Hebrews

[Nick01]

it's found in "number in scripture", very thorough and very well for a long time accepted by believers as accurate with scripture.

it's far to lengthy to try to even cut and paste here, but it's readily available as a pdf online for free.

he proves beyond most any doubt that paul is the author, without any contradiction or even any conflict with scripture.

he also provides substantial evidence, scriptural, that if someone else is thought to be the author, then it causes contradictions and conflicts.

Can you link it? All I could find was "Numbers in Scripture", where he devotes a paragraph to the issue in terms of logical argument [bracketed components are my insertions]:

The following logical reasoning also supports the Pauline agency. There are four steps in the argument:—

1. Peter wrote his First Epistle to the Diaspora, the Dispersion. See 1 Peter 1:1. [True]
2. His Second Epistle was addressed to the same dispersed of Israel. See 2 Peter 3:1. [Questionable: Not clear the second letter is addressed to the diaspora, or indeed that 2 Peter 3:1 intends 1 Peter to be understood as the 'first' letter written to this audience to which 2 Peter is the quoted second. Did Peter only ever write two letters to Jewish people?]
3. To these same he says (2 Peter 3:15) "our beloved brother Paul...hath written unto YOU."[Aside from the assumption that 2 Peter is to the diaspora, True]
4. Where is this Epistle if it be not the one which is addressed to "the Hebrews"?[False conclusion: even if we take points 1-3 as true, it does not follow that there is no other letter that Paul wrote to Jews in the diaspora - Romans certainly counts as at least one. And, the biblical canon is not the entirety of what Paul wrote anyway. Finally and crucially, 2 Peter 3:16 says Paul wrote multiple letters, not just one - even if Peter has in mind the book of Hebrews as one of these letters, he also has in mind other letters Peter wrote to this audience has, which means it is impossible, by way of this argument, to demonstrate that Hebrews is the only possible candidate, out of Peter's own mouth.]

Bullinger then provides several paragraphs to the numbers argument, which is balony, because it relies on reducibility of numbers (i.e take a number, and show it is a multiple of 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, or 12, or show it is a squared or cubed root of one of those multiples = the whole thing is mathematically insignificant) and reduce it through any set of digits derived through selective data (i.e. cubed apparently spiritually signifies 3, not 100 - whereas squared signifies 10, not 2).

 

[Jeff_56]

Eusebius, Erasmus of Rotterdam, and Origen...I like the company I'm keeping.

if you were keeping company with believers, you wouldn't defend heresy. unless like Jesus says,

you think that by hanging around believers (those you listed if they were believers, and believers here on this forum who are not deceived by the heresy you've been deceived by),

that somehow that will help you; as if God will ignore your heresy and your antichrist leader(the pope),
and
for some unknown reason God will not punish you ....

unless of course you turn away from the devil and away from heresy, and turn toward God and the light and truth. (which so far you have embraced instead darkness, by your own admission, heresy).

 

[ChristInUs]

Hey Brother....I hear ya on this and agree with what you wrote. I am only offering my defense for the writer being Apollos

Acts 18.24-28

[SUP]24 [/SUP]And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
[SUP]26 [/SUP]And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
[SUP]27 [/SUP]And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
[SUP]28 [/SUP]For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Apollos was greek and would have known the intricacies of being a jew or Hebrew. God is God and could have told him what to say. But this book was written to the Jews and by a jew in my opinion. As for Thomas collins remarks that this was written many hundreds of years past the advent of the cross I cannot accept. The Jews were disperesed in 70 A.D. . This bokk was clearly written before that time.

And where we go placing our faith in who wrote what. It makes no difference The Holy Spirit saw fit to include this writing in the Word of God no matter who wrote it. It's focal point is the cross.

 

[Jeff_56]

Can you link it? All I could find was "Numbers in Scripture", where he devotes a paragraph to the issue in terms of logical argument [bracketed components are my insertions]:

[/LIST]


Bullinger then provides several paragraphs to the numbers argument, which is balony, because it relies on reducibility of numbers (i.e take a number, and show it is a multiple of 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, or 12, or show it is a squared or cubed root of one of those multiples = the whole thing is mathematically insignificant) and reduce it through any set of digits derived through selective data (i.e. cubed apparently spiritually signifies 3, not 100 - whereas squared signifies 10, not 2).

the link is before the quote in that post - it is between ( and ) i.e. the word in the post Hebrews. as in Hebrews

i'm not sure why it comes up one way one time and another way another time.

