Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I ask this question because I do not think it was Saul/Paul. I think the author was Apollos. When you read the book you find something striking, well at least to me, the use of personal pronouns. The author of Hebrews uses approximately 1.3 personal pronouns per 1,000 words. If you look at Romans, who Saul/Paul identifies himself as the author, Saul/Paul refers to himself 103 times making the rate of approximately 18.2 times per 1,000 words. In 1 Corinthians, Saul/Paul refers to himself 175, in 2 Corinthians 103, and in the relatively short book of Galatians, he refers to himself 69 times which is a rate of 25 personal pronouns per 1000 words! So, based on ego and writing styles.... I do not think that he wrote Hebrews.... What do you think?

Although Apollos was a "friend" of Saul/Paul, he was not considered very highly by Saul/Paul..... as he appears to teach what Jesus taught and John the Baptizer rather than the belief system of Saul/Paul. See Acts, 18:25 "He had been instructed in the way of the Lord and was fervent in spirit. He spoke and taught accurately about Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John." Saul/Paul goes on to say: "And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him in and explained to him the way of G*d more accurately." Meaning, the Pauline Doctrine?



REMINDER... PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL NOT TOLERATED! This is a section where we put our personal hate and intolerance against one another away and DISCUSS points of view on belief systems.

bylm1-Bernie

Pennylynn, did you intend to say Hebrews or Romans? I always thought Hebrews was the letter in doubt as to the authorship. Interesting take on this.

Bernie

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

May I call you Bernie? Actually, I have not gotten into the book of Romans.... so, I did intend to ask about the book of Hebrews. It seems to me, from a "lite" read of Romans, that Saul/Paul was the author, but again... I have not "studied" that book yet and can not give a educated opinion... yet.

bahmer

I had never thought to much about it as I always believed what I had been told. You obviously bring up some very good points and some interesting arguments for your belief. I do believe that this needs further study.

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

I guess I've never been one to be concerned about who wrote which book for me anyway it's not that important .

Main idea for me is what is written . Just Saying

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I have always been interested in the personalities, philosophies, and motivations of people who have influence on nations..... and those that have a direct impact on my personal eternity, I do not want to take chances. Warnings on following false prophets are sprinkled throughout the "Old" Testament as well as in the teachings of Jesus....I think it is unwise just to follow blindly. I do not think on judgment that I could defend blind fellowship as an excuse for following a false prophet. I can imagine what that would be like.... something like my Papa's question of "if everyone jumped off a tall building, would you be a lemming and follow them?" What if ??? Let me put it another way, if you have children in school..... are you concerned with the history, motivations, and teaching techniques of their teachers and the contents and reliability of books being studied? Keeping in mind, the future of your child depends on the quality of the teacher. Should we be less concerned about the quality of our spiritual leaders? Keeping in mind, eternity is a very long time. And more directly to your point, do you think that the personality and philosophies of an author flows into their books? "Just saying!!"

bahmer

From what we are turning out in schools today I would say that parents stopped being concerned with the history, motivations, and teaching techniques of their teachers and the contents and reliability of books being studied? At least I think that hey stopped around 1950's and they have not been to concerned until as of late. As far as Romans and the other books of the bible go I remember everybody quoting the Roman road to salvation. That has been used to win more people to Jesus and to salvation than anything else that I know of an d for that alone I would have to say that Romans is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Since Saul/ Paul was blinded and led into Damascus and while there and blind the Lord appeared to him and taught him all the things that he would need to know I would attribute the book to him. Now whether he wrote the book himself or whether he spoke the book to someone who wrote it for him is of little consequence.

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

I think you have some interesting thoughts and I think I follow what you are saying , however all of the writers of the books in the Bible irregardless of who wrote which book non were false prophets .

Yes I think that the personality and philosophies of an author flows into their books but then again not all agree as too who wrote which book so I'm more inclined to study what is written in each book and not so much as to who wrote it !


+++++++++++
Your Quote Let me put it another way, if you have children in school..... are you concerned with the history, motivations, and teaching techniques of their teachers and the contents and reliability of books being studied?
+++++++++++

In this situation yes I'd be concerned of the things you mentioned per what the kids are being taught , however you make it sound like you are questioning the reliability of books of the Bible being studied by who wrote which book ! < I stand corrected if I'm in error .

Being concerned with what one's kids are taught ins in fact important and can be changed if one doesn't like the teachings they are receiving , but the teachings in the scriptures we either have to take at face value or reject them so in other words I'm more concerned that I know what is said rather than be concerned as to who wrote what .

