Grace Gospel to the gentiles.
achduke
Active member
Do you think the New Covenant was made with the Gentiles or Israel?
Refer back to post #95. I added to it.
If one desires to look at it as covenants, Israel in the Old Testament had to
shed the blood of animals. When Christ died and shed His blood, that was
their new covenant. The covenant with the gentiles was an original covenant
because they didn't have a covenant with God before the New Testament.
I prefer to look at it with regards to two different Gospels being preached.
shed the blood of animals. When Christ died and shed His blood, that was
their new covenant. The covenant with the gentiles was an original covenant
because they didn't have a covenant with God before the New Testament.
I prefer to look at it with regards to two different Gospels being preached.
achduke
Active member
The shedding of blood was for atonement.
Where is the separate covenant with the gentiles?
PJ, I'm staring 60 in the eye and I've been at this since my thirties. Believe me, I have "looked it up for myself." This Christianity Lite (all the reward and none of the suffering) known as Dispensationalism is a relatively recent arrival upon the scene as it concerns Christian doctrine and it has undergone numerous changes during its brief existence. By way of illustration, here is part of the introduction to the Companion Bible (King James) with notes by E.W. Bullinger, a preeminent Dispensationalist of his day. Page 2 contains his preface to Hebrews and almost all of it has to do with the authorship of the book.
http://www.companionbiblecondensed.com/NT/Hebrews.pdf
If you took the time to read it you'll note his extensive arguments for Paul being the author. He shared the majority opinion of his day and the days prior. This is one of many illustrations of how Dispensationalism as it is known today has mutated over the years to the point that it's early adherents would now be seen as heretics.
If you want to continue to see the Bible through the lens of Dispensationalism, fine. Just take the time to study it's advent and development so that you can offer an explanation for your belief through your study rather than ignore, mock and obfuscate as others in this thread do when asked to explain why they hold their beliefs.
Last edited: