Bipartite or Tripartite Nature of Man?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The author of Hebrews said that s/he got their revelation of Christ from those who'd been eyewitnesses: "This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him" (2:3[NIV]); which strongly contrasts with Paul's gospel narrative: "I didn't receive it from any man" (Gal 1:12).

It doesn't prove that Paul didn't write Hebrews, but it leans in that direction.

You know what WL's reasoning was? "Only Paul could have written a book like Hebrews"... that was it... and on such slender reeds the LC's conceptual edifice was built.

There's no conflict here in verse 2.3. Yes, Paul saw the Lord directly, but that does not negate the fact that "this salvation first announced by the Lord" in the gospels (referring especially to the teachings of Jesus) "was confirmed to us by those who heard Him," referring to the 12 Apostles, Mary and the other women, and perhaps other disciples. The "us" referred to Luke and Paul, and possibly others who assisted in the research, as also Luke implies in his gospel (1.1-4) and Acts (1.1).

The chief critique against Paul's authorship was the excellent grasp of the Greek language. Luke is always considered a potential author because the writing matches his other books, but the chief critique against Luke's authorship was his lack of O.T. knowledge. Both Paul and Luke were close to Timothy. (13.23)

So unless someone can poke a hole in my assertion that Paul authored the rough draft of the book and Luke wrote the final version, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I arrived at my conclusion not from Lee, but by reading historians such as Schaaf. (Volume I, #100, pp. 808-824) Sorry if you don't like it.

[aron]

I doubt Paul wrote 2:3... at best, the "us" is Luke referring to himself and Paul. The passage stresses the mediatory effect of both scripture and witnesses. Paul's writing stresses direct revelation. This was the basis of his ministry, and I seriously doubt he'd undercut that for anything. Of course this is my opinion, and the point is incidental, as OBW said.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

. . . . So unless someone can poke a hole in my assertion that Paul authored the rough draft of the book and Luke wrote the final version, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I arrived at my conclusion not from Lee, but by reading historians such as Schaaf. (Volume I, #100, pp. 808-824) Sorry if you don't like it.

And there you have it. Someone asserted reason for it being Paul. And others assert reasons for others.

If you are holding this out as an opinion — much like everyone else — then there is nothing to "poke a hole in" unless someone claims to have the definitive answer. Your opinion is noted.

But your challenge speaks of certainty. And you have provided nothing that is certain. Only reference to one author, and to a fact that may or may not be relevant to the query at hand. You have therefore provided nothing through which to poke a hole.

And therefore the challenge is reversed. If you are certain that it is so, it is on you to establish the particulars. And being close to Timothy, coupled with knowledge of the OT and mastery of Greek does not make for more than a plausible explanation. Not a bad one. But insufficient to stand as certainty.

If, on the other hand, it is merely an opinion, then unless someone thinks they have the proof of contrary authorship, there is nothing about which to make a challenge.

I accept your position as a reasonable opinion, even if not the majority opinion (both at the end of the fist century and today). As I said, it is irrelevant. If it is inspired, the lack of clear attribution of authorship means little if the inspiration was truly from God.

[Ohio]

But your challenge speaks of certainty. And you have provided nothing that is certain.

Certainty? And what might be your standard for that? Some challenge the authorship of Paul's epistles which lead with his name (e.g. Timothy and Titus), so that provides no "certainty." I referred to Schaaf, the premier church historian, but that provides insufficient "certainty" for you too. My proposal solves all the problems with the authorship, but that is inadequate also.

Because you said so! So be it! And there you have it!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Certainty? And what might be your standard for that? Some challenge the authorship of Paul's epistles which lead with his name (e.g. Timothy and Titus), so that provides no "certainty." I referred to Schaaf, the premier church historian, but that provides insufficient "certainty" for you too. My proposal solves all the problems with the authorship, but that is inadequate also.

Because you said so! So be it! And there you have it!

Where's Anderson Cooper when you need him?

Schaaf is not the final answer, nor the HOTA.

Solving all the problems? Really? And even if you think so, are you sure? Sure enough to get into a battle over it?

I have no problem with anyone thinking it could be, or even seems like Paul. And even deciding to go with it as if true.

But to declare it to be simply so?

They you complain that I even suggested that, as an irrelevant point, it is not established that Paul is the author and you essentially jump into the fray using words that create a presumption of what WE all know.

I thought that having the LCM in the rear-view mirror would be a reminder not to be so certain about things for which there is little or no actual evidence. You might argue that appearing to solve certain problems makes it plausible enough to treat it is true. But if you really want to do it that way, you have to allow for the fact that you are going beyond what matters and what the evidence supports as true — not merely plausible.

A collection of reasonable conjectures does not a single fact create.

Just like the plural of anecdote is not data.

In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity.

It surely isn't essential. So where is the liberty and charity? I made an aside concerning uncertainty on something that probably doesn't even qualify as a non-essential in terms of Christian faith and this is your response?