Why is the "Hebrews" considered canonical?

Shermana · Feb 6, 2012

Martin Luther was not the only one who felt it shouldn't be part of Canon.

Many in the Jewish Christian community don't seem to approve of it either.

Why the Book of Hebrews is not Canonical

Seems they even think it has some proto-"Gnostic" influences.

Why is held to be by Paul? Majority Tradition? How do we know Paul wrote it exactly? Does it sound anything like Paul's other epistles?

Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No author is internally named. Since the earliest days of the Church, the authorship has been debated. In the 4th century, Jerome and Augustine of Hippo supported Paul's authorship: the Church largely agreed to include Hebrews as the fourteenth letter of Paul, and affirmed this authorship until the Reformation. Scholars argued that in the last 13th Chapter of Hebrews, Timothy is referred to as a companion. Timothy was Paul's missionary companion in the same way Jesus sent disciples out in pairs of two. Many scholars now believe that the author was one of Paul's pupils or associates, citing stylistic differences between Hebrews and the other Pauline epistles.[6]

Views of modern scholars

In general, the evidence against Pauline authorship is considered too solid for scholarly dispute. Donald Guthrie, in his New Testament Introduction (1976), commented that "most modern writers find more difficulty in imagining how this Epistle was ever attributed to Paul than in disposing of the theory."[11] Harold Attridge tells us that "it is certainly not a work of the apostle";[12] Daniel Wallace simply states, "the arguments against Pauline authorship, however, are conclusive."[13] As a result, few supporters of Pauline authorship remain.
As Richard Heard notes, in his Introduction to the New Testament, "modern critics have confirmed that the epistle cannot be attributed to Paul and have for the most part agreed with Origen's judgement, 'But as to who wrote the epistle, only God knows the truth.'"[14]

Why should Hebrews be held to be canonical specifically? (Note, this thread is not meant to be a discussion of why ANY book is canonical, just specifically Hebrews)? When was the Epistle considered unanimously to be Canon?

Was it possibly pushed by anti-Judaizers mostly?

Wannabe Yogi · Feb 6, 2012

Shermana said:
Martin Luther was not the only one who felt it shouldn't be part of Canon.

Many in the Jewish Christian community don't seem to approve of it either.

Why the Book of Hebrews is not Canonical

Why because St Athanasius said so, If you don't follow what the early church fathers excepted at the orders of Constantine. Then I guess you can add or subtract anything book you what. Origen of Alexandria thought the Shepherd of Hermas needed to make it into the Canon. While your at it I would include the Bhagavad Gita since from my perspective it way more profound then the rest of your Canon.

Shermana · Feb 6, 2012

Wannabe Yogi said:
Why because St Athanasius said so, If you don't follow what the early church fathers excepted at the orders of Constantine. Then I guess you can add or subtract anything book you what. Origen of Alexandria thought the Shepherd of Hermas needed to make it into the Canon. While your at it I would include the Bhagavad Gita since from my perspective it way more profound then the rest of your Canon.

I totally agree that Shepherd of Hermas should be canon and that it should be required reading (and quite a read it is), but it's not a matter of "adding and subtracting anything you want" so much as it is "adding and subtracting what fits" what you think was the original intention of Christ's teachings. It seems that Hebrews "fits" a very anti-Judaizing agenda and that may be why it was considered by the majority anti-Judaizing movement as writ.

Again though, like I said, this is not a question of why ANY book is canonical, but specifically Hebrews. Nonetheless, the next step by your logic, why should Athanasisus's and Constantine's word be authority on what is canonical.

The Bhagavad Gita however does not have anything to do with the early Christian writings and while it may contian similar themes, was not at all read or considered inspired by any of the early church groups or in any circulated canon, and is not part of the equation here.

So then, why should Hebrews have a place in what is considered Divinely inspired writ?

outhouse · Feb 7, 2012

Why should Hebrews be held to be canonical specifically?

A better question is why should it not be included.???

it plays a important part of the early division between judaism and christianity.

Christians were persecuted and this reflects issues surrounding the division.

Theres no need for me to get into detail as the wiki link states the whole document pretty clearly

Shermana · Feb 7, 2012

A better question is why should it not be included.???

Well, in that case, the question of what should be included altogether needs to be discussed then, even though that wasn't the intent, I suppose it's necessary. If you think that the Canon should include anti-Jewish-Christian texts from a clearly anti-Judaizing movement, then I suppose it fits perfectly. If you believe that Paulinism and anti-Judaizing was a complete deviation from the original concept, then it doesn't belong and the only "Canon" it should be included in is the anti-Judaizers, as opposed to the Jewish-Christians. So if you ask the question of why it should NOT be considered Canonical, then you open up the can of worms of what SHOULD be included altogether.

However, by this logic, you are stuck with explaining why Barnabas and Clement and other writings aren't included.

it plays a important part of the early division between judaism and christianity.

