Talk:Epistle to the Hebrews

!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

... quite possibly [written by] Jesus Himself

It's one thing to have an idee fixe, bolster it with some circumstantial evidence and make it into an essay. But it becomes problematic when such an unheard insight is put into an encyclopedic article without proper caveats.

[T]he authorship of this brilliant work is completely unknown, and was quite possibly Jesus Himself.

Quite possibly? I bag to differ:

• AFAIK no one but you, Aschlafly, has proposed this possibility during the last two millennia. If it were "quite possible" that would be very surprising.
• Has Jesus Christ deliberately covered his tracks? A text written by Him would be the ultimate relict! How was it passed along?

--AugustO 14:18, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, your "theory" doesn't hold any water. Read e.g., Hebrews 4:14 : "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." Is this something Jesus would have written? There are many more examples showing that the author ("we") is different from the Son of God! Read the text! Your "theory" is based on ignorance. --AugustO 14:36, 22 November 2012 (EST)

At the end of the day, the claim is referenced sufficiently to the standards required here at Conservapedia. It should be left in for that reason. --DamianJohn 15:20, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Just a thought

If Jesus wrote this epistle, then surely it must be regarded as the most significant book of the NT, and surely he must have intended it to be regarded as such. What logical reason is there for him to allow Christianity to develop a Gospel fixation, as it were, and not to have made it abundantly clear that this epistle is his final message to mankind? --JohanZ 15:26, 22 November 2012 (EST)

As I understand it, it is regarded as being abundantly clear that Jesus wrote it. Have you not read Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews? I'll admit to not being as strong a biblical scholar as Andy is (I can't speak Greek for one thing) but it cannot be said that it has not been made abundantly clear to him. --DamianJohn 15:35, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Indeed. I'm still struggling with the idea of Christianity proceeding from such a fundamental misreading of its own scripture. --JohanZ 15:43, 22 November 2012 (EST)

What other plausible authorship is there???--Andy Schlafly 17:57, 22 November 2012 (EST)

That is indeed a "God of the gaps"! Perhaps He wrote Hamlet, too? Is there anyone else who shares your idea? Any Biblical scholar, perhaps? --AugustO 18:01, 22 November 2012 (EST)

I accept the logical possibility that Jesus wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. I'm asking you to consider the logical consequences of that assertion:

1. The Gospels can no longer be considered the primary texts of the NT.
2. Christians must engage with the NT in a fundamentally different way.
3. This essentially casts you in the role of prophet.
4. That's the kind of claim that could backfire spectacularly on you if you're wrong.

I do not doubt your sincerity here. I simply advise caution, not least because I can see no good reason why Jesus would have allowed Christianity to develop based on such a fundamental misreading of scripture. --JohanZ 19:25, 22 November 2012 (EST)

I don't see any difficulties in your enumerated points, and this observation does not make me any kind of prophet. You accept the "logical possibility that Jesus wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews," as any open-minded person should. What are the consequences? It creates the opportunity to read Jesus's own explanation of why He became man and endured the Passion, and whether God intervened to help Him. It makes the book even more compelling. Indeed, it makes the book a priceless treasure.--Andy Schlafly 19:51, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Implausible Theory

At the moment we read:

the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.

The idea that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it is called "one plausible theory". It isn't. It's utterly implausible. In fact it is a statement which violates at least three of the Conservapedia:Commandments:

• It is not verifiable
• No source is stated
• It is just a personal opinion

The latter is obvious as no one shares Aschlafly's idea - and the reason for this: if you indeed read the epistle, you see that the author and the Son of God are different persons.

It should be obvious that this statement has to be removed.

--AugustO 17:48, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, you have read the arguments on this talk page. I will revert your "insight" and I hope that we will discuss this matter at first here on this talk-page. --AugustO 18:06, 22 November 2012 (EST)

There is no other plausible author. Do you suggest any? The author had to be highly proficient in both the Greek language and Hebrew culture and scriptures, and capable of writing or dictating a flawless essay. Only Jesus meets those conditions.--Andy Schlafly 18:43, 22 November 2012 (EST)

There are many unknown Jews who met those conditions. There are many masterpieces in the world for which the author/sculptor is unknown. That doesn't mean that God created them. And please reread the epistle. You will find sections written in the First Person speaking about the Son of God as another entity. But most important: Is there anyone else (a Biblical scholar, a member of your family) who shares your "insight"? How can you call it plausible if no one is able to perceive it? --AugustO 18:48, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Andy, I urge you to share this analysis with your priest/minister on Sunday, and then report back and tell us all what he thinks. MattyD 18:58, 22 November 2012 (EST)

"one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it"

As I stated above, there is nothing plausible about this theory. Therefore I put a {{fact}}-tag on this claim. If this statement isn't corroborated, I'll delete it. --AugustO 03:19, 24 November 2012 (EST)

Of course the authorship by Jesus is plausible -- Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews? explains many reasons why.--Andy Schlafly 11:04, 24 November 2012 (EST)

But the theory has some serious flaws:

• We know of one instance of God's word directly given to a faithful scribe: the Ten Commandments. Even their physical representation was held in the highest regard (see Ark of the Covenant). One would expect any other word of the Lord - written in His Own Hand or via a scribe - to be treated similarly.
• According to Aschlafly, Jesus Christ wrote the Epistle directly after His cruxification. What happened then? It was lost for twenty - forty years - how was it recognized?
• Aschlafly cuts and pastes the parts of the epistle which he needs, discarding all the parts which don't fit in his narrative. That's similar to the behavior of any other activist abusing scripture to make his point (e.g., "Jesus was homosexual"). Aschlafly ignores that historically we only find this epistle in the current form.
• Aschlafly yet hasn't answered to questions why the authors of the epistle use the first person to describe themselves, but talk about the Son of God in the third person - even in the part which Aschlafly accepts to be authentic. This indicates clearly that this epistle wasn't written by Jesus Christ!

