Author of Hebrews

My take is that the early believers were being forced to make a choice - temple without Yeshua or Yeshua without temple. They were not welcomed among their People. The author is showing them that it's not worth it for them to give up salvation and following Messiah just so they could continue to worship in the temple. He's comparing the finite temple (which we on this side of history know of its destruction) with the infinite Messiah and showing them that they need to endure and run the race knowing their reward is better - thus Chapter 11 - the "hall of faith".

Click to expand...

I don't see where this choice it being offered. Written to Jewish believers but not those in Jerusalem, the originals. There was no choice for them even in Acts it says they went and prayed daily in the temple. Paul was told to got to the temple and participate in the nazarite vows. Why give up the temple? Is there anywhere that Yeshua in the 40 days following his resurrection says to not continue following Torah by participating in the temple?

I find it strange that in the four gospels there is nothing about Yeshua observing any ritual in the temple, although he must have. I wonder if these was mysteriously edited out?

visionary said:

Other people have suggested that it was Apollos... because ..

Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord... Acts 18:24

I have read where it would also explain why the author never put his name to the book. If Apollos was the author of Hebrews, it would also make perfect sense why he didn't identify himself as the author. Since the letter was written to the Hebrew people, it would be counterproductive to identify himself by name, because the Jews made so much of a person's name. A name was expected to indicate something about a person. Apollos was born in Alexandria Egypt and named after the pagan god Apollo... the son of Zeus! A book written by someone named "Apollos" would have three strikes against it right from the start in the eyes of most Hebrew people.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was very much likely an Alexandrian Jew, greatly Hellenized as well as someone quite versed in Gnosticism.

Here's some background history so that you can see the various writers suggested as authors of the Letter to the Hebrews over time, and the view of church authorities. See my previous post for the reasons given by some folk who think Paul wrote it (and there are a number on the internet you can track for yourselves - for and against Paul as author - I chose just a few), and elsewhere on this forum can be found reasons from other posters as to why other authors are preferred. You may recognise some of the terminology here. You pays your money and takes your choice, as they say.


Writer Of The Letter To The Hebrews
The author is unknown. Origen of Alexandria, who lived from about A.D. 182-250, wrote, “Who wrote the epistle only God truly knows.”
The author did not name himself in the letter. The early church held no clear, consistent tradition regarding the authorship of the letter either. The early church in the East thought Paul wrote it. The Synod of Hyppo in A.D. 393 and the Synods of Carthage in A.D. 399 and 419 placed the letter in the canon and attributed its authorship to Paul. The Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent decreed the letter was written by Paul. The early church in the West did not attribute the letter to Paul's authorship, however. Tertullian of Carthage, who lived from around A.D. 160-230, thought Barnabas was its author. In Rome the letter was considered anonymous.
The reference to Timothy in Hebrews 13:23 led some to think that Paul wrote the Letter to the Hebrews. Paul could not have written it, however. The author stated in Hebrews 2:3 that he and his readers had received the word of salvation second hand from those who had heard it from the Lord Jesus himself. Paul, on the other hand, declared that he had seen the Lord and had received the word he preached directly from the Lord himself and not from other men (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:1; 11:23; 15:8; Galatians 1:11,12).
Who, then, wrote the Letter to the Hebrews? The internal evidence within the letter holds out some clues. The author's theology and familiarity with Timothy suggest the author was associated with Paul's close friends and fellow workers. The characteristics of the letter indicate its author was a Jewish Christian who was knowledgeable in the Greek Old Testament translation. He was well versed in the Old Testament religion of the Jews and their forms of worship. He was also capable of writing the most polished literary style of Greek of any book in the New Testament.
Given these clues, some have thought Barnabas wrote the Letter to the Hebrews. Barnabas was a Jewish Levite from Cyprus (cf. Acts 4:36). Being a Levite, he would have been knowledgeable of the priesthood and of the forms of worship in the temple. These facts would give the suggestion that he wrote the letter some credibility.
Martin Luther suggested a more plausible writer in a sermon on the party divisions in the Corinthian congregation that Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 3:1-9. Luther suggested Apollos. Apollos is a likely candidate. He was associated with Paul. Luke wrote that Apollos was in Ephesus and Corinth (cf. Acts 18:24-19:1). Paul urged Titus to render assistance to Apollos when Apollos passed through Crete (cf. Titus 3:13). In Acts 18:24f Luke wrote that Apollos was a Jew. He was born in Alexandria, which was an ancient center of scholarship and learning. He was an eloquent, learned man, who was mighty in his knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures. He was a Christian convert who had been instructed in the gospel of the Lord Jesus by others. He possessed a fervent spirit. He powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating from the Old Testament Scriptures that Jesus was the promised Messiah and Christ. All these characteristics are mirrored in the Letter to the Hebrews.