 

[The_highwayman]

Apollos was greek and would have known the intricacies of being a jew or Hebrew. God is God and could have told him what to say. But this book was written to the Jews and by a jew in my opinion. As for Thomas collins remarks that this was written many hundreds of years past the advent of the cross I cannot accept. The Jews were disperesed in 70 A.D. . This bokk was clearly written before that time.

And where we go placing our faith in who wrote what. It makes no difference The Holy Spirit saw fit to include this writing in the Word of God no matter who wrote it. It's focal point is the cross.

IF Apollos were Greek why does Acts 18.24 say he was a Jew?

[SUP]24 [/SUP]And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

 

[ChristInUs]

IF Apollos were Greek why does Acts 18.24 say he was a Jew?

[SUP]24 [/SUP]And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

He very well could have been as they were scattered amongst the nations. He was born at Alexandria which was a greek city. But not being in the city of Jerusalem or surrounding areas he would have been taught in the schools of Zeus and greek gods. Evidently he is the product of Paul's missionary exploits as his name is not Jewish and that would not be common amongst Jewish families at that time and even now.

 

[Jeff_56]

from wikipedia >>>
Apollos (Ἀπολλώς) is a 1st century Alexandrian Jewish Christian mentioned several times in the New Testament. A contemporary of Paul the Apostle, he played an important role in the churches of Ephesus and Corinth.
[h=2]Contents[/h]

• 1 Biblical account
• 2 Extrabiblical information
• 3 Notes
• 4 References

[h=2]Biblical account[edit][/h] Apollos was a Jew from Alexandria. This led to speculations that Apollos preached in the allegorical style of Philo. Theologian Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, for example, recently commented: "It is difficult to imagine that an Alexandrian Jew ... could have escaped the influence of Philo, the great intellectual leader ... particularly since the latter seems to have been especially concerned with education and preaching."[SUP][1][/SUP]
Apollos is first mentioned as a Christian preacher who had come to Ephesus (probably in the year 52-3), where he is described as "being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John." [SUP][Acts 18:24-25][/SUP] Priscilla and Aquila, a Jewish Christian couple who had come to Ephesus with the Apostle Paul, instructed Apollos. "When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more adequately."[SUP][Acts 18:26][/SUP] The differences between the two and Apollos probably included baptism and the Holy Spirit, for Acts says that Apollos "knew only the baptism of John" [SUP][Acts 18:25][/SUP] and later, during Apollos' absence, recounts an encounter between Paul and some disciples at Ephesus:

And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism." And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.[SUP][Acts 19:2-6][/SUP]

​

 

[Nick01]

Apollos was born in Alexandria, so was a Hellenistic Jew. He probably grew up speaking Greek, and may well have been highly educated, given Alexandria was in many respects the city for academia in the Mediterranean region in the first century (next to the likes of Athens).

 

[oldhermit]

Clearly to me Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. Paul was the only one educated enough to present this audition to the Hebrews. I say educated, By that I'm saying that he was educated as a Pharisee, in fact the cream of the crop and in line to become high Priest. Taught at the feet of Gamaliel after his education at the university of Tarsus. Peter could not have wrote this perhaps John. But the most educated in the ways and traditions of Judea was Paul. To Paul was given the meaning of the cross and how it pertains to salvation and sanctification and how to live for God. No one else could have written this to the hebrew nation. Understanding the tradition and laws of the Jewish people.

According to 2:3-4 the writer could not been any one of the apostles.

 

[Jeff_56]

2 3 4 does not in any way prevent paul from being the author.

 

[seriouslyman]

Some say Paul. Most say Appolos. The important thing is is came from God. Through human hand.Right

 

[Kaycie]

God did. (2Timothy 3:16)

 

[Reborn]

God did. (2Timothy 3:16)

That's awesome.
I was never aware that God wrote part of the Bible?

I'm with the Paul theory.

 

[Nick01]

the link is before the quote in that post - it is between ( and ) i.e. the word in the post Hebrews. as in Hebrews

i'm not sure why it comes up one way one time and another way another time.

Ah, ok, so it's the same thing.

Yeah, I just can't get behind his argument because it's selective in the data that it uses. Here's why

Apparently 14 Pauline letters is significant because it is divisible by 7, which is a holy number, therefore 14 (i.e. including Hebrews) is the correct number, but apparently Peter only writing two books (2 not being one of Bullingers sacred numbers) is not similarly a proof (or disproof). The traditional view that John wrote 5 books in the NT - where does this sit in Bullinger's proof system? Matthew, Mark and Jude writing only 1? Why are the contrasting categories Paul and 'other writers'? Who selected those categories? What if we made the categories 'Paul, John, and other writers'? What happens to the numbers then?

