The Book Of Hebrews; Do Mormons Believe?

[David T]

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.

My understanding was that this description is generally well known as Joseph giving a paraphrase of a widely available apocryphal text (known to be owned and used by Joseph), The Acts of Paul and Thecla, and not giving a eye-witness description.

"At length they saw a man coming (namely Paul), of a small stature with meeting eyebrows, bald [or shaved] head, bow- legged, strongly built, hollow-eyed, with a large crooked nose; he was full of grace, for sometimes he appeared as a man, sometimes he had the countenance of an angel."

Edited October 24, 2011 by nackhadlow

[William Schryver]

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.

I've really not given much thought at all to the question of the authorship of Hebrews. I just can't see why it is all that important. I do consider Hebrews one of the great books in the New Testament, along with the Gospel of John, and the epistles of James and Peter. My wife and I spoke in Sacrament Meeting yesterday. We were assigned, as a topic, the address from the April 2011 General Conference by Elder Russell M. Nelson, Facing the Future With Faith. (I sang a vocal solo of Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing as a special musical number, as well.)

I also taught lesson #37 (Jesus Christ, the Author and Finisher of Our Faith) in Gospel Doctrine yesterday, and focused on the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, which is the chapter treating upon the topic of faith. I made no reference to the question of the authorship of Hebrews in either my talk or my lesson. I'm aware of the controversy, but I consider it largely unimportant. I thought my Sacrament Meeting talk and my lesson went quite well without referencing the controversy at all. My lesson focused on the comparison between relying upon the arm of flesh vs. relying upon faith in our lives. We ended up discussing for the entire Sunday School lesson a single question: how would you articulate to others the evidence upon which your faith is based? I very much like the definition of faith given in the first verse of the eleventh chapter of Hebrews: "... faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

[cinepro]

My understanding was that this description is generally well known as Joseph giving a paraphrase of a widely available apocryphal text (known to be owned and used by Joseph), The Acts of Paul and Thecla, and not giving a eye-witness description.

"At length they saw a man coming (namely Paul), of a small stature with meeting eyebrows, bald [or shaved] head, bow- legged, strongly built, hollow-eyed, with a large crooked nose; he was full of grace, for sometimes he appeared as a man, sometimes he had the countenance of an angel."

Well, I guess I've learned my one new thing for today

[stevedallas]

It would seem that Peter believed Paul wrote Hebrews. In 2 Peter, Peter, who it appears was also writing to the Hebrews, said:

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15,16

thoughts?

[diglot]

It would seem that Peter believed Paul wrote Hebrews. In 2 Peter, Peter, who it appears was also writing to the Hebrews, said:

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15,16

thoughts?

Why do you think Peter is referring to Hebrews here?

[Cobalt-70]

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 1:11-12

Quote

For 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.

This scripture could be misinterpreted. Mormons use the term "gospel" differently than Paul did in this case. To Mormons, the "gospel" represents the entirety of Mormon teachings. But to Paul, the "Gospel" was simply the good news that Jesus died for sins and was raised from the dead. That is the only thing that Jesus actually revealed to him on the road to Damascus. All the doctrinal conclusions that Paul wrote about were Paul's invention. Paul never even actually referred to the teachings of Jesus, which had not yet been compiled during Paul's lifetime.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[diglot]

This scripture could be misinterpreted. Mormons use the term "gospel" differently than Paul did in this case. To Mormons, the "gospel" represents the entirety of Mormon teachings. But to Paul, the "Gospel" was simply the good news that Jesus died for sins and was raised from the dead. That is the only thing that Jesus actually revealed to him on the road to Damascus.

While I would agree that this was the nutshell of what Paul received in his revelation on his way to Damascus, he also received additional revelation over the years from Christ.

From reading Acts 9, one can get the impression that Paul went directly from Damascus to Jerusalem. However, in Paul's own epistle he says: "immediately [after the Damascus encounter] I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither did I go up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus." (Gal. 1.17) Paul's stint in Arabia lasted approx. three years (see Gal 1.18). What was he doing there? We do not know for sure, but apparently he wasn't conferring with the Jerusalem apostolate or the other apostles.