That's exactly my point. If you think that "Christianity" should be seen as NOT a Jewish sect, and you agree with the Lawless Pauline interpretation, then it's a perfect fit. But I don't see why it should be considered canon while other writings of similar regard, like Barnabas aren't.

Christians were persecuted and this reflects issues surrounding the division.

Christians of both camps, Jewish Christians and anti-Judaizers were both persecuted, so this statement is a bit vague and doesn't stay on track to the concept.

Theres no need for me to get into detail as the wiki link states the whole document pretty clearly

Detail about what? What does the wiki link state clearly? What specifically?

outhouse · Feb 7, 2012

Well, in that case, the question of what should be included altogether needs to be discussed then

I agree. and wouldnt argue it

If you think that the Canon should include anti-Jewish-Christian texts from a clearly anti-Judaizing movement, then I suppose it fits perfectly

what do you think christianity is? do you think judaism played nice to early christians ???

as opposed to the Jewish-Christians.

and who's fault is it, that both sides didnt play well with one another ?

the work that we have only shows a small picture of this reality of this division.

the first four gospels clearly show the resentment and by teh time it got to john it was very clear.

So if you ask the question of why it should NOT be considered Canonical, then you open up the can of worms of what SHOULD be included altogether.

Only if you dont understand what happened historically and understand how the movement evolved foward.

However, by this logic, you are stuck with explaining why Barnabas and Clement and other writings aren't included.

not really Clement, wrote late and is more a early church father.

and Barnabas only has alleged writings.

But I don't see why it should be considered canon while other writings of similar regard, like Barnabas aren't.

because we dont now what barnabas may have really written.

so this statement is a bit vague and doesn't stay on track to the concept.

but it does and its why Hebrews was seen as needed

Detail about what? What does the wiki link state clearly? What specifically?

the content

Jeremy Mason · Feb 7, 2012

First of all, Paul was not anti-Jewish and he loved the Jewish people.

Romans 9:1-5 NIV

1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

fallingblood · Feb 8, 2012

Shermana said:
Martin Luther was not the only one who felt it shouldn't be part of Canon.

Many in the Jewish Christian community don't seem to approve of it either.

Why the Book of Hebrews is not Canonical

Seems they even think it has some proto-"Gnostic" influences.

Why is held to be by Paul? Majority Tradition? How do we know Paul wrote it exactly? Does it sound anything like Paul's other epistles?

Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why should Hebrews be held to be canonical specifically? (Note, this thread is not meant to be a discussion of why ANY book is canonical, just specifically Hebrews)? When was the Epistle considered unanimously to be Canon?

Was it possibly pushed by anti-Judaizers mostly?

I would say it should be considered canonical today simply because it has been part of the canon for over a millennia. It has a long standing of being excepted. Even Luther, who didn't like the book, kept it in the canon. So today, I think it should be in the canon simply because it has for such a long time.

Saying that, I personally don't like Hebrews anyway. I see it only having been included in the canon because enough people believed that it was written by Paul, even though it clearly isn't (it doesn't claim to be written by Paul, and it teaches ideas that are opposed to what Paul taught. As your quote said, no scholar really thinks that it is by Paul anyway.

But in the past, obviously people did for whatever reason. And it was that attachment to Paul that got it a larger audience. So much so that it became popular enough to be canonized. That, and it was written early. So it had a good long time to circulate.

Basically, I think it simply got lucky.

Shermana · Feb 8, 2012

Jeremy Mason said:
First of all, Paul was not anti-Jewish and he loved the Jewish people.

Romans 9:1-5 NIV

I don't think you understand the difference between anti-Jewish and Anti-Judaizing.

Shermana · Feb 8, 2012

what do you think christianity is? do you think judaism played nice to early christians ???

I think Christianity (as well as many others) was intended as a sort of Recationary Jewish sect. Whether or not the Pharisees played nicely to this anti-Pharisee sect makes no difference.

Here's an atheist site for you saying basically the same thing:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=141

It is impossible to know what the earliest varieties of Christianity looked like. We have no relevant physical evidence at all. Our earliest sources are Paul’s letters, which come two or three decades after Jesus’ death. Even there we do not have his original letters, but copies of copies from centuries later, which show many signs of editing at the hands of copyists wanting to put their own views into Paul’s pen.1
And of course, Paul represents only one sect of early Christianity, and certainly not the “original” one: scholars now agree that if we know anything about Jesus, his family, his Twelve Apostles, the Elders, his family, and his earliest followers, we at least know they were Torah-observant Jews, whereas the main feature of Paul’s message was a rejection of the Torah (Jewish law).
Paul’s sect came to dominate Christianity, and since the winners write the history we know little about other sects in earliest Christianity. But in this new series on Early Christian Sects, I will survey what we might know about early Christian sects from the surviving evidence.
Today, let’s look at perhaps the earliest Christian sect, the Jewish Christianity practiced by Peter, James, and Jesus’ earliest followers.

and who's fault is it, that both sides didnt play well with one another ?

