Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
I doubt the author of the epistle To the Hebrews was Paul. He said that the gospel was made known to him by those who saw the Lord (Heb 2:3). Paul got his revelation from God, he made that plain and would not have contradicted himself this way.
The epistle To the Hebrews does speak of the inferiority of the law, but it doesn't say that Hebrews couldn't be Hebrews, just that they shouldn't be shrinking back (or "falling away" in your term) from faith in Jesus Christ back to Jewish customs. Do you see the difference? Just like Paul saying to the Galatians that if they try to keep the law that their faith is of none effect, it is because they are gentile Christians, not because they are Christians.
Paul never stopped being a Pharisee, but he never left in the revelation that appeared to him on the road to Damascus: Jesus is the resurrected Lord, and salvation comes to all who confess his name, both to the Jew and to the Greek. Paul held forth that revelation until the day he died.
|
SCRUBBED & REVISED VERSION
(only points raised in 'aron's post are addressed)
Dear 'aron',
I apologize and extend you my deepest regrets for my callous and heartless post.
I allowed myself to be overwhelmed by passion.
I hope you will forgive me.
________________
Moving on...
You began your response by asserting that you didn't think that Paul wrote the book to the Hebrews.
I had previously kindly asked you to go through the book to the Hebrews to discover for yourself that the claims you've made about the dichotomy you believe exists between Jews and Gentiles are, sadly, unsubstantiated. So the thing about the authorship was kind of besides the point.
But let me address it, anyway.
First of all, I think you may have unfortunately misunderstood the actual words that are written in the second chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews.
And the words I believe you have misread are the same words you have made your appeal to as support for your doubts as to the authorship of the epistle.
No problem. We all misread things at one time or the other.
You say that the author says, the "gospel was made known to him by those who saw the Lord"
My version of the Bible doesn't say that .
Here is what it says:
"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was CONFIRMED unto us by those that heard him" (Heb 2:3)
I would like to draw your attention to the word, 'CONFIRM' in this verse.
Some synonyms for this word include:
1. Reassert
2. Corroborate
3. Validate
4. Verify
5. Strengthen
6. Establish
7. Prove
8. Uphold, et cetera
Do you appreciate the subtle difference?
He had already had the gospel made known to him (by revelation, as you correctly pointed out) and now it was simply 'confirmed' to him by those who had been with Jesus.
And the question is: is it true? Can any other part of the Bible corroborate (or, confirm) the claim he has made here in Hebrews? Did it actually happen?
In the epistle to the Galatians, Paul speaks of having gone up to the church in erusalem where those 'which were apostles before him' resided. He went up with Barnabas and Titus. And he met with just Peter and James on one occasion, and on another he met ...
"... privately [with] them which were of reputation -communicating unto them the gospel that [he] preached- lest by any means [he] should run, or had run, in vain.." (Gal 2:2)
Paul, here, is recounting how the gospel was "confirmed" to him by the apostles, and others, in Jerusalem.
Scholars also claim that Paul's distinctive 'signature salutation' i.e. "grace be with you" is used in this epistle.
__________________________________________________ _______
Dear 'aron',
... in the post you have said that the epistle to the Hebrews doesn't say that Hebrews can't be Hebrews, but it does say that they should not return to their Jewish customs.
I'm confused. Is there any difference between those two things?
What does it mean to be a Hebrew?
Perhaps, you'd care to explain.
__________________________________________________ ______
Dear 'aron',
You say Paul was a pharisee all his life and that he never left it.
If, in fact, he remained in the sect of the pharisees, even after his conversion, then why were they seeking to kill him, I ask?
There was also a sect of the pharisees in Jerusalem who believed and professed faith (Acts 15:5). Is there any indication that Paul was any part of them?
There is none.
They commanded that Gentiles should be circumcised and that they should keep the Law of Moses. Paul stood vociferously against this position because he viewed it as a turning away from liberty and a return to bondage.
What did he say about those pharisees?
Let me let the Bible provide the answer:
"But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of FALSE BRETHREN unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage..." (Galatians 2:3-4).
He called his erstwhile fellow-pharisees (who believed) false brethren!
So, if Paul "never stopped being a pharisee", as it is claimed..
...then why would he tell the Philippians:
"I was circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as touching the law, a pharisee... but what things (above) were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ... for whom I have suffered the loss of all [those] things (above), AND DO COUNT THEM BUT DUNG that I may win Christ" ? (Phil 3:5-8)
I don't think he could have made himself more abundantly clear.
He considered being a 'pharisee', and all things to do with the Jewish nation, and its law, and its customs, nothing but LOSS, nothing but DUNG.
In 'American': he called those 'things' good, ole Texan BS!
(his words, not mine)
Be blessed, dear brother, 'aron'