William Schryver Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 I am sticking my neck far out here, but I think Jesus would have problems with the representations made in Hebrews.All of it? Or just parts? If so, what parts?
Ron Beron Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 All of it? Or just parts? If so, what parts?Like the previous comment made by Cobalt I think Jesus would have a hard time with understanding the pseudo-Pauline emphasis of Hebrews on the lack of adherence of the Law and the Christology set up with Christ as a "cosmic" figure and divine.
ERayR Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 One more thing... Hebrews 2:3 seems to preclude Paul from being the author:Paul received the gospel from a direct revelation from Christ himself; not from those who first heard it from Christ.Paul spent a lot of years with the presiding authorities starting with having his sight restored by Ananias in Damascus. He had his revelations as we all have but I am sure many of them were attesting the communications to him from "those who first heard it from Christ".
diglot Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Paul heard the gospel from others who heard the gospel. All the Savior did when He appeared to him was identify Himself, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest".Paul spent a lot of years with the presiding authorities starting with having his sight restored by Ananias in Damascus. He had his revelations as we all have but I am sure many of them were attesting the communications to him from "those who first heard it from Christ".I think Heb 2.3-4 suggests that author did not know Jesus, and that the author (along with the recipients), belong to the second generation of believers."It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was confirmed to us by those who heard" - Paul received revelation from Jesus directly and would be classified along with the Apostles and others who likewise had contact with Jesus.Heb 2:3 is very uncharacteristic for Paul, as he often claimed he had received the gospel and his ministerial call by direct revelation of Christ.Assuming both of you believe Paul to be the author, I would be interested in hearing why you hold to Pauline authorship considering it has been all but completely abandoned in the scholarly community.Is it just because some in the early Church attributed it to Paul? Do you think that since Hebrews is in the New Testament then it has to have been by one of the Apostles? Edited October 22, 2011 by diglot
shalamabobbi Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 Assuming both of you believe Paul to be the author,I did not state a belief one way or the other about the author of the book of Hebrews.I merely corrected the statement that Paul was taught the gospel directly by the resurrected Christ.
diglot Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) I did not state a belief one way or the other about the author of the book of Hebrews.I merely corrected the statement that Paul was taught the gospel directly by the resurrected Christ.That's why I said "assuming" you hold to Pauline authorship. I wasn't entirely sure if you did.Paul did believe he received the gospel from Christ. That's why I said Heb 2.3 would be very uncharacteristic for Paul to say.See, e.g., Galatians 1:11-12For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Edited October 22, 2011 by diglot
ERayR Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 I think Heb 2.3-4 suggests that author did not know Jesus, and that the author (along with the recipients), belong to the second generation of believers."It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was confirmed to us by those who heard" - Paul received revelation from Jesus directly and would be classified along with the Apostles and others who likewise had contact with Jesus.Heb 2:3 is very uncharacteristic for Paul, as he often claimed he had received the gospel and his ministerial call by direct revelation of Christ.Assuming both of you believe Paul to be the author, I would be interested in hearing why you hold to Pauline authorship considering it has been all but completely abandoned in the scholarly community.Is it just because some in the early Church attributed it to Paul? Do you think that since Hebrews is in the New Testament then it has to have been by one of the Apostles?I was not taking issue with the theory that Paul was not the author of Hebrews. What I was taking issue with is the statement that Paul received from direct revelation and not "from those who first heard it from Christ".
ERayR Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 That's why I said "assuming" you hold to Pauline authorship. I wasn't entirely sure if you did.Paul did believe he received the gospel from Christ. That's why I said Heb 2.3 would be very uncharacteristic for Paul to say.See, e.g., Galatians 1:11-12Paul did receive the gospel from Christ. He received it the same as we all receive it. He was taught by those who held the keys at the time and had it verified by personal revelation.
diglot Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Paul did receive the gospel from Christ. He received it the same as we all receive it. He was taught by those who held the keys at the time and had it verified by personal revelation.No, Paul did not receive the gospel in the same way we all receive it. He received the gospel from a direct revelation of Christ. We do not receive it in that way.Stop reading Mormon theology from nearly 2000 years later back into Paul. That's just dogmatism and isn't going to convince anyone of your theory. Edited October 22, 2011 by diglot
ERayR Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 No, Paul did not receive the gospel in the same way we all receive it. He received the gospel from a direct revelation of Christ. We do not receive it in that way.Stop reading Mormon theology from nearly 2000 years later back into Paul. That's just dogmatism and isn't going to convince anyone of your theory.Is that is gospel according to diglot? Excuse me if I "cling" to my own experiences and not jump to your prophetic declarations.
diglot Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Is that is gospel according to diglot? Excuse me if I "cling" to my own experiences and not jump to your prophetic declarations.No, its not the gospel according to diglot.I just prefer not to try to impose my own theological beliefs derived from some subjective experience back onto texts from antiquity.In this specific case, I would prefer to let Paul dictate how he received the gospel, and not try to distort his words due to some preconceived idea about how he had to of received the gospel. Edited October 22, 2011 by diglot
maklelan Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 Paul did receive the gospel from Christ. He received it the same as we all receive it. He was taught by those who held the keys at the time and had it verified by personal revelation.The scripture diglot quoted is quite universally understood to indicate that Paul insisted he was not evangelized or taught by any human, but received the gospel and its teachings directly from Christ alone.