That's irrelevant to what the intention of Christ's message is supposed to be and whether Paul and the anti-Judaizers deviated from it.

the work that we have only shows a small picture of this reality of this division.

Irrelevant, it shows SOME picture at least.

the first four gospels clearly show the resentment and by teh time it got to john it was very clear.

But has nothing to do with the fact that what Christ was teaching was an anti-Pharisee sentiment, which is not anti-Torah but anti-proto-Talmud.

Only if you dont understand what happened historically and understand how the movement evolved foward.

If you say "evolved forward" then you are saying that it deviated from its original roots, which is the point.

not really Clement, wrote late and is more a early church father.

Clement wrote not much longer than John and Revelation. There's estimates that Clement's work was before them even, including around the same time (and maybe earlier) as 1 and 2 Peter and Acts and Luke, so that argument relies on using a very late dating for Clement and an early dating for the others which there is widespread dispute on.

and Barnabas only has alleged writings.

Ummm....and Hebrews isn't an alleged writing?

because we dont now what barnabas may have really written.

Likewise, we don't know who really wrote Hebrews.

but it does and its why Hebrews was seen as needed

Needed by the anti-Judaizing faction perhaps.

the content

Okay, and what specifically about the content?

outhouse · Feb 8, 2012

I think Christianity (as well as many others) was intended as a sort of Recationary Jewish sect.

Possible, but dont think so.

we know christians were persecuted by followers of judaism, the division grew with time. All of the NT is evidence of this division and Hebrews is going into detail of a later time period then Paul.

But has nothing to do with the fact that what Christ was teaching was an anti-Pharisee sentiment, which is not anti-Torah but anti-proto-Talmud.

You havnt figured out why???

they were writing to a roman audience, and had to place hatred somewhere, Starting with jesus being tried as a tax cheat, jesus didnt like the temple priest being in bed as tax collectors for romans. They didnt need to come right out and state it as it was common knowedge how bad the hebrews hated taxation by romans.

If you say "evolved forward" then you are saying that it deviated from its original roots, which is the point.

there were many movements, and proabably many early scripts. we only have a fractionary view of the original theme, and have to build from there.

im sure the roman appointed temple priest being tax collectors caused a great division of hatred without a christian movement. but the movement grew as did the hatred.

Most was not directed at the common poor people, it was the jewish governement that was taking the heat for their corruption with romans

Ummm....and Hebrews isn't an alleged writing?

while it may be, but that applies to all the gospels, only half of pauls work can be attributed.

Needed by the anti-Judaizing faction perhaps.

this started with jesus, and grew from there.

Okay, and what specifically about the content?

for christians to persevere through there hatred by the jewish governement

Shermana · Feb 8, 2012

Possible, but dont think so.

Well I do think so, and so does the scholarly concensus on the issue, even among Atheists. I don't mean to appeal to scholarly authority, but it's a pretty much sealed issue, the earliest Christians were Jewish, the texts themselves indicate that Jesus preached total adherence to Jewish Law in what he considered its original form, and the Lawless sects came several decades afterwards, those who say differently are revisionists without any basis. This is especially made more evident when we examine the proto-Matthew "Gospel to the Hebrews" which may have been the very first written account.

we know christians were persecuted by followers of judaism, the division grew with time. All of the NT is evidence of this division and Hebrews is going into detail of a later time period then Paul.

Once again (And probably will be again), there's a difference between Judaism and Torah-following as I pointed out? Do you not understand the difference between the Torah and Pharicaisim/Talmudism? It's like the Qarites in a way. I'll explain if you honestly don't. But I think you understand the difference. Have you read Matthew?

The non-Christ Torah followers persecuted the Christ following Torah followers and Christ following non-Torah followers. If "Judaism" = Pharicisaim, then it's just a matter of Semantics. The fact is, if you read Matthew and even Luke (surprisingly Luke), it's impossible to avoid the fact that Jesus taught Torah obedience. If I have to use "Torah obedience" to not make the Judaism/Pharisee equivalence, I will do so. If you say that Hebrews is going into detail at a "later time than Paul" then you further prove my point that the anti-"Judaizing" ahem...I mean "Anti-"Torah obedience" movement was developing strong towards the end of the 1st century, with or without Paul.

You havnt figured out why???

Ummm, what are you implying that I hadn't figured out? That has nothing to do with what Jesus taught, but what the LATER gentile anti-Juda....anti-Torah-obedience movements were teaching. I don't think you're effectively following. Do you have stake in promoting the idea that the original Christians were not Torah obedient?

they were writing to a roman audience, and had to place hatred somewhere, Starting with jesus being tried as a tax cheat, jesus didnt like the temple priest being in bed as tax collectors for romans. They didnt need to come right out and state it as it was common knowedge how bad the hebrews hated taxation by romans.

Can you provide evidence that part of Jesus' accusation was as a Tax Cheat?

