The Book Of Hebrews; Do Mormons Believe?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false ("most scholars regard 2 Peter as a later, pseudonymous writing....")

You said most...not some. CFR please.

[David T]

You said most...not some. CFR please.

Here's from the 2009 revision of the HarperCollins Study Bible, under the auspices of the Society of Biblical Literature.

"Most scholars, however, now believe it was written after Peter's death by a writer following a literary convention of the time that allowed an author to attribute a "testament" to a great figure of the past."

From Bible.org:

"There has been much debate over the authorship of 2 Peter. Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible."

From a Christian Apologetics website "NewApologia": (Which argues for Petrine authorship)

"Today, nearly all critical scholars agree 2 Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter. Even some evangelical scholars hold this opinion."

Edited October 25, 2011 by nackhadlow

[diglot]

You said most...not some. CFR please.

As someone who has spent a great deal of my academic studies in the New Testament specifically focused upon the Catholic Epistles corpus, take my word for it..... practically no scholars think 2 Peter was actually written by Peter. I've read many academic commentaries and studies on 2 Peter, and I can't think of a single scholar who asserts the authenticity of 2 Peter (even the very conservative evangelical scholars only seem to go as far to say that even though it isn't impossible Peter wrote it, it is very improbable).

Edited October 25, 2011 by diglot

[Mortal Man]

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.

Maybe Apollos is Alma.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Here's from the 2009 revision of the HarperCollins Study Bible, under the auspices of the Society of Biblical Literature.

"Most scholars, however, now believe it was written after Peter's death by a writer following a literary convention of the time that allowed an author to attribute a "testament" to a great figure of the past."

From Bible.org:

"There has been much debate over the authorship of 2 Peter. Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible."

From a Christian Apologetics website "NewApologia": (Which argues for Petrine authorship)

"Today, nearly all critical scholars agree 2 Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter. Even some evangelical scholars hold this opinion."

So the Apostles and Prophet are mistaken. Especially JS who claim to know Paul. "When men are learned they think they are wise".

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

As someone who has spent a great deal of my academic studies in the New Testament specifically focused upon the Catholic Epistles corpus, take my word for it..... practically no scholars think 2 Peter was actually written by Peter. I've read many academic commentaries and studies on 2 Peter, and I can't think of a single scholar who asserts the authenticity of 2 Peter (even the very conservative evangelical scholars only seem to go as far to say that even though it isn't impossible Peter wrote it, it is very improbable).

Wow...is anyone listed as author who wrote in the scriptures? BTW, I am not Catholic or Evangelical, I am Mormon and follow Christ and the Apostles.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false ("most scholars regard 2 Peter as a later, pseudonymous writing....")

How many scholars are (or "is") there...do you have a %?

[David T]

Wow...is anyone listed as author who wrote in the scriptures? BTW, I am not Catholic or Evangelical, I am Mormon and follow Christ and the Apostles.

Papa, "Catholic Epistles" are a technical term for classifying the texts under discussion. It means "General Letters", as opposed to the letters to specific location-based audiences of the Pauline Epistles. It has nothing to do with Church alignment.

[diglot]

Wow...is anyone listed as author who wrote in the scriptures?

I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

[Log]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

For each book of scripture, is the attributed author ever actually the author - this is the question he asked.

[ERayR]

Meditating on this thread has lead me to these questions.

Is it really important who wrote it but rather was/is it inspired by and approved of God? Does the Holy Ghost testify to me that it is true doctrine? How does it better my life?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Papa, "Catholic Epistles" are a technical term for classifying the texts under discussion. It means "General Letters", as opposed to the letters to specific location-based audiences of the Pauline Epistles. It has nothing to do with Church alignment.

Do you truly see me as that stupid?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Meditating on this thread has lead me to these questions.

Is it really important who wrote it but rather was/is it inspired by and approved of God? Does the Holy Ghost testify to me that it is true doctrine? How does it better my life?

To me it is this simple...all of our scripture (all the Standard Works) are written by Apostles and Prophets, or men called directly of God. Not joe from the third row back in Sacrament meeting.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

I doubt that.

[diglot]

For each book of scripture, is the attributed author ever actually the author - this is the question he asked.

Yes, sometimes the author is actually who the writer says he is (eg. the Epistle to the Romans).

I'm not sure why this is relevant to Hebrews, because the author nowhere states or implies that he is Paul. In fact, as I argued earlier, the author seemingly implies that he was not Paul.

[diglot]

I doubt that.

No, I wasn't actually sure what you were asking. You asked, "is anyone listed as author who wrote in the scriptures". Maybe it's just me, but that sentence doesn't make sense.

[David T]

Do you truly see me as that stupid?

What? Papa, there's a lot of technical terminology being used here, and I don't expect it to be familiar to even very intelligent people who haven't immersed themselves in it. You denied being a Catholic, and the only reference to the term 'Catholic' was in that context. I thought it would have been easy to have gotten confused. I was trying to be helpful.

[ERayR]

To me it is this simple...all of our scripture (all the Standard Works) are written by Apostles and Prophets, or men called directly of God. Not joe from the third row back in Sacrament meeting.

I agree thus I have some trouble with this "higher criticism" in that it tends to cast doubt on the validity or usefulness of the Bible as scripture. My criteria is does the Holy Ghost testify to me through it. After all I have been priveledged to hear some great truths over the pulpit from Brother_______, who was moved on by the Holy Ghost.

