Changes

== Rebuttals in detail ==

== Rebuttals in detail ==

*"''the teaching is virtually identical in style and substance to the one made by Jesus on the road to Emmaus as described in the [[Gospel of Luke (Translated)]], which He likewise did while appearing to be someone else, and while speaking about Himself in the third person.''"

*"''the teaching is virtually identical in style and substance to the one made by Jesus on the road to Emmaus as described in the [[Gospel of Luke (Translated)]], which He likewise did while appearing to be someone else, and while speaking about Himself in the third person.''"

**This statement is not only counterfactual - it doesn't fit into Aschlafly's line of reasoning, neither: Aschlafly himself states the epistle is very much different in style from the other parts of the New Testament. As for the substance of the teachings: "''The central thought of the entire Epistle is the doctrine of the Person of Christ and His Divine mediatorial office.''" (from the [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm source] used by Aschlafly). Needless to say that e.g., the Jesus's status as a high-priest isn't mentioned on the road to Emmaus.

:'''Contra:''' This statement is not only counterfactual - it doesn't fit into Aschlafly's line of reasoning, neither: Aschlafly himself states the epistle is very much different in style from the other parts of the New Testament. As for the substance of the teachings: "''The central thought of the entire Epistle is the doctrine of the Person of Christ and His Divine mediatorial office.''" (from the [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm source] used by Aschlafly). Needless to say that e.g., the Jesus's status as a high-priest isn't mentioned on the road to Emmaus.

:::Why wouldn't Jesus mention his status as a high priest, when addressing a Hebrew audience???

::'''Pro:''' Why wouldn't Jesus mention his status as a high priest, when addressing a Hebrew audience???

::::You are missing the point: you claim that the '''"teaching is virtually identical in [...] substance to the one made by Jesus on the road to Emmaus'''" - but you are not able to show that!

:::'''Contra:''' You are missing the point: you claim that the '''"teaching is virtually identical in [...] substance to the one made by Jesus on the road to Emmaus'''" - but you are not able to show that!

:::::It was the same sort of explanation -- the same style -- as the Epistle to the Hebrews, as inferred from the account of the discussion on the road to Emmaus in the [[Gospel of Luke]].

::::'''Pro:''' It was the same sort of explanation -- the same style -- as the Epistle to the Hebrews, as inferred from the account of the discussion on the road to Emmaus in the [[Gospel of Luke]].

 

*''the writing has a "striking purity of language and elegance of Greek style," and "is a treasure-house of expressions characteristic of the individuality of the writer," using "168 terms ... which appear in no other part of the New Testament, among them ten words found neither in Biblical or classical Greek."<ref name="Encyclopedia">[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm The Catholic Encyclopedia]</ref>  There is not a single grammatical flaw in the entire work, despite its complexity.''

*''the writing has a "striking purity of language and elegance of Greek style," and "is a treasure-house of expressions characteristic of the individuality of the writer," using "168 terms ... which appear in no other part of the New Testament, among them ten words found neither in Biblical or classical Greek."<ref name="Encyclopedia">[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm The Catholic Encyclopedia]</ref>  There is not a :'''Contra:''' God isn't the only one with decent grammar! This shows only that great intellects were attracted by Christianity even in the early years (as later was [[Augustine|Augustinus]]). BTW: As the German language, Greek allows for an easy creation of  new words. See e.g., ἀνασταυρόω : this word is uniquely used in the epistle and means "to crucify again" - its just a merge of ἀνα and σταυρόω. A German could speak of a "Zweitkreuzigung" in a similar manner.

**God isn't the only one with decent grammar! This shows only that great intellects were attracted by Christianity even in the early years (as later was [[Augustine|Augustinus]]). BTW: As the German language, Greek allows for an easy creation of  new words. See e.g., ἀνασταυρόω : this word is uniquely used in the epistle and means "to crucify again" - its just a merge of ἀνα and σταυρόω. A German could speak of a "Zweitkreuzigung" in a similar manner.

::'''Pro:''' Not the very early years, when this Epistle was written.  Jesus's work was not yet made available and known to intellectuals at this early time.

:::Not the very early years, when this Epistle was written.  Jesus's work was not yet made available and known to intellectuals at this early time.

:::'''Contra:''' An extraordinary statement! Do you think that not one gifted, well educated man heard (and was touched) by the teachings of Jesus in the early years?  

::::An extraordinary statement! Do you think that not one gifted, well educated man heard (and was touched) by the teachings of Jesus in the early years?  

*''it is a playful enigma: a message to Hebrews written in perfect Greek, a miracle of an intellectual nature.  Why isn't this message to Hebrews in the Hebrew language?  It shows that [[Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?|God does have a sense of humor]], and a highly intellectual one, like the encounter on the road to Emmaus.''

*''it is a playful enigma: a message to Hebrews written in perfect Greek, a miracle of an intellectual nature.  Why isn't this message to Hebrews in the Hebrew language?  It shows that [[Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?|God does have a sense of humor]], and a highly intellectual one, like the encounter on the road to Emmaus.''

**The author could choose between Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. Why shouldn't he write in Greek? Obviously he mastered the language very well (perhaps better than Aramaic and Hebrew), and Greek was spoken throughout the whole Roman empire.

:'''Contra:''' The author could choose between Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. Why shouldn't he write in Greek? Obviously he mastered the language very well (perhaps better than Aramaic and Hebrew), and Greek was spoken throughout the whole Roman empire.

:::The reason why it surprising to be in Greek is because the audience primarily spoke Hebrew.

::'''Pro:''' The reason why it surprising to be in Greek is because the audience primarily spoke Hebrew.

::::Did his audience "primarily spoke Hebrew"? Are you sure? Did the author address the priests - or perhaps traders, scholars, even carpenters, etc.? [[World_History_Lecture_Two#Did_Jesus_Preach_in_Greek.3F|To quote you]]: ''"For teaching purposes, the powerful Greek language would have been useful. Greek was in common use by Jewish people in Palestine, thanks in part to the conquest by Alexander the Great. Greek was even widely used in Jewish ossuaries to bury the dead. Commerce took place often in Greek, and Jesus had been in business as a carpenter. He surely knew the language. Several of the key terms, such as Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees as "hypocrites", is derived directly from Greek without any comparable term in Aramaic or Hebrew.''"

:::'''Contra:''' Did his audience "primarily spoke Hebrew"? Are you sure? Did the author address the priests - or perhaps traders, scholars, even carpenters, etc.? [[World_History_Lecture_Two#Did_Jesus_Preach_in_Greek.3F|To quote you]]: ''"For teaching purposes, the powerful Greek language would have been useful. Greek was in common use by Jewish people in Palestine, thanks in part to the conquest by Alexander the Great. Greek was even widely used in Jewish ossuaries to bury the dead. Commerce took place often in Greek, and Jesus had been in business as a carpenter. He surely knew the language. Several of the key terms, such as Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees as "hypocrites", is derived directly from Greek without any comparable term in Aramaic or Hebrew.''"

== Links ==

== Links ==