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Good points and I will bear this in mind as I continue to read... and yes question the teachings of Saul/Paul vice the teaching of Jesus and the Torah. I do not argue or question if the Bible was inspired by G*d.

Having said that, let us look at Saul/Paul's account of his conversion. According to Acts 2:2, On the road to Damascus Saul/Paul and his traveling companions saw a bright light. Saul/Paul fell to the ground an he alone heard the voice of Jesus. This brief conversation culminated with "And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do." Going further you find that the one who restored Saul/Paul's eyesight (at the will of G*d) was a man called Ananias and it was he that said "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." Saul did not elaborate on who taught him, or at least in the opening of Acts 2. It was not until he was in Jerusalem that he reports having another conversation with Jesus. Where Jesus told him to run away and "Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles." But.... according to Saul/Paul Jerusalem was not his first destination after Damascus, he went to Arabia. He went to Jerusalem 3 years after his encounter on the road to Damascus. "Gal 1:17-18 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days." I find that curious, don't you? I am not implying that Saul/Paul was not taught by G*d, as we know G*d did appear in Shiloh -- so perhaps the 3 plus years was his "education" taught by Jesus. However, in his letters Saul/Paul never quotes anything remotely close to any new revelation that some say he got first had from Jesus in Arabia. Based on this, I have concluded that Saul/Paul's teachings predate his encounter on the Road. He did talk about his early training in a Grecian city; and his subsequent training under Gamaliel at Jerusalem. Keeping in mind that he followed his father's occupation of being a Pharisee... So, really the groundwork for his "ministry" was already in place...

But, to your last point and if the individual in question were someone else, I would agree... however, Saul/Paul was not only educated but a prolific writer. Why would he commission someone else to write for him?

bahmer

My only reason for that last statement is that he may have been to busy in the ministry to actually sit and write where he could have had an apprentice and quoted his thoughts to him and him record them for him. Sort of like a scribe would do. Paul could then proof read and add or remove verses as he saw fit. Also I believe that it states that Paul had a deformity and many think that it was a loss of eyesight that was his affliction.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I respect your thoughts and opinions. But...I still have questions.

As I read through the books that Saul/Paul I have some very basic questions that you may be able to help me understand. Saul/Paul says that he was/is an apostle, and his mission was to the gentiles. And he "ministered" to Asia among other places.

Revelations was written by John, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." And going on to verse 10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."

To the church of Ephesus in 2:2.... "I know your works, your labor, and your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars."

What apostle(s) do you think was being referenced? If you read Acts one thing stands out, Saul/Paul and his disciples were not readily received in Ephesus... "And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of G*d. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the way before the multitude..." Acts 19:8,9. Also in Acts there is another indication that Saul/Paul may not have been greeted with open arms: Acts 21; "27 When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple." Again in Timothy, Saul/Paul complains "This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me." 2 Timothy 1:15

Humans made the decision of what books to include in the Canon.... perhaps inspired by G*d, I can not judge, but if Saul/Paul is correct and humans can and often are not led by G*d... then????

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

That is reasonable... and a point I did not consider.

bahmer

Actually I am surprised that the early church ever got off of the ground. You can read in Acts that men were offering money to the so that on whoever they laid their hands on would receive the Holy Spirit. There were many going around claiming that they were apostles and that they were sent by God but they were a ll scams to get money from the people. After awhile I believe that the people became exceedingly skeptical of anybody that said that they were apostles. That is why the apostles didn't ask anything of the people but worked among them and provided for themselves not asking for anything. Since there was no way to phone ahead and confirm whether so and so was who he says he is it was all based on trust or the lack thereof. Aside from the little sect of followers in Jerusalem they were not well known. After they started their ministries and they became known by the miracles that the Lord would co by their hands their reputation expanded but not until then.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I agree with everything you wrote. I also think politics played a big part in the crushing (or so it seems to me) Christianity and the rise of Paulism. It is interesting.... I wonder, had it not been for Saul/Paul would Christianity (as it is known today) survived.... or because it was/is G*d's will, would it have survived anyway.... I personalty lean toward G*d's design will prevail regardless of what simple minded humans want.

bahmer

I tend to agree with you as His ways are above our ways. I was also thinking after I wrote that last part that the method of travel back then was by donkey and from what I have read they traveled in groups for their own protection. I would imagine again that Saul/Paul would need help especially if his eyesight was going bad both in travel as well as all other normal functions. Now I don't know incapacitated he was but eyesight was very important back then. Traveling in a group would have afforded Saul/Paul the opportunity to have a scribe along with him to help him in his writings.