[David T]

I agree thus I have some trouble with this "higher criticism" in that it tends to cast doubt on the validity or usefulness of the Bible as scripture.

Higher Crit makes no such assertions. While there are some who use the findings of Higher Crit to form their own conclusions, the two need not be combined.

I believe in God. I believe in prophets. I believe in the power of sacred scripture.

I don't believe that we need to know who had a sacred experience to benefit from his written expression of it. I also do not believe an individual has to have a concrete and perfect understanding of the details of history, in order to use the elements that he does know to teach an applicable principle.

Higher Crit does not state "Anonymous/Pseudephgriphal Author = Not Inspired", nor does it say "Not Completely Historically Accurate = No Spiritual Use For Instruction, or Power".

While some jump to those conclusions based on their own assumptions, I do not. I am highly edified by what we learn about the texts, and the nature and context of their composition. I see prophets as not individuals sitting in an Ivory Tower who have a connection with God that I will never have, but as individuals who are just like me in the most important ways, and receive revelation and need to work to make sense of it the same as I do.

I find such a study highly empowering. Sure, it can require a change of paradigm, but I don't view that as a bad thing. Saul of Tarsus had a radical paradigm shift as to how he understood the scriptures, and he came out better for it. I think there's a powerful lesson in that.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

No, I wasn't actually sure what you were asking. You asked, "is anyone listed as author who wrote in the scriptures". Maybe it's just me, but that sentence doesn't make sense.

OK I will express it differently…can any Apostles or Prophets assume or assign books of scripture to a person without checking with a Scholar first?

[diglot]

OK I will express it differently…can any Apostles or Prophets assume or assign books of scripture to a person without checking with a Scholar first?

Yes they can. I never said that they had to first check in with what the scholarly community was saying.

But when the scholarly community shows that the prophet's opinion is pretty much untenable, then what does that mean regarding the prophet's opinion? That he didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

[David T]

OK I will express it differently…can any Apostles or Prophets assume or assign books of scripture to a person without checking with a Scholar first?

Of course they can, and do. However, unless they are claiming a New Revelation on the subject, we're okay with recognizing that it is most likely being stated it based on tradition, and that they aren't making dogmatic assertions of which agreement with them is intended to be a test of faithfulness to the Church, or its leaders status as prophetic leaders.

[ERayR]

Higher Crit makes no such assertions. While there are some who use the findings of Higher Crit to form their own conclusions, the two need not be combined.

I believe in God. I believe in prophets. I believe in the power of sacred scripture.

I don't believe that we need to know who had a sacred experience to benefit from his written expression of it. I also do not believe an individual has to have a concrete and perfect understanding of the details of history, in order to use the elements that he does know to teach an applicable principle.

Higher Crit does not state "Anonymous/Pseudephgriphal Author = Not Inspired", nor does it say "Not Completely Historically Accurate = No Spiritual Use For Instruction, or Power".

While some jump to those conclusions based on their own assumptions, I do not. I am highly edified by what we learn about the texts, and the nature and context of their composition. I see prophets as not individuals sitting in an Ivory Tower who have a connection with God that I will never have, but as individuals who are just like me in the most important ways, and receive revelation and need to work to make sense of it the same as I do.

I find such a study highly empowering. Sure, it can require a change of paradigm, but I don't view that as a bad thing. Saul of Tarsus had a radical paradigm shift as to how he understood the scriptures, and he came out better for it. I think there's a powerful lesson in that.

I did not say that it was necessary to view it that way and took some effort to explain that I approach scripture study through the Holy Ghost. However, I know that a lot of people do conflate the two. And while I understand it is interesting to scholars I do not see it as valuable to my testimony and I do know of some who have stumbled because of it.

[mapman]

To me it is this simple...all of our scripture (all the Standard Works) are written by Apostles and Prophets, or men called directly of God. Not joe from the third row back in Sacrament meeting.

Pa Pa, if Hebrews wasn't written by Paul (which I agree it probably wasn't), that doesn't mean that it wasn't written by a prophet. Some posters above have suggested that Apollos wrote it. Apollos was an apostle (1 Corinthians 4:9), though whether or not he was part of the twelve isn't clear. But in any case he wasn't a random Christian, but an important church leader. Hebrews could not have become so accepted as scripture unless it had been written by an important church leader.

[David T]

I did not say that it was necessary to view it that way and took some effort to explain that I approach scripture study through the Holy Ghost. However, I know that a lot of people do conflate the two. And while I understand it is interesting to scholars I do not see it as valuable to my testimony and I do know of some who have stumbled because of it.

I believe that information used from scholarship can open up inspired questions and learning which the Spirit can use to guide. Joseph, even though he already translated record through the Gift and Power of God without having nay intellectual knowledge of ancient languages, still chose to pursue an academic study of Hebrew, which in turn led to many profound questions which resulted in revelations that we hold as scripture.

Scholarship has destroyed some earlier paradigms I held, but in the process, my testimony has been strengthened.

I do wish some of those in authority would approach and take advantage - or at least address - some of the scholarship more than they do. I believe it could be the catalyst for some powerful revelation. I know it has been for my personal life.

Edited October 26, 2011 by nackhadlow