Also, in 2 Corinthians 12, Paul speaks of a journey to the third heaven he received. I think this is indicative that he did receive further revelation from the Lord after his Damascus conversion.

All the doctrinal conclusions that Paul wrote about were Paul's invention. Paul never even actually referred to the teachings of Jesus, which had not yet been compiled during Paul's lifetime.

Yes, the canonical gospels had not been composed during Paul's lifetime, but that definitely does not mean that Jesus' teachings were not available to people.

Paul's letters, while not really explicitly quoting verbatim any dominical sayings, do show that he was certainly familiar with some oral traditions (possibly written) regarding Jesus' teachings (e.g. compare the Olivet discourse of Jesus to what Paul says in 1 Thess 4-5).

Also, note this verse from 1 Cor 7.10 - "To the married give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband...."

This either reveals one of two things: (1) Paul received this teaching by direct revelation from Jesus, or (2) it shows that Paul was familiar with a tradition of Jesus' teachings regarding divorce. Either way, Paul is aware of, and reliant upon, Jesus' teachings.

Edited October 25, 2011 by diglot

[Cobalt-70]

Yes, the canonical gospels had not been composed during Paul's lifetime, but that definitely does not mean that Jesus' teachings were not available to people.

Paul's letters, while not really explicitly quoting verbatim any dominical sayings, do show that he was certainly familiar with some oral traditions (possibly written) regarding Jesus' teachings (e.g. compare the Olivet discourse of Jesus to what Paul says in 1 Thess 4-5).

Also, note this verse from 1 Cor 7.10 - "To the married give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband...."

This either reveals one of two things: (1) Paul received this teaching by direct revelation from Jesus, or (2) it shows that Paul was familiar with a tradition of Jesus' teachings regarding divorce. Either way, Paul is aware of, and reliant upon, Jesus' teachings.

Paul would probably have been familiar with some of Jesus' teachings, because he was periodically in contact with the elders of Jerusalem, some of whom were the original disciples. However, Jesus' teachings make almost no appearance in any of Paul's writings. As Carl Jung once said, "Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in." To Paul, the Gospel is merely Jesus' atonement and resurrection, and the idea that he would someday return. Paul's view of Christianity was not, however, anything like Jesus actually taught, which probably means that Paul was not that familiar with the sayings of Jesus. Plus, we know from his writings and from Acts that Paul had some "issues" with the elders of Jerusalem such as James the Just and Peter, who were actually around when Jesus was teaching.

For example, Jesus' teachings focused primarily upon preparing for the earthly Kingdom of God--a collective endeavor, whereas Paul focused primarily upon obtaining personal salvation in heaven through faith--a solitary endeavor. Jesus taught things like niceness, quiet goodness, hospitality, forgiveness, submissiveness, withholding judgment, and care for the disadvantaged, whereas Paul taught and demonstrated things like outward piety, a church hierarchy, mystical experiences, and "judging the world" (1 Cor. 6:2).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Determining the authorship of a book is not the job or responsibility of translators.

Could not agree less...

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It would seem that Peter believed Paul wrote Hebrews. In 2 Peter, Peter, who it appears was also writing to the Hebrews, said:

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15,16

thoughts?

I think Peter knew what he was talking about.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Well i have news for everybody.. the book originated from our lord...:}

I like it.

[diglot]

For example, Jesus' teachings focused primarily upon preparing for the earthly Kingdom of God--a collective endeavor, whereas Paul focused primarily upon obtaining personal salvation in heaven through faith--a solitary endeavor. Jesus taught things like niceness, quiet goodness, hospitality, forgiveness, submissiveness, withholding judgment, and care for the disadvantaged, whereas Paul taught and demonstrated things like outward piety, a church hierarchy, mystical experiences, and "judging the world" (1 Cor. 6:2).

