Talk:Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

That's quite an amusing piece of work! Or is preposterous the right adjective? "Jesus was surely capable of writing a great work, and there is no other known written work by Him. " Did he build the pyramids, too? Surely, he was capable of building great structures, and there are no other known structures built by him?...

AugustO 11:18, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Contents

Did Jesus lie?

Aschlafy, to make your point you have to argue that Jesus was intentionally misleading us in the second verse where it is written that "He (God) spoke to us through (his) son" (ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ). --AugustO 12:12, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Writers at that time (and even some today) spoke about themselves in the third person. E.g., John describes himself as the "disciple whom Jesus loved," rather than in the first person.--Andy Schlafly 13:41, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Please read the verse more carefully - You missed that there is a first person in the sentence: He (God) spoke to us through (his) son. Until you claim that Jesus had a habit of soliloquy, this makes it clear that the writer (one of the us) is someone other than Jesus. AugustO 13:46, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

The whole idea is absurd, let's delete it.

Rereading the epistle, it becomes clear that this insight is nothing but absurd: e.g., Hebrews 13:23-24 show that the author is one of the Christians in Italy. You have to bend, to torture scripture to argue otherwise - and for me, it is clear that the author of this essay didn't read the epistle in detail before making this astonishing claim.

So, I'm for deleting this essay, as it makes Conservapedia looking stupid. Unfortunately, me arguing for deleting this article is the best way to get it featured on the main page. But please, please, think twice before doing so.

--AugustO 12:36, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Ideas should not be so readily censored.--Andy Schlafly 13:43, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Errors should be quickly corrected. --AugustO 13:47, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Hebrews 13:23-34

Know that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he comes shortly, I will see you. Salute all who lead you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

How do you bend these verses to your insight? --AugustO 13:51, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Who needs to spend a lifetime studying centuries' worth of work by serious, trained theologians....

...when you can just make stuff like this up? Whomever wrote this, go propose it to your priest/minister after church tomorrow, and tell us about the reaction you get. MattyD 13:00, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

the last verses include greetings from "those in Italy"...

Are you arguing that an omnipotent Lord could not travel to Italy to greet some friends and make it back to the Middle East in the time frame in question? Deny this and lose all credibility. MattyD 13:07, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

It is misnomer to call this the "Epistle" to the Hebrews.

Here we can agree. In fact, you are agreeing with many Biblical scholars: most think that it is a sermon (Hebrews 1 - 12), followed by an accompanying letter (Hebrews 13). You can find loads of literature on this marvelous epistle. As W. Lane wrote "Hebrews is a delight for the person who enjoys puzzles". But it is traditionally called an epistle - and that won't change, I'm afraid.

Of course the question was risen whether Hebrews 1-12 and Hebrews 13 have the same author - you should look up some of the literature! But only few are thinking that Hebrews 13 is a "postscriptum by another hand", and all known historic evidence stands against it.

I've read of no one who shared your opinion that it "was written by Jesus, or based directly on His writing". The reason you are giving are superficial at best. Before you include this half-baked theory into the CBP you should acquaint yourself with some of the writings of theologians throughout the histories on this epistle.

At the moment this insight has a less sound footing than the ideas of many often well-meaning cranks, like Iman Wilkens's idea that Troy was a city in England or Heribert Illig's idea that a couple of centuries haven't happen. What all such "theories" have in common is that they start with an "insight", and that then the evidence is (perhaps even subconsciously) cherry-picked to fit the idea. The first person to be deceived by such a theory often is its inventor himself!

--AugustO 12:09, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

The Epistle was directed at the Hebrew population...

You are aware that not only "epistle" but also "to the Hebrews" is a misnomer - as this letter wasn't directed to the Hebrews in Palestine? --AugustO 12:51, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

The sermon clearly is intended for the Hebrew population in Jerusalem.--Andy Schlafly 13:11, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
"Clearly intended"? I wouldn't say so - there are very good rivaling theories: Alexandria or even Rome itself (that's what I'm leaning to) --AugustO 13:19, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

How can I take you serious...

...when you are obviously not reading your own sources:

The place of composition was Italy (13:24), and more precisely Rome (inscription at end of the Codex Alexandrinus), where Paul was during his first imprisonment (61-63).

Your source is stating that Jerusalem is the place to which the letter most probably was addressed. Be more careful!

AugustO 13:06, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

It's not a letter, but a sermon, which could only have been given in Jerusalem.--Andy Schlafly 13:09, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
It could have been given - but that is not what your source states! --AugustO 13:10, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Dishonesty

When you make a statement (the sermon was held in Jerusalem) and attach a source to it then the source should make the statement, too. In this case, the source states something very different (the place of composition was Italy). You are invoking the impression that your statement is corroborated by a source, and this impression is misleading. Keeping up this impression though you were repeatedly informed that it is false is just dishonest.