Calm Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) I am an EV, and saying that Paul didn't write it doesn't seem like a big deal even among my conservative EV brethren (except for the few who feel the need to tenaciously cling to their traditions).I assume they still believe it is inspired and inerrant in the same way as the rest of the canon since it is part of the canon, right? So why would this make any difference to the 'grace alone' proponents? (question open to anyone)PS to diglot: just wanted to say I am grateful for the time and effort you have devoted to the board so far. I find your posts highly informative as well as civil, you come across as someone more interested in the discussion than making points, a quality I find most desirable when reading posts, especially in nonLDS since it provides me with a great opportunity to learn more of others' beliefs as well as learning how others perceive LDS beliefs. Hope you become addicted to the board like so many of us. Edited October 22, 2011 by calmoriah
ERayR Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 Like the previous comment made by Cobalt I think Jesus would have a hard time with understanding the pseudo-Pauline emphasis of Hebrews on the lack of adherence of the Law and the Christology set up with Christ as a "cosmic" figure and divine.I don't think Jesus would have a hard time understanding anything.
diglot Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 PS to diglot: just wanted to say I am grateful for the time and effort you have devoted to the board so far. I find your posts highly informative as well as civil, you come across as someone more interested in the discussion than making points, a quality I find most desirable when reading posts, especially in nonLDS since it provides me with a great opportunity to learn more of others' beliefs as well as learning how others perceive LDS beliefs. Hope you become addicted to the board like so many of us. Thanks for the kind words!
Daniel Peterson Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 I'm strongly inclined to think that Paul wasn't the author of Hebrews, and almost as strongly inclined not to care who did -- although I like the thought that maybe, in it, we have something from the great gospel teacher Apollos.It's a wonderful epistle, though. One of the richest. 2
Kevin Barney Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 I just taught the lesson on Hebrews in GD last Sunday. I addressed this question along the lines of my discussion in my introduction to Hebrews here:http://feastupontheword.org/Site:NTFootnotesI explained that I personally don't think Paul wrote Hebrews, but the main point is that it is an open question and people are welcome to come to their own conclusions.I also tend to think the author may have been Apollos, although there is no way to know for sure.
Ron Beron Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 I don't think Jesus would have a hard time understanding anything.Understanding, yes. Agreeing, no. Just my opinion.
jadams_4242 Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 I am currently re-reading the book “Not My Will, But Thine” by Elder Neal A. Maxwell…someone I truly miss from the 12; God rest his soul (I strongly recommend reading it, most of you here could read it in a day or two). In it he quotes Paul in the Book of Hebrews, as do many Apostles and Prophets, as do some of us. The Book of Hebrews has a greater focus on “obedience and submissiveness” (as Elder Maxwell says) than the others writings of Paul.My Christian Apologists’ who teach that “obedience” is not required of God have begun to question or even outright state that Paul did not write “Hebrews”.The KJV which we use has always attributed Hebrews to Paul as well as Christians for 2,000 years plus…What has happened, is the grace alone crowd pushing this?I would like to hear what Mormons and EV’s believe about Hebrews and if we have no idea who wrote it, how can it be considered scripture?BTW the scripture Elder Maxwell was quoting..."...no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous".AMEN! Well i have news for everybody.. the book originated from our lord...:}
Mortal Man Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 The last line of the entry in the Bible Dictionary is telling:That seems to open the door to an acceptance of Hebrews not having been written by Paul...?I don't think so. The Chapter 13 heading states, "Paul explains how the Saints are to offer acceptable sacrifices."
maklelan Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 I don't think so. The Chapter 13 heading states, "Paul explains how the Saints are to offer acceptable sacrifices."That's a recent change, then. It's not in my 1981 edition. Sounds like someone's dogmatism won out this round. Irrespective, this hardly indicates a formal or binding position.
Lachoneus Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Joseph Smith was of the opinion that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 59, 158; Words of Joseph Smith 255, 333). He also gave a description of Paul's physical appearance, his voice and his oratory skills (Words of Joseph Smith 59). I'm not sure who would know more about Paul and what he said and wrote.
shalamabobbi Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 The scripture diglot quoted is quite universally understood to indicate that Paul insisted he was not evangelized or taught by any human, but received the gospel and its teachings directly from Christ alone.And what is the universal understanding of what it was that would be told Paul that he had to do? And what was the reason he had to do it? And why didn't Christ communicate this directly?Acts 9:6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
shalamabobbi Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 No, its not the gospel according to diglot.I just prefer not to try to impose my own theological beliefs derived from some subjective experience back onto texts from antiquity.In this specific case, I would prefer to let Paul dictate how he received the gospel, and not try to distort his words due to some preconceived idea about how he had to of received the gospel.Kind of like how I let Joseph Smith do the same.. 2
Joseph Antley Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) Joseph Smith was of the opinion that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 59, 158; Words of Joseph Smith 255, 333). He also gave a description of Paul's physical appearance, his voice and his oratory skills (Words of Joseph Smith 59). I'm not sure who would know more about Paul and what he said and wrote.I seriously doubt that Joseph Smith ever thought much about whether Paul was the author of Hebrews or not. Edited October 24, 2011 by Joseph Antley 1
Recommended Posts