Lulav said:

I don't see where this choice it being offered. Written to Jewish believers but not those in Jerusalem, the originals. There was no choice for them even in Acts it says they went and prayed daily in the temple. Paul was told to got to the temple and participate in the nazarite vows. Why give up the temple? Is there anywhere that Yeshua in the 40 days following his resurrection says to not continue following Torah by participating in the temple?

I find it strange that in the four gospels there is nothing about Yeshua observing any ritual in the temple, although he must have. I wonder if these was mysteriously edited out?

Click to expand...

In many of the early church/NT history, it's stated that along with James, Revelation, Jude and 2 Peter (and some manipulating of some of the Gospels), Hebrews was often included in the "lists" to not include in the set canon.
These early church histories (there are several that I've read online) have been both in agreement with and against those inclusions - I don't think the ones I've chosen (so far) to read have been slanted in just one direction.
In response to Heber's helpful quote, I've stated before that upon reading Tertullian, he, too, had some issues with quite a bit of Paul's words.

Lulav said:

I don't see where this choice it being offered. Written to Jewish believers but not those in Jerusalem, the originals. There was no choice for them even in Acts it says they went and prayed daily in the temple. Paul was told to got to the temple and participate in the nazarite vows. Why give up the temple? Is there anywhere that Yeshua in the 40 days following his resurrection says to not continue following Torah by participating in the temple?

I find it strange that in the four gospels there is nothing about Yeshua observing any ritual in the temple, although he must have. I wonder if these was mysteriously edited out?

Click to expand...

You bring up a valid point, but at the same time, off the top of my head, I can't think of any ritual that He would have had to participate in. The 3 aliyah (don't know the plural) were only required the firstborn of the family to go there, right? (And would that include Yeshua since He was only an "adopted" child of Joseph? Some think that Joseph had other sons born prior to Yeshua, from a previous marriage (that would free Yeshua from that obligation). Did "firstborn" include firstborn of the woman?) The rest of temple service pretty much just included sacrifices for sin (He was sinless) and peace and thanksgiving offerings (which were not required). Other than those, I can't bring anything else to memory.

visionary said:

He instructed the leper to show himself to the levites and be officially validated as clean.

Click to expand...

As well as others He healed, He instructed them to follow the proscribed follow-ups.
But I still can't think of any He, personally took part in.....??? Except...maybe His mikveh? (Since it was performed outside the Temple and by someone not officially a part of the Temple service (and yet a Levite), would it count?)

yedida said:

You bring up a valid point, but at the same time, off the top of my head, I can't think of any ritual that He would have had to participate in. The 3 aliyah (don't know the plural) were only required the firstborn of the family to go there, right? (And would that include Yeshua since He was only an "adopted" child of Joseph? Some think that Joseph had other sons born prior to Yeshua, from a previous marriage (that would free Yeshua from that obligation). Did "firstborn" include firstborn of the woman?) The rest of temple service pretty much just included sacrifices for sin (He was sinless) and peace and thanksgiving offerings (which were not required). Other than those, I can't bring anything else to memory.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you got the idea where it was only the first born, the mitzvah is for all men to attend these three.

“Three times a year shall all your men appear before the Lord your God in the place that God will choose , on the festivals of Pesah, Shavuot, and Sukkot . They shall not appear empty handed. Each shall bring his own gift, appropriate to the blessing which the Lord your God has given you” (Deuteronomy 16:16).

Click to expand...

These were agricultural gifts as well as sacrifices that were to be brought.

Lulav said:

I'm not sure where you got the idea where it was only the first born, the mitzvah is for all men to attend these three.

These were agricultural gifts as well as sacrifices that were to be brought.

Click to expand...

I can't say where I got that impression, that's why I asked if it was correct. It was just in my mind for some reason that it was the firstborn......thanks for the correction, sis!
We're not given the info that Yeshua did or did not comply. I don't see any reason why He wouldn't since it was commanded by the Father.

NP, sometimes the laws not pertaining to us now get jumbled together, especially since we can't practice them without the temple. Not to mention these were not applicable to women so we don't have to worry anyway!

Very true, which is why I find it odd now that we're on the subject, that there is nothing about that in the gospels. This would show that he defiantly kept Torah as well as participated in the sacrifices.

Lulav said:

NP, sometimes the laws not pertaining to us now get jumbled together, especially since we can't practice them without the temple. Not to mention these were not applicable to women so we don't have to worry anyway!

Very true, which is why I find it odd now that we're on the subject, that there is nothing about that in the gospels. This would show that he defiantly kept Torah as well as participated in the sacrifices.

Click to expand...

Where the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John are concerned, I can understand why it's not mentioned. He was a Jew elucidating (yeah, I like the word ) Judaism to Jews, there was no need to touch on something that was perfectly evident.
On the other side of the coin, if these men afterward, truly "taught" the ancient church fathers what they claim they got from the original disciples and apostles then why isn't it mentioned that He didn't do these things???? That would greatly turn things toward the anti-Jewish doctrine they were trying to carve for themselves.