Paul was familiar with Jesus traditions; it is quite apparent in his epistles.

I think you are very mistaken to say that since Paul did not quote a dominical saying, then that means he was unfamiliar with Jesus teachings and taught a different message.

I would be very surprised if Paul just merely started reciting the same platitudes that Jesus taught, for Paul had to deal with an immense event that had taken place - the resurrection and exaltation

We must ask first of all whether the Pauline doctrine of justification is a legitimate extension of Jesus’ preaching of that kingdom – that is, whether it corresponds to what the earthly Jesus said and did. …

Like Rudolf Bultmann, we are bound to establish that Paul is not directly determined by the earthly Jesus in forming his ideas. He was neither Jesus’ disciple nor his opponent, and only came to know the gospel through the Hellenistic and Jewish Christian church, which he persecuted. His doctrine of justification cannot therefore be accounted for as being a direct continuation of Jesus’ preaching, on the analogy of a philosophical or theological ‘school.’ …

The difference is that for Jesus this eschaton is the swiftly approaching present, whereas for Paul the eschaton has already taken place in Jesus. Jesus looks into the future, but Paul looks back: the turn of the age has already come. What for Jesus is the already present future is for Paul the present that has dawned in the past of Jesus. A continuity lies in the eschatological announcement of the time. The difference is to be found in the change in the time fixed for the eschaton, which has already been brought about by Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. …

If God raised this condemned, forsaken, crucified Jesus, then everything is changed: if the earthly Jesus, with his claim, dies because of the law, then the law with its claim dies because of the exalted Jesus. If judgment is passed on him in crucifixion, then the judgment ends with his resurrection and is turned into grace. If death is the end of him, then the risen Christ becomes the end of death. The raising of the crucified Jesus (who in this sense is as if ‘given up’ by God) cannot therefore mean only a messianic hope in addition to, or within, Israel’s law. Nor can it mean the spiritualization of everything mortal. It must rather be understood as new creation.

[diglot]

For example, Jesus' teachings focused primarily upon preparing for the earthly Kingdom of God--a collective endeavor, whereas Paul focused primarily upon obtaining personal salvation in heaven through faith--a solitary endeavor. Jesus taught things like niceness, quiet goodness, hospitality, forgiveness, submissiveness, withholding judgment, and care for the disadvantaged, whereas Paul taught and demonstrated things like outward piety, a church hierarchy, mystical experiences, and "judging the world" (1 Cor. 6:2).

Paul was familiar with Jesus traditions; it is quite apparent in his epistles.

I think you are very mistaken to say that since Paul did not quote a dominical saying, then that means he was unfamiliar with Jesus' teachings and taught a different message.

I would be very surprised if Paul just merely started reciting the same platitudes that Jesus taught, for Paul had to deal with an immense event that had taken place - the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus as Lord.

I am not saying that Paul's teachings (e.g. the doctrine of justification) can be accounted for as being an actual direct continuation of Jesus’ exact preaching. But Paul's gospel message was a legitimate extension of Jesus’ preaching about the kingdom of God. The difference you see in their teachings is attributable to their different perspectives. Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet for whom the eschaton is a swiftly approaching present just around the corner. Whereas for Paul the eschaton has already taken place in the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus. So what for Jesus is the already present and soon coming future, is for Paul the past that occured in the past.

So if God resurrected Jesus as Lord, then everything has changed. And that is the issue Paul grapples with and expounds upon in his letters. He did not need to quote Jesus' platitudes to the recipients because they were probably already well aware of them. Paul had more important issues to deal with (e.g. the inclusion of Gentiles: did they have to be circumcised etc. This, by the way, was the main point of contention between Paul and the Jerusalem apostolate).

Edited October 25, 2011 by diglot

[ERayR]

Understanding, yes. Agreeing, no. Just my opinion.

OK I can/will agree to that. I think there is a whole lot in modern Christianity that Jesus would not agree with. Including things in my own life that I am in the process of rooting out. Isn't repentance marvelous?