--AugustO 19:19, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Moved from User talk:Karajou

August, if you don't think it is plausible that Jesus wrote or dictated the Epistle to the Hebrews, then what specific alternative authors do you suggest? Surely you agree that someone wrote it.--Andy Schlafly 11:31, 26 November 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, 185,000 killings went unsolved in the United States from 1980 to 2008. Does this mean that Satan committed or planned all these killings? Surely someone committed these murders?

And please, take a look at the section above. --AugustO 12:15, 26 November 2012 (EST)

third person

Aschlafly, you are claiming that in the Epistle to the Hebrews Jesus Christ is speaking about himself in the third person. That wouldn't be unheard of, we find this often in classical literature. E.g., when we read

“

Caesar saw the horse.

”

it could well be that Caesar was the author of this sentence. But what's about

“

Caesar saw me.

”

Here it is obvious that Caesar is not the author, as we have an instance of the first person (me). The same holds true for the Epistle to the Hebrews. One example is Hebrews 3:6

Χριστὸς δὲ ὡς υἱὸς ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ· οὗ οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς ἐάνπερ τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ τὸ καύχημα τῆς ἐλπίδος μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν

Reading this, you see that Christ is set over the house, while we (including the author!) are the house. If you study the epistle diligently, you will find many such examples.

And please, address the points in the sections above! --AugustO 08:50, 27 November 2012 (EST)

This Epistle uses a same distinctive phrase once used by Jesus as quoted in the Gospel of John, which reinforces the likelihood of his authorship.

Which one? Who is quoting whom? --AugustO 15:56, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

Somebody out there? --AugustO (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2016 (EST)

Still an open question! --AugustO (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2016 (EST)

I have been waiting for two years for an answer. As there isn't one, I deleted the statement. --AugustO (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2017 (EDT)

Hebrews 10:12 directly identifies the author himself ("this one") as Jesus, but most translations change the meaning of "this one" to something else in order to avoid admitting that Jesus wrote this.

At Talk:Epistle_to_the_Hebrews_(Translated)#Hebrews_10:12 I made it clear that there happened a mistranslation at the CBP due to the lack of knowledge of Greek by the translator. --AugustO (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2016 (EST)

A fantastic analysis of authorship

On Dec 22, 2015, Andy Schlafly added this link to a "fantastic analysis of authorship". This "fantastic analysis" cast doubts on Andy's pet theory, i.e., that Jesus Christ Himself wrote the epistle. For example, you would expect Jesus Christ to know all the temple rituals, while "the author [of Hebrews] makes surprising errors with regard to the Temple ritual"... --AugustO (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2016 (EST)

Setting aside the issue of whether Jesus was the author, in the very next sentence the web page refers to: so-called "errors" and then later says, "No one can reasonably say that these statements are of such a nature as to prove that the Epistle was not written by a Levite.". Conservative (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2016 (EST)

... because a Levite may make errors, but Jesus Christ does not. --AugustO (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2016 (EST)

You are being stubborn and proud. The source clearly calls them so-called "errors". Conservative (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2016 (EST)

See also: Hebrews 9:3–4—Was the altar of incense in the Holy Place or in the Most Holy Place behind the veil?. Conservative (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2016 (EST)

• "stubborn and proud" - isn't that just "ad hominem"? Like me calling you sleep-deprived? Or multi-personal?
• These "errors" aren't biggies, they could happen to any human, but not to Jesus Christ

--AugustO (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2016 (EST)

The source clearly does not call them errors. Hence, word "so-called" and the word errors being put in quotation marks like this: "errors".

Furthermore, the web page says: "No one can reasonably say that these statements are of such a nature as to prove that the Epistle was not written by a Levite." Please pay attention to the words "no one", "reasonably say" and "are of such a nature as to prove".

The error that I see in our discussion is you not wanting to admit your error!!!Conservative (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2016 (EST)

Jesus Christ is just not any Levite. --AugustO (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2016 (EST)

Agreed, but this is a red herring (A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.[1]).

Again, you conveniently left out that the commentary indicates "so-called 'errors'" and no amount of evasion is going to negate this matter. Conservative (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2016 (EST)

"Evasion"? Why? I fully agree with the author: saying, e.g., that a sacrifice happened "daily", while in reality, the high-priest may have skipped a day sometimes isn't a "surprising error" (as "it is said"), it is just a "so-called error". It is a minor inaccuracy, which could happen to any human author. But to Jesus Christ? --AugustO (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2016 (EST)

And Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over Me." VargasMilan (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2016 (EST)

August, those look like transcribing errors, at most. "In" rather than "aside", "daily" rather than "frequently", etc. Translation issues may play a role too.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2016 (EST)

Composition and Authorship

The Book of Hebrews is well known to have been written about 64 AD, see this article from Daniel Wallace: https://bible.org/seriespage/19-hebrews-introduction-argument-and-outline

It may have gotten inspiration from Jesus, but certainly wasn't written by Him. It was probably written by an associate of Paul. I have fixed this, and have removed the largely weird idea that it was written before the persecution even started. I also made the article more aesthetically pleasing by removing random uses of bold and whatnot.