I don't trust the book of Hebrews.

1) Nobody knows who wrote it. As far as I'm concerned it has no divine authority whatsoever.

2) I feel that Catholicism is unbiblical and they decided what went into the Bible. However, God saves his obedient children who read the Bible and hear his voice, which your average true Christian does. It's not a book that hurts, in this sense, and the warnings and talk about going on to perfection are generally good. Certainly no true believer should be sinning willfully, but it's not like there isn't enough already in the Bible, even just in the sermon of the mount and Yahshua's promise to reward each according to their deeds.

A person can certainly sin intentionally for some reason and be sorry about it later. Even killing someone to defend your family would be considered an intentional act of sin, clearly. Should he then be considered hopeless because of it? The only point scripture needs to make is that those sealed with the Holy Spirit do not take advantage of grace, nor do they like sin or seek to sin. Hebrews sounds more like the work of someone living under the law, not the spirit of grace.

3) Yashua is called "a priest forever in the ORDER of Melchizedek." Yashua told people not to join orders, and nobody knows who Melchizedek is either. Yashua was the son of God, not a mere priest in someone elses order.

4) It contains the most hated of all scriptures, Hebrews 6:4-8. It was probably a book the Catholics made up to keep people from falling away from "their order." Which is not surprising since by the view of this book Jesus is nothing more then a "mere priest" in an order nobody has ever heard of, so it's no wonder they don't see his atonement as having that much power and meaning. This is also inconsistent with scripture, Paul, in Galatians 1-6, identifies the fallen from grace in three ways: salvation based on works, another gospel, and justified by the law. In no case does he conclude it is too late for them.

Saved by grace has two primary principles: Faith and the Holy Spirit. According to Yashua faith is important, it can move mountains, and one must ask God with faith and believing for him to receive something. This is a world full of deception and we are finite beings capable of sinning if the right circumstance presents itself. Therefore faith in only his sacrifice and in having received the holy spirit by which we seek righteousness and are perfected in love, is the straight and narrow path. When we fall off of this tightrope, the solution is to get back on until we learn to balance ourselves. When we put faith in any other conditions we ensnare ourselves, becoming lost prodigal sheep. This damnable book has surely caused good Christians to put faith in hopeless after having committed one so called wilful sin.

5) It establishes the priesthood, again consistent with the interests of Catholicism whether good or not. Yashua said himself he is present whereever two or more are gathered in his name. Since the true saints were the persecuted and slain, not the roman church, then for 2000 years Christianity wasn't about meeting in church, it was about meeting in secret. Don't get me wrong, Pauls gospel as applying to the church does well for the current Protestant times.

6) The mystery of this book, the reference of Yashua as a mere priest in the order of someone who is also unklnown, lends credence to looking to lost scriptures and the unknown. If you look into the so called Melchizedek order you find a lot of things contrary to scripture.

7) Among this credence lent to looking into the unknown it is consistent with a clear deception that is current: The idea that Maitreya is the savior every religion is looking for, and Jesus was just a 4th degree initiate, the Christ thing has been done in other ages.

In short I believe the book of Hebrews is unscriptural, suspicious, contrary to Yashua's teachings, reduces his effectiveness, causes people that look for truth to believe it is too late for them to be saved, and supports the coming antichrist.

http://www.esoteric-philosophy.net/jes-maitrey.html

Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ are not one and the same person. This is one of the most difficult claims for many Christians to accept in connection with Maitreya, the World Teacher, and it therefore needs some further explanation.

In fact, the title Christ does not refer to an individual at all. It is the name of a function in the Hierarchy of Masters of Wisdom, that group of advanced beings who guide the evolution of humanity from behind the scenes. Whoever stands at the head of this Hierarchy automatically becomes the World Teacher, known in the East as the Bodhisattva, during the term of His office.

Maitreya, who embodies the energy we call the Christ Principle, has held that office for over two millennia, and in Palestine He manifested Himself as the Christ to inaugurate the Age of Pisces, then beginning. The method He used is called spiritual overshadowing, that is, His consciousness informed and guided the actions and teachings of His disciple Jesus. It was, therefore, the consciousness of the Christ, Maitreya, which was seen and experienced by those around Jesus.

In reality Jesus was a fourth-degree initiate and one of the older disciples of the Masters of Wisdom. He appeared before in biblical times as Joshua, the son of Nun, then as Isaiah, and again as Joshua in the book of Zachariah. In Palestine he made the great sacrifice of allowing himself to be used by Maitreya to fulfill His mission during the three years following the baptism in the River Jordan. During his life, Jesus also symbolically enacted the five initiations which lead one to Mastership. The experience on the cross was the enactment of the 4th initiation for Jesus (his birth, the baptism, and the transfiguration on the mount symbolize the first three), while at the same time Maitreya underwent a higher initiation.