[ERayR]

I don't think so. The Chapter 13 heading states, "Paul explains how the Saints are to offer acceptable sacrifices."

I would be a little bit cautious about accepting chapter headings as doctrine.

[ERayR]

This scripture could be misinterpreted. Mormons use the term "gospel" differently than Paul did in this case. To Mormons, the "gospel" represents the entirety of Mormon teachings. But to Paul, the "Gospel" was simply the good news that Jesus died for sins and was raised from the dead. That is the only thing that Jesus actually revealed to him on the road to Damascus. All the doctrinal conclusions that Paul wrote about were Paul's invention. Paul never even actually referred to the teachings of Jesus, which had not yet been compiled during Paul's lifetime.

CFR that they were Paul's inventions.

[Cobalt-70]

I think Peter knew what he was talking about.

Most scholars think that 2 Peter was not written by Peter. And it's difficult to imagine how an Aramaic-speaking uneducated fisherman could write in eloquent Greek. If Peter were literate, you would expect that he would have written a Gospel to preserve his view of the life of Jesus.

[LeSellers]

Most scholars think that 2 Peter was not written by Peter.

Yet Peter could easily have told Mark (who was fluent in Greek) what to write, and mark "translates" from Aramaic or Hebrew (or even pidgin Greek) into more "elegant" Koiné.

Lehi

Edited October 25, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

If Peter were literate, you would expect that he would have written a Gospel to preserve his view of the life of Jesus.

I believe he did. We just don't have it in our Bible today. Someone didn't like it and threw it out.

The Gospel According to Peter (Greek: κατά Πέτρον ευαγγέλιον), commonly called the Gospel of Peter, is one of the non-Canonical gospels which were rejected by the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church's synods of Carthage and Rome, which established the New Testament canon, as apocryphal. It was the first of the non-canonical gospels to be rediscovered, preserved in the dry sands of Egypt.

Whether this "gospel" is the one Peter wrote is up for discussion, but even if not, Peter not only would have written a Life of Jesus, but I'm absolutely c0invniced he did. It may be that his Gospel student, Mark, used the Petrine oral narratives as the basis for his own "Gospel", and that Peter decided to "fill in the blanks" a bit.

Lehi

[Cobalt-70]

CFR that they were Paul's inventions.

Actually, CFR an antecedent basis to Paul's teachings on things like justification, etc. If Paul is the earliest known source of an idea, then a historian has to assume it is his unless someone can demonstrate that his work is derivative from someone else.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I would be a little bit cautious about accepting chapter headings as doctrine.

Ditto

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Most scholars think that 2 Peter was not written by Peter.

CFR "Most Scholars"; please.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Most scholars think that 2 Peter was not written by Peter.

CFR "Most Scholars"; please.

[Cobalt-70]

I believe he did. We just don't have it in our Bible today. Someone didn't like it and threw it out.

Whether this "gospel" is the one Peter wrote is up for discussion, but even if not, Peter not only would have written a Life of Jesus, but I'm absolutely c0invniced he did. It may be that his Gospel student, Mark, used the Petrine oral narratives as the basis for his own "Gospel", and that Peter decided to "fill in the blanks" a bit.

Lehi

I don't think any scholar, to speak of, thinks that the Gospel of Peter was actually written by Peter. It is not the type of Gospel that Peter would have written, had Peter written one, and it contains no insights that Peter would have known that were not already recorded in the four standard Gospels, which antedated it. Actually, the closest thing we have to a true Gospel of Peter is the Gospel of Mark, which has indicia that Peter was the original source of some of its content. For example, the parts about how Peter denied Jesus three times deprecate Peter and could only have come from Peter himself. But it seems that Peter conveyed his knowledge orally, rather than in writing.

[Cobalt-70]

CFR "Most Scholars"; please.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=xenz0ZMWDNsC&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q&f=false ("most scholars regard 2 Peter as a later, pseudonymous writing....")

Edited October 25, 2011 by Cobalt-70