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

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)

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)