Hello Tony,

I was not addressing you in particular, or anyone in particular. There were a collage of words like ignorant, ungrounded, dangerous, not true believer, from multiple posts that might have triggered my slightly caustic tone in defense of my friend. These words do not describe him. He is not the first scholar to question the canonicity of Hebrews. It was one of the last books to be accepted, and there were controversies about it in the time of the Reformation as well.

I do not judge anyone's motives and hope my motives are not judged either. I am just trying to get some information to clear up the questions. Your dispensationalist view of this Book would actually be helpful to me....as the main problem my friend has with Hebrews is how it is generally understood to negate Torah and declare it superseded or obsolete. I do not read it that way at all, not in the King James Version, but I see mistranslation in the Alexandrian versions, resulting in antinomianism. I believe Hebrews will be vindicated in the KJV when these issues are resolved. At least I hope so.

You said:

This is another of the serious problems with Hebrews that need to be resolved. You resolve it with your dispensational time frame; for others it is very perplexing. For me, it causes me dire concern for my atheist friend who once was a strong and dedicated believer. I do not want to believe he cannot repent and return like a prodigal son. This harsh stance on apostates seems to contradict other Scriptures and the merciful heart of God who is not willing that any should perish.

I am open to hearing your point of view, Tony, and do not find it "distasteful" though I disagree with doctrine that negates the commandments of God. I am willing to look at perspectives different than my own, however. The comments you have made about the priesthood, etc. lend considerable weight to the belief held by many (most?) that Paul could not have written this. It does not sound like him at all, except possibly chapter 13. I used to think maybe Aquila and Priscilla wrote it together under Paul's supervision. It sounds like a sermon more than an epistle. If Priscilla was involved, it would explain why the author is not named.

So how did the Book of Hebrews make canonicity when the authorship is unknown and is someone who did not have first hand knowledge of hearing Jesus directly(ch. 2:3)? Paul heard Him on the Damascus road. Also, I have heard that the many OT Scriptures quoted are all from the (supposed) LXX. That is troubling. Is it possible that there was a Hebrew original and that this was translated into Greek by a somewhat Gnostic early church father, or tampered with by the proto-Catholic church? Yes, it seems to refute the Catholic mass, but they must have an answer to that...and I'm sure they like the verse about "obey them that have the rule over you," i.e., bishops.

The Book of Hebrews exudes Divine Inspiration....I just wonder if it has been tampered with in a few places. The Book of Revelation warns against such tampering with the Scriptures....so it must have been going on, as we see in the pseudepigraphical letters, etc.

Another question is where is the Epistle from Laodicea that Paul mentions in Colossians 4:16? There are supposed to be 14 Pauline epistles according to early lists....could this have been one of them....and Hebrews was substituted for some reason?

I am just thinking out loud here....I hope I won't be banished for voicing these thoughts as I struggle with this. I brought it up on this forum for the very reason that I expect people here will be able to resolve my concerns.

You said:

I would like to see a reference for this statement.

I have not fully digested all that you have written, Tony, but I appreciate the time and effort you have put into your response and I will prayerfully consider all that you have written, as well as contributions by others on this topic.

Shalom,

Tandi