The verbal occurrences bit is similarly misleading, mostly because many of the apparently important occurance frequency examples are actually still divisible by Bullinger's sacred numbers regardless of whether or not the number of occurances from Hebrews is included. For instance, in the VERY FIRST EXAMPLE HE CITES (agapetos = beloved), he comes up with 27 occurances in the Pauline corpus, and 1 in Hebrews. He believes this is a proof because 27+1 = 28, and 28 is divisible by 7.

However, 27 is a cubed number itself - 3 to the third power. There is no need to include Hebrews to arrive at his supposed pattern. This occurs multiple times throughout his list (even though he has ruled out most of his important numbers because they have their 'own significance', but has ruled in squares, cubes, 7 and 11, which he has argued previously are important. There is no particular reason, then, for why he does this, but for that fact that he ends up with apparently more favorable results that way,)

Why, then, does Bullinger not follow his own method and assume this is equally proof that Hebrews was not written by Paul? How does he resolve this conflict between the numbers? He doesn't - he seems entirely unaware, which is what you'd expect when someone has built a theory on selective use of data.

He similarly doesn't seem to realise elsewhere that considering the digits 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ,13 all to be important numbers renders any pattern he may produce with or containing those numbers makes the whole exercise mathematically meaningless. I can reduce practically any number to at least one of those numbers - that's not at all surprising or evidentiary.

TLDR, Bullinger's numerology is trash, and has been for centuries. I seem to remember him being denounced by his own dispensationalist brethren for being too out there in his ideas. Heck, I'm an Anglican and I haven't read anything of his I thought worthwhile.

 

[oldhermit]

2 3 4 does not in any way prevent paul from being the author.

Why not????

 

[jimnsc]

Please read II Thessalonians 3:17 in more than one version and just take Paul's words at face value.

 

[oldhermit]

Please read II Thessalonians 3:17 in more than one version and just take Paul's words at face value.

The absence of the typical Pauline greeting is also a good argument against Pauline authorship of Hebrews.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

That's awesome.
I was never aware that God wrote part of the Bible?

God did not write a part of the Bible!!! He wrote the whole Bible my friend (says Gandalf in his sneaky voice)

 

[royalscot]

even in the first few centuries ad no one knew no one knew for certain who the auther was, thought many people people people attribute it to paul. today this is considered tvery unlikely. hebrews reflect niether paul style nor thought.but having said that, we are no nearer to solving the puzzle.from the letter, we know auther knew timothy(13-23 heb)he write with extremely polished greek, and he is plainly an able teacher.he knows the bible inside and out,and the version he quotes from is greek septuagint, which means he is probably a greek speaking (hellenistic)jew. writing to fellow greek speaking jews. he is a christian who has thoroughly thought through the relation of his faith to judaism.(this is wrote in my bible conpanion)
so it faily certain the letter was writen before 70 ad, it was sent to rome (heb 13-24) it is most likley written in the 60s perhaps just before neros persecution( if 12-4 heb)is to be taken littery)(this is wrote in my bible conpanion)


my thoughts it not paul, the reason would be every letter he wrote were started with some like paul an apostile.
etc paul knows timiothy. and used this greeting
2 Thessalonians 1: Greeting
1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy,
a rich jewish person with extremely polished greek would be my speculation to the writer. and he also knew timothy.

 

[oldhermit]

even in the first few centuries ad no one knew no one knew for certain who the auther was, thought many people people people attribute it to paul. today this is considered tvery unlikely. hebrews reflect niether paul style nor thought.but having said that, we are no nearer to solving the puzzle.from the letter, we know auther knew timothy(13-23 heb)he write with extremely polished greek, and he is plainly an able teacher.he knows the bible inside and out,and the version he quotes from is greek septuagint, which means he is probably a greek speaking (hellenistic)jew. writing to fellow greek speaking jews. he is a christian who has thoroughly thought through the relation of his faith to judaism.(this is wrote in my bible conpanion)
so it faily certain the letter was writen before 70 ad, it was sent to rome (heb 13-24) it is most likley written in the 60s perhaps just before neros persecution( if 12-4 heb)is to be taken littery)(this is wrote in my bible conpanion)


my thoughts it not paul, the reason would be every letter he wrote were started with some like paul an apostile.
etc paul knows timiothy. and used this greeting
2 Thessalonians 1: Greeting
1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy,
a rich jewish person with extremely polished greek would be my speculation to the writer. and he also knew timothy.

Yes, I think you are right. In fact, it is possible based on internal indicators that the letter was written as early as 52-54 AD.