AugustO 14:08, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Sources are used on Conservapedia in a proper way: for their facts, not for their opinions.--Andy Schlafly 15:55, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
Circumstances of the composition

An examination both of the letter itself and of the earliest testimonies of tradition, in reference to the circumstances of its composition, leads to the following conclusions:

(1) The place of composition was Italy (13:24), and more precisely Rome (inscription at end of the Codex Alexandrinus), where Paul was during his first imprisonment (61-63).

(2) The date of its production should certainly be placed before the destruction of Jerusalem (70), and previous to the outbreak of the Jewish War (67), but after the death of James, Bishop of Jerusalem (62). According to ch. xiii, 19, 23, the Apostle was no longer a prisoner. The most probable date for its composition is, therefore, the second half of the year 63 or the beginning of 64, as Paul after his release from imprisonment probably soon undertook the missionary journey "as far as the boundaries of Western Europe" (St. Clement of Rome, "I Epistle to the Corinthians", v, n. 7), that is to Spain.

(3) The reason for its composition is probably to be found in the conditions existing in the Jewish Christian Church at Jerusalem. The faith of the Church might fall into great danger through continued persecution by the Jews, who had put James, the head of the community to a violent death. Precisely at this period the services in the temple were celebrated with great pomp, as under Albinus (62-64) the magnificent building was completed, while the Christian community had to struggle with extreme poverty. The national movement which began shortly before the outbreak of the last Jewish war would increase the danger. These circumstances might lead the Apostle to write the letter.

(4) The Apostle himself declares the aim of his writing to be the consolation and encouragement of the faithful (xiii, 22). The argument and context of the letter show that Paul wished especially to exhort to steadfastness in the Christian Faith and to warn against the danger of apostasy to the Mosaic worship.

Where are the facts in your source which show that the sermon was composed in Jerusalem? Find a source which states that the place of composition was Jerusalem. You are misusing this source - and yes, you are dishonest in doing so. AugustO 16:03, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

I see that you have corrected your position: Thank you! AugustO 16:05, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Why isn't this message to Hebrews in the Hebrew language?

Because the author wanted to be understood? --AugustO 03:42, 3 December 2012 (EST)

Was the epistle written in the time between the Resurrection and the Ascension?

IMO he idea that this epistle was written in the time between the Resurrection and the Ascension is patently absurd:

  • How was it delivered? It had to lay around for a couple of decades, until there was a community which could be addressed. Did someone stumble upon a forgotten parchment and thought: "well, that looks like the thing the guys in Jerusalem (or wherever) are looking for, let's send it to them"?
  • Obviously Jesus Christ could give advice for events which lie a score of years in the future. But would he do so? God respects our free will!

--AugustO 08:18, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

Jesus wrote the sermon for delivery by a disciple in Jerusalem, much like Jesus's explanation on the road to Emmaus. This logical explanation is the most plausible one.--Andy Schlafly 22:39, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
So, it is not only written by Jesus himself, but is the oldest written text in the New Testament? Kept by an unknown disciple all for himself for decades, as no other apostle commented on it? „This logical explanation is the most plausible one.” Your explanation is neither logical nor plausible, just wishful thinking. Therefore it doesn't belong into any encyclopedic articles - it even looks bad in Liberal denial! --AugustO 02:55, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
It could be oldest in the New Testament, or parts of the Gospel of John could be older. Why would the relative dates matter?
As to your other objection, apostles typically did not comment on other writings. John did not comment on any of the other three Gospels. Would anyone conclude that the other three are somehow defective for that reason? Of course not.--Andy Schlafly 16:22, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
Are you claiming now that parts of the Gospel of John where written prior to the Ascension of Jesus?
--AugustO 16:34, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
Your new headline is too long, leaving too little room for the edit summary.
In response to your point, what is the big deal about speculation for when a Gospel was written? Presumably parts of Gospels, including John's, were written while Jesus was still alive. They quote Him, for example! Why does liberal denial have to extend even to claiming that nothing was written about Jesus while he was alive???--Andy Schlafly 19:17, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

I believe Matthew and John at least both knew Jesus personally. Happy Whitsun.--Patmac 19:22, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

  • In response to your point, what is the big deal about speculation for when a Gospel was written?” *LOL* - we should get rid off all these departments for history of Christianity! It's no big deal... OTOH, in Essay:Adultress Story you make use of such research.
  • Presumably parts of Gospels, including John's, were written while Jesus was still alive.” There is no evidence for such a speculation.
  • Why does liberal denial have to extend even to claiming that nothing was written about Jesus while he was alive???” Smearing your opponents instead of presenting evidence? (??) This is not a liberal vs. conservative topic, this is about good theology vs. mere speculations and wishful thinking.

--AugustO 05:58, 22 May 2013 (EDT)

Personal tools