And Can anyone else explain the relevance and cogency of this comment to what it has to do with the fact that the original Christians were Torah obedient Jews? Once again, there's a difference between Jesus teaching against the Jewish leaders and their Sadducee/Pharisee interpretations and doctrines and being against the Law altogether. It would be like saying that Ron Paul is against the Constitution because he doesn't like how it's being interpreted by saying that Jesus was against Torah obedience. Now what does the Tax issue have anything to do with it? What does this have to do with what I said exactly?

there were many movements, and proabably many early scripts. we only have a fractionary view of the original theme, and have to build from there.

The "Fractionary view" that we have is enough evidence to clearly point to the fact that it started as an all-Jewish (ethnically) Torah-obedient sect and LATER became a gentile lawless sect. Even the Atheist site I showed you agrees with this.

What we can tell the earliest movement was that of James and the Jerusalem Church which was entirely a Jewi-.....I mean, "Torah obedient" sect, as opposed to the later sects. Even in the Book of Acts, we can see that the Paulinist anti-Law movement was a LATER development. Calling it "Evolving forward" may be what Paulinists would call it, but would Jesus actually approve of it? It's more of a DEVIATION than an Evolution.

im sure the roman appointed temple priest being tax collectors caused a great division of hatred without a christian movement. but the movement grew as did the hatred.

But this has little to do with the actual issues of the divide, which was whether Jesus was teaching obedience to the Torah for all, or not. If the gentiles used the issue of a tax collector in bed with the Romans as an excuse to not follow the Law, it's similar to those today (especially among "Christians") who try to act as if Torah-obedience and Phariciaism are the same thing.

Most was not directed at the common poor people, it was the jewish governement that was taking the heat for their corruption with romans

That has little to do with the concept at hand of whether or not the ORIGINAL message and ORIGINAL Church was about Torah obedience for all, Jew (Ethnic) and Gentile and whether the later Lawless gentile sects corrupted and deviated this message into something entirely different through the use of Paul's epistles a al Marcion.

while it may be, but that applies to all the gospels, only half of pauls work can be attributed.

Right, so if you apply the same logic to Hebrews as we do to Barnabas and the Deutero-Pauline epistles, Hebrews should be cut out without question.

this started with jesus, and grew from there.

No, it didn't start with Jesus, that's the issue at hand. Once again, the issue is about Semantics. If you say "Anti-Judaizing" = Anti-Pharicaism, then you are right, and I completely agree. However, this is not what Anti-JUdaizing typically means. If you said that this means Jesus was against obedience to the Torah itself in its entirety, then I completely DISagree, and encourage you to read (or re-read) Matthew, especially 5:17-20 and 7:22-23, Jesus taught total obedience to the Torah, and we have plenty of evidence to suggest that the counterargument that he taught "liberation" from Torah obedience is 100% wrong. There's a major difference between Torah and Talmud (Proto-Pharicaism fits into "Talmudism"). Jesus is often speaking against what he considers Pharisee misinterpretations of the Law, not the Law itself. He is 100% pro-Law. This is the area of contention with 99% of "Christianity".

for christians to persevere through there hatred by the jewish governement

But that's not the concept of Hebrews or the gentile Lawless sects, it was about actual doctrinal division about whether to obey the Torah, whether through the Pharisee interpretations or not. Again, if the excuse for discarding Law obedience as Jesus clearly commanded according to Matthew is that the "Jewish government" was corrupt and persecuting them, then they were ignorant to the division between the Law itself and the Pharisee interpretation. But I don't think that was the case, they just argued against the Law altogether because of the Pauline Theology that was making the rounds.

outhouse · Feb 8, 2012

the earliest Christians were Jewish,

this may be where your getting lost.

jesus and his followers were all jewish. they were not christians.

there was a direct movement away from judaism, but no matter how you want to argue it away, there was a split away.

texts themselves indicate that Jesus preached total adherence to Jewish Law in what he considered its original form,

false

Jesus somewhat possibly following Johns leed in which was a sort of radical judaism. Radical enough that it started its own movement away from typical judaism.

had it remained loyal to judaism, it would have stayed another sect like so many of the different versions in the first century.

it's impossible to avoid the fact that Jesus taught Torah obedience.

we know the unknown authors who never knew or met or heard a word pass jesus lips, who were not even from that area "stated that in script" they attributed this to jesus yet HISTORY shows a different picture, doesnt it ?

Torah-obedient sect

is a guess at best

Can you provide evidence that part of Jesus' accusation was as a Tax Cheat?

have you read any of the NT? or luke?

"They began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man perverting the nation, forbidding paying taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king." - Luke 23:2

That has little to do with the concept at hand of whether or not the ORIGINAL message and ORIGINAL Church was about Torah obedience for all, Jew (Ethnic) and Gentile and whether the later Lawless gentile sects corrupted and deviated this message into something entirely different through the use of Paul's epistles a al Marcion.

false again [facepalm]

there is plenty of anti-semtism in the gospels. again, have you read any of the NT?