The events from Jesus' life and his words have been greatly misinterpreted due to this little-understood connection between his work and that of Maitreya the Christ. This has given rise to the age-old theological point of contention -- namely, whether Jesus was God or man, or perhaps both together. The answer is that Jesus was a man who, as a result of the process of evolution, became a Son of God -- as does everyone eventually. Others had gone before him on that path and many have taken it since.

Christians who are of the opinion that it is not given to anyone to try and emulate Jesus' accomplishment (who, as far as they are concerned, is God or, at least, His only Son) are contradicted by his own words: Become perfect even as the Father in Heaven is perfect.
and
Greater things than I have done shall you do. Jesus' death was the fulfillment of the task for that life, and it was Maitreya who resurrected the body from the tomb (as a symbol for the 5th initiation, just as the ascension was symbolic of the 6th initiation). This presentation of ancient occult knowledge in symbolic form is one of the methods which the Spiritual Hierarchy uses to teach humanity, and to convey knowledge to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. In the lives of the Buddha, Mithra and Krishna, similar symbolic events can also be found. The famed labors of Hercules, too, are nothing less than part of the initiation process expressed in symbolic form.

The disciple Jesus of 2,000 years ago has by now become one of the most senior Masters in the Hierarchy: the Master Jesus. He reached His state of perfection in the course of His next life as Apollonius of Tyana. Many of those who followed Him during His life as Jesus were still alive during this subsequent incarnation -- and many of them became convinced that Jesus had reappeared in their midst. It was Apollonius who undertook a journey to India which became the basis for the story, which many believe, that Jesus did not die on the cross but went to India and died in Kashmir, having lived to a venerable old age.

The Master Jesus has been incarnate in a Syrian body for about 640 years. He is described in Initiation, Human and Solar by Alice A. Bailey (published by Lucis Publishing Co.) as follows: He is rather a martial figure, a disciplinarian and a man of iron rule and will. He is tall and spare with rather a long thin face, black hair, pale complexion, and piercing blue eyes. In the Hierarchy He is described as the Great Leader, the General and the Wise Executive. No one is so closely in touch with the people who stand for all that is best in the Christian teachings and no-one is so well aware of the needs of the present moment.

During most of this time He has lived mainly in Palestine. Since 1984, however, He has lived in Rome. The intention is that He will try to raise the Christian churches out of their state of crystallization and rivalry and, if invited to do so, to lead a newly united church. By doing so He hopes to resolve the many contradictions and misunderstandings which have arisen during the course of the centuries about His historic role and the teachings which He then disseminated as a vehicle for Maitreya.

With the emergence of Maitreya, the Master Jesus is playing a major role for the second time, as also are the Apostles Peter and John. Two thousand years ago they were third-degree initiates; now they have been entrusted with a significant aspect of completing the Plan as the Master Morya, and the Master who will succeed Maitreya as the Christ during the next era (in about 2,500 years), Koot Hoomi. This open collaboration, which will be visible to all, will end any lingering doubts concerning the true relationship between Maitreya the Christ and His disciple, the Master Jesus.

Thus the seemingly paradoxical claim that Jesus and the Christ are not the same person, in the literal sense of the word, is more reasonable than it would appear. Those Christians who find it difficult to accept that 'their' teacher is not the highest leader of all humanity may, however, take solace in a second paradox: Jesus and Maitreya the Christ were (and are) one, in the sense that They, each on His own level, work together in perfect concord to further the Divine Plan.

Click to expand...

The "Secret and enlightened hierarchy order," is none other then the Melchizedek order spoken of in Hebrews, and the real falling away will be the strong delusion of all those who worship him instead of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

The book of Hebrews is unbiblical because is calls Jesus a merely disciple in the Antichrists order.

yedida said:

Where the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John are concerned, I can understand why it's not mentioned. He was a Jew elucidating (yeah, I like the word ) Judaism to Jews, there was no need to touch on something that was perfectly evident.
On the other side of the coin, if these men afterward, truly "taught" the ancient church fathers what they claim they got from the original disciples and apostles then why isn't it mentioned that He didn't do these things???? That would greatly turn things toward the anti-Jewish doctrine they were trying to carve for themselves.

Click to expand...

I would think that in Lukes gospel, since he was a gentile and since he was not an eye witness. Also from those he gathered his info from were very detailed, he even includes Miriam's obligation to Torah after giving birth.


I'm not sure what you meant by " if these men afterward", what men?

We don’t know exactly who the author of Hebrews is, but it perfectly aligned with what we find in Scripture. It also originates from the first century and has early attestation to being authoritative. Whoever wrote it had a very deep knowledge of the message of the gospels add a very strong command of the Tanakh.