Right, so if you apply the same logic to Hebrews as we do to Barnabas and the Deutero-Pauline epistles,

what can be atributed to barnabas that should be added?????????????????????????????????

If you said that this means Jesus was against obedience to the Torah itself in its entirety, then I completely DISagree

I never stated or implied that.

Jesus was a teacher of his own brand of radical judaism. what he really taught is even up for debate.

I agree that he did have a strong foundation in the Torah

Jesus taught total obedience to the Torah,

we dont know that and history show's he did not with his own theology.

You see to want to take away from jesus his whole herritage and blaim it on later gentiles

outhouse · Feb 8, 2012

with all that said, im sure there were followers of judaism that held fast in their beliefs that could have liked and held this new theology and jumped ship at a later date.

Im sure there were different degrees of loyalty to judaism among the followers of jesus

fallingblood · Feb 8, 2012

Shermana said:
But that's not the concept of Hebrews or the gentile Lawless sects, it was about actual doctrinal division about whether to obey the Torah, whether through the Pharisee interpretations or not. Again, if the excuse for discarding Law obedience as Jesus clearly commanded according to Matthew is that the "Jewish government" was corrupt and persecuting them, then they were ignorant to the division between the Law itself and the Pharisee interpretation. But I don't think that was the case, they just argued against the Law altogether because of the Pauline Theology that was making the rounds.

I just want to touch on this. You're completely right about it being an issue of obeying the Torah or not.

The author of Hebrews was differentiating between the old and the new. The idea that he espoused was that this "new" covenant some how superseded the "old" covenant. Like the Essenes, this group seems to have distanced themselves from the Temple, seeing the sacrifices to be not fully effective, and that was why they had to be repeated over and over again. For them, they saw a perfect perfection in Jesus, and thus, there was no need to continue with the sacrifices. This suggests a more evolved theology.

However, I think their talk about sacrifices, and the duties of the Temple do give us some clue as to when it was written. Most scholars agree that it was probably an earlier writing, as in being before 70 C.E. I think this is important as it suggests that the division between Judaism and Christianity had not quite happened. Mainly because Christianity had not yet really separated from Judaism. And it really isn't until after the Temple destruction, and even some time after that, that Christianity became a separate religion.

Like you suggested, we can see Pauline Theology in this. Now, I think this goes beyond what Paul was teaching, or is a more evolved form of what Paul taught (incidentally, some have suggested that Hebrews might have been written by Barnabas, who was a follower of Paul, yet it is also admitted that we can't know for sure. It is just a possibility).

More importantly though, we see Clement of Rome alluding to this work. I think that played a big part in why this work was included in the Canon.

I kind of went off on a tangent here. But to sum up. The teachings about not being required to follow the Torah, some connection to Paul (either just using the same theology of Paul, or possibly being a follower of Paul), and the Clement of Rome alluding to it, gave many Jewish-Christians, and Christians for that matter, a good reason to use this text. It worked with a growing Gentile population, it was early, and it seemed to be supported by early important individuals.

Shermana · Feb 9, 2012

this may be where your getting lost.

jesus and his followers were all jewish. they were not christians.

....okay, we agree here. Jesus was most certainly not a "Christian", he was a reactionary Jew teaching an anti-Pharisee view within what we normally refer to as "Judaism" (despite the fact that many insist that the term Judaism = Rabbinicism)The term 'Christian" was first applied, according to Acts to members of the Antioch Church as a way of designating those who were still Torah-obedient Ethnic Jews from the ones who didn't accept Yashua as Moshiach. So again, this is a matter of Semantics, that has nothing to little to do with the issue of Hebrews' canonicity and its point of departure within the initial sect of "Christianity". If your argument is that "Christianity" in itself is completely set apart from what Jesus and his followers believed, then I can agree with you, all Semantics aside, but I will still use the term "Jewish Christians" for convenience sake.

there was a direct movement away from judaism, but no matter how you want to argue it away, there was a split away.

false

I'm sorry if you find it false, and you're welcome to your opinion that the Jewish Christians and Ebionites and Nazarenes and multitude of scholars who all the same thing are wrong and wish to take the opinion that Paulinians take, but if you want to get into a discussion of why the Gospels indicate anything other than Torah obedience, take it to my "Christianity without Paul" thread and feel free to explain you feel why all the scholars who say otherwise are wrong.

Jesus somewhat possibly following Johns leed in which was a sort of radical judaism. Radical enough that it started its own movement away from typical judaism.

What you call "Radical" Judaism I call "Reactionary" Judaism. ONce again (and probably will be again), there is a big difference between "Pharisee and Sadducee Judaism" and "Torah Obedience", when I said that Jesus was teaching a "Reactionary" style of Judaism, I was meaning to say he was teaching a very "Back to the roots" system, which eschews all of the proto-Rabbinical additions. So what you call "Radical", I call "Reactionary".

had it remained loyal to judaism, it would have stayed another sect like so many of the different versions in the first century.

False. In this statement, you are demonstrating total dismissal of the groups like the Ebionites and Nazarenes and brushing aside the entire argument in question as to the Lawless vs Lawful groups, I question your understanding of Christian history, why don't you bother reading that ATHEIST link I gave you, and brush up on the history of the Jewish-Gentile schism.

Split of early Christianity and Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you need more information on how the many sects of Christianity split off from the original Jerusalem Church, I'll be happy to discuss it, but take a look at the information I presented first, such as the link I first showed you.

we know the unknown authors who never knew or met or heard a word pass jesus lips, who were not even from that area "stated that in script" they attributed this to jesus yet HISTORY shows a different picture, doesnt it ?

Well by this logic, you shouldn't be any argument about what Jesus did or didn't teach, however, for someone who places so much stock in appeal to scholarly authority, you sure are going against the scholarly concensus, not that I am one for appealing to them, but....you're basically taking a very fringe position i f you say that the evidence doesn't indicate that the first "Christian" sects were of Jewish Christians. I again ask, do you have kind of some of stake like the Conservative Paulinists in insisting that Jesus was not preaching Torah obedience? Do you consider the "Gospel to the Hebrews" to not be authoritative? By this logic we can't really trust ANYTHING anyone has written about what Jesus allegedly taught and said.

is a guess at best

A guess that is held by pretty much the scholarly concensus on the issue. But then again, anything about anyone is a guess by this logic. If however you want to say that Matthew's emphasis on Jewish Law (and the subsequent Proto-Matthew, "Gospel to the Hebrews") is full of interpolations, you'll have to argue that case, otherwise, the evidence and concensus unanimously suggests that Jesus was teaching Torah obedience, albeit an anti-PHarisee form.

have you read any of the NT? or luke?

Yes I have. All of it. However, he was not TRIED as such. He was merely accused by the crowd. Pilate immediately found him innocent. There is no evidence that this was part of his actual trial or condfemnation.

"They began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man perverting the nation, forbidding paying taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king." - Luke 23:2

As you can see, nothing about him actually being tried for it, Pilate immediately says he sees no basis for the claim. Thus, he was not put on trial for this reason, it was merely what the crowds were trying to trump up on him, he was not arrested under that charge, or tried for it.

false again

Just because you say it's false, does not make it so. Face palm or not. Again, you are going against the mainstream scholarly concensus on the issue for someone who places stock in appeals to such authority.

there is plenty of anti-semtism in the gospels. again, have you read any of the NT?

No, I've read NONE of the NT, obviously none. I just am talking wild guesses on what Matthew says. Right. I wonder if you have.

This is a common charge, and it further shows that you don't understand the difference between the Pharisees and Jews themselves. When John mentions "The Jews" it is usually in reference to the Jewish authorities, otherwise, it would be making no distinction between Jesus's Jewish followers and the population in general. Why don't you show what you think is such anti-semetism, and we'll discuss that in detail. "Ye brood of vipers"? Tis to the Pharisees.

what can be atributed to barnabas that should be added?????????????????????????????????

Nothing that I know of. So therefore, why should Hebrews have a special place but the alleged Epistle of Barnabas not? You're evading the question each time.

I never stated or implied that.

Oh I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood what you meant when you said "False" when I said that Jesus was teaching Torah obedience, perhaps you can clarify.

Jesus was a teacher of his own brand of radical judaism. what he really taught is even up for debate.

That is arguable, his "own brand" of Judaism, I'd simply call what he referred to as a "Reactionary" or "Purist" form, aside from the Pharisee interpretations. And yes, what he really taught is up to debate, and I like to debate such a subject quite often. However, "Torah obedience" is quite different than "Phariacisim", do you understand this? The argument is that Jesus was referring to "The LAw" itself as in the same Law that the Israelites had followed until the later Pharisee movements, so the idea of a "Reactionary" approach is what I'm arguing is what he taught. Nonetheless, the issue of the Epistle to the Hebrews is that it's very Anti-Torah altogether, along with Paul's known epistles it seems, and may be evidence of the early Schism between the Lawful and Lawless sects.

I agree that he did have a strong foundation in the Torah

Ok and what does "strong foundation" mean exactly?

we dont know that and history show's he did not with his own theology.

Oh really? Why don't you kindly demonstrate how exactly his teachings were in such deviation? The Divorce issue? I have argued before the DIvorce issue may be an interpolation that shows up in other works like Shepherd of Hermas. This is actually an interesting subject as I've mentioned before, even if the Lawless gentiles who wrote Hebrews agreed they were "Priests in the Order of Malchezdiek", they may have taken the original idea and reshaped it: Priests are not allowed to marry Divorcees.

You see to want to take away from jesus his whole herritage and blaim it on later gentiles

Please explain your accusation here, are you saying that Jesus was originally as Lawless as the later gentile sects and that the Nazarenes and Ebionites were all wrong? Are you saying that Jesus was not Torah obedient? I thought you said it's all guesswork. You sure seem to have a stake in the idea that the original beliefs of Jesus were as lawless as the Anti-Judaizers for some strange reason. You're even willing to dismiss Scholarly concensus which is strange for you.

outhouse · Feb 9, 2012

If your argument is that "Christianity" in itself is completely set apart from what Jesus and his followers believed, then I can agree with you,

I agree here for the most part.

Jesus started the ball rolling, others pushed it and got it rolling in the directions they wanted.

What you call "Radical" Judaism I call "Reactionary" Judaism. ONce again (and probably will be again), there is a big difference between "Pharisee and Sadducee Judaism" and "Torah Obedience", when I said that Jesus was teaching a "Reactionary" style of Judaism, I was meaning to say he was teaching a very "Back to the roots" system, which eschews all of the proto-Rabbinical additions. So what you call "Radical", I call "Reactionary".

fair enough

but one thing is clear, it was not mainstream judaism. [if there is such a thing in that time] Pharisee and Sadducee were night and day different as were the other different sects.

But obviously something was so very different that it did branch away from judaism by the end of the first century.

Torah obedience,

you could start a whole thread on this one concept alone.

But the facts are they followed what hey wanted and added to it starting with jesus. Key word is added to it and only used or followed what they wanted.

In this statement, you are demonstrating total dismissal of the groups like the Ebionites and Nazarenes

You are reaching far and wide here creating your own theology within a lack of historcity

I question your understanding of Christian history

Asd I question yours, make a real point

youi act like its cut and dry, sorry.

If you need more information on how the many sects of Christianity split off from the original Jerusalem Church, I'll be happy to discuss it, but take a look at the information I presented first, such as the link I first showed you.

these changed differently with time, and you know that

i f you say that the evidence doesn't indicate that the first "Christian" sects were of Jewish Christians.

thats not what im saying at all.

I again ask, do you have kind of some of stake like the Conservative Paulinists in insisting that Jesus was not preaching Torah obedience?

I dont care much for Paul, not that its relevant.

'"i feel" AND THAT IS THE KEY PHRASE YOUR NOT UNDERSTANDING Jesus taught his OWN version of the torah. IF you want to claim using part of the book is called "torah obediance" when he probably preached outside of it also, then so be it.

Yes I have. All of it. However, he was not TRIED as such. He was merely accused by the crowd. Pilate immediately found him innocent.

you should realize then, that the trial has no historicity at all. we dont know he had a trial by pilate.

he was not arrested under that charge, or tried for it.

We know one thing, he died at romans hands for committing a roman crime.

The bible states he preached to "all the tax collectors", had a working relationship with Matthew and good ole Zacc and had Zacc so confused he was giving money back to people. That would be your crimes of "perversion" and that alone would get him killed. Again if this has any historicity.

Tipping the money tables over in the temple "if it happened" would be a death sentance. I doubt this has much historicity though.

Peter was questioned why doesnt jesus pay taxes, shortly before him throwing money tables around.

One cannot discount that roman money had a huge hand in causing his death.

Nothing that I know of. So therefore, why should Hebrews have a special place but the alleged Epistle of Barnabas not? You're evading the question each time.

circular thinking

if we dont know what Baraba wrote we cant add anything.

"Reactionary" or "Purist" form

never heard John's preaching beingcalled as such

the issue of the Epistle to the Hebrews is that it's very Anti-Torah altogether,

all due to the time it was written.

after the first century things got ugly in the division. Hebrews reflects this.

outhouse · Feb 9, 2012

Torah Obediance????????????

baptism

jesus as divine

women being able to worship in church

diverse practices of the sabbath

newly created scripture to add to the torah

outhouse · Feb 9, 2012

was opening up judaim to gentiles "torah obedience" ?????

Shermana · Feb 9, 2012

I agree here for the most part.

Jesus started the ball rolling, others pushed it and got it rolling in the directions they wanted.

Right, and the question is, which people would Jesus agree with? The Nazarenes and Ebionites, or the Lawless and Paulinians?

fair enough

but one thing is clear, it was not mainstream judaism. [if there is such a thing in that time] Pharisee and Sadducee were night and day different as were the other different sects.

Yes, that's the point. Jesus was teaching an anti-Pharisee form of Torah Obedience, similar to the Qairites today.

But obviously something was so very different that it did branch away from judaism by the end of the first century.

The belief in him as the Savior and against the Pharisee precepts perhaps? Judaism was basically at the time "Pharisee, Sadducee, or Nazarene-Sect". Which is not too different today from "Orthodox, Conservative/Reform, Sect"

you could start a whole thread on this one concept alone.

I kinda have with the "Christianity without Paul" thread, but perhaps a more specific one would do.

But the facts are they followed what hey wanted and added to it starting with jesus. Key word is added to it and only used or followed what they wanted.

We don't disagree here, there are interpolations in ALL the Gospels it seems, but the evidence suggests that "Gospel to the Hebrews", the Proto-Matthew, is the earliest of them, and 1 John and James seem to indicate that they were written by Torah obedient-Christians, James is unanimously considered to have been a Torah-obedient Christian, as well as Peter.

You are reaching far and wide here creating your own theology within a lack of historcity

Not really, the same logic could nonetheless be applied to virtually anyone who claims to believe that Yashua was the Moshiach. I try to align my views to what the evidence suggests the Jerusalem Church believed, the historicity isn't entirely lacking, it's a matter of interpretation of what's available.

Asd I question yours, make a real point

youi act like its cut and dry, sorry.

You're right that it's not very cut and dry, otherwise there'd be no debate on the subject. But the issue is what the evidence available is, and how to interpret it. As it stands, it looks like the earliest Christians who allegedly knew this alleged figure called Yashua, and claimed to have heard his teachings directly, were of the Torah-obedient sort, and the point of this thread is that "Hebrews" as an Epistle represents a movement to "De-Judaize" (Or de-Torahize) the Jewish Christian movement.

these changed differently with time, and you know that

Yes they changed over time, however, what we can see from the writings available, is that the early Christians did hold Mosaic-Law-obedience to be necessary, as well as what we can garner from the currently accepted manuscripts, whether they may have interpolations or not. Not only that, but one has to wonder why any Jew at the time would accept anyone as the Moshiach if they were preaching anything less, which is an issue most "Christians' are not aware of: Why was Yashua even accepted as Moshiach, because he performed Miracles?

thats not what im saying at all.

Well then I misunderstood why you said "False".

I dont care much for Paul, not that its relevant.

The point is that the Paulinian sects were the ones who won the numerical battle and got to write the rest of "Church history". Epistle to the Hebrews may represent the view of the Paulinian branch in their ideological battle against the initial Jerusalem Church.

'"i feel" AND THAT IS THE KEY PHRASE YOUR NOT UNDERSTANDING Jesus taught his OWN version of the torah. IF you want to claim using part of the book is called "torah obediance" when he probably preached outside of it also, then so be it.

Where did he "probably" preach outside of it? Even then, there's a difference between preaching his own version of it, and doing away with it completely which as you know, is the doctrinal point of 99% of Christianity and their interpretation of Paulinism.

you should realize then, that the trial has no historicity at all. we dont know he had a trial by pilate.

We don't. We also don't know if there was really a Council of Jerusalem, which is actually a highly disputed issue among scholars, and just so happens to be a common and crucial argument by the Paulinians for saying that the Jerusalem Church caved in...but looks to be an interpolated account.

We know one thing, he died at romans hands for committing a roman crime.

Even in the Gospels themselves though, the crime is for declaring himself King of the Jews/Son of G-d, more along those lines than with taxes.

The bible states he preached to "all the tax collectors", had a working relationship with Matthew and good ole Zacc and had Zacc so confused he was giving money back to people. That would be your crimes of "perversion" and that alone would get him killed. Again if this has any historicity.

That could be a possible point in why he was accused of making himself King of the Jews perhaps.

Tipping the money tables over in the temple "if it happened" would be a death sentance. I doubt this has much historicity though.

And you may have a point there, but it would still be more under the "making yourself King" charge than tax evasion in flipping over their tables and forcefully herding them out with a whip.

Peter was questioned why doesnt jesus pay taxes, shortly before him throwing money tables around.

But he has Peter catch the fish with the coin to pay the Temple tax nonetheless.

One cannot discount that roman money had a huge hand in causing his death.

You're right, but the question would then be if it's more about Tax evasion or setting yourself as a political authority.

circular thinking

if we dont know what Baraba wrote we cant add anything.

It's not really circular. If we don't know that the Epistle of Barnabas is legit, why should we accept that the Epistle to the Hebrews is legit? We don't know if 2 Clement is by Clement either to a similar regard. It makes no sense for Hebrews to be included as Canon in the first place, the argument in the old days was that it was written by Paul, but virtually no academic accepts that it was by Paul, and it was questioned even in the old days. Luther would have removed it altogether if it didn't probably mean losing great support, (though to be fair, he said the same about James, though for doctrinal reasons more so than authorial). So the point is, Hebrews has as much basis for being "Canonical", maybe even less so, than Barnabas. Let alone "inspired".

never heard John's preaching beingcalled as such

Wouldn't that be another subject?

all due to the time it was written.
after the first century things got ugly in the division. Hebrews reflects this.

Exactly. That's the point. So at best, perhaps Hebrews should be regarded as evidence of the Divide, rather than an Inspired, Canonical text.

Why is the "Hebrews" considered canonical?

Heretic

Well-Known Member

Heretic

Atheistically

Heretic

Atheistically

Well-Known Member

Agnostic Theist

Heretic

Heretic

Atheistically

Heretic

Atheistically

Atheistically

Agnostic Theist

Heretic

Atheistically

Atheistically

Atheistically

Heretic