Talk:Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

That's quite an amusing piece of work! Or is preposterous the right adjective? "Jesus was surely capable of writing a great work, and there is no other known written work by Him. " Did he build the pyramids, too? Surely, he was capable of building great structures, and there are no other known structures built by him?...

AugustO 11:18, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, as far as building Egyptian pyramids, Jesus didn't work a lot with stone. He was a carpenter. Conservative (talk) 18:14, January 5, 2025 (EST)

Did Jesus lie?

Aschlafy, to make your point you have to argue that Jesus was intentionally misleading us in the second verse where it is written that "He (God) spoke to us through (his) son" (ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ). --AugustO 12:12, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Writers at that time (and even some today) spoke about themselves in the third person. E.g., John describes himself as the "disciple whom Jesus loved," rather than in the first person.--Andy Schlafly 13:41, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Please read the verse more carefully - You missed that there is a first person in the sentence: He (God) spoke to us through (his) son. Until you claim that Jesus had a habit of soliloquy, this makes it clear that the writer (one of the us) is someone other than Jesus. AugustO 13:46, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, a knockout blow in the opening round. Conservative (talk) 18:09, January 5, 2025 (EST)
AugustO is dead. He died 13 years ago. Stop trolling talk pages. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 18:13, January 5, 2025 (EST)

The whole idea is absurd, let's delete it.

Rereading the epistle, it becomes clear that this insight is nothing but absurd: e.g., Hebrews 13:23-24 show that the author is one of the Christians in Italy. You have to bend, to torture scripture to argue otherwise - and for me, it is clear that the author of this essay didn't read the epistle in detail before making this astonishing claim.

So, I'm for deleting this essay, as it makes Conservapedia looking stupid. Unfortunately, me arguing for deleting this article is the best way to get it featured on the main page. But please, please, think twice before doing so.

--AugustO 12:36, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Ideas should not be so readily censored.--Andy Schlafly 13:43, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Errors should be quickly corrected. --AugustO 13:47, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Hebrews 13:23-34

Know that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he comes shortly, I will see you. Salute all who lead you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

How do you bend these verses to your insight? --AugustO 13:51, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Who needs to spend a lifetime studying centuries' worth of work by serious, trained theologians....

...when you can just make stuff like this up? Whomever wrote this, go propose it to your priest/minister after church tomorrow, and tell us about the reaction you get. MattyD 13:00, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

the last verses include greetings from "those in Italy"...

Are you arguing that an omnipotent Lord could not travel to Italy to greet some friends and make it back to the Middle East in the time frame in question? Deny this and lose all credibility. MattyD 13:07, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

No, I'm not denying that, but the final passage was added after the final "Amen", and obviously seems intended to bolster the false assertion that Paul was the author.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:06, October 12, 2025 (EDT)

It is misnomer to call this the "Epistle" to the Hebrews.

Here we can agree. In fact, you are agreeing with many Biblical scholars: most think that it is a sermon (Hebrews 1 - 12), followed by an accompanying letter (Hebrews 13). You can find loads of literature on this marvelous epistle. As W. Lane wrote "Hebrews is a delight for the person who enjoys puzzles". But it is traditionally called an epistle - and that won't change, I'm afraid.

Of course the question was risen whether Hebrews 1-12 and Hebrews 13 have the same author - you should look up some of the literature! But only few are thinking that Hebrews 13 is a "postscriptum by another hand", and all known historic evidence stands against it.

I've read of no one who shared your opinion that it "was written by Jesus, or based directly on His writing". The reason you are giving are superficial at best. Before you include this half-baked theory into the CBP you should acquaint yourself with some of the writings of theologians throughout the histories on this epistle.

At the moment this insight has a less sound footing than the ideas of many often well-meaning cranks, like Iman Wilkens's idea that Troy was a city in England or Heribert Illig's idea that a couple of centuries haven't happen. What all such "theories" have in common is that they start with an "insight", and that then the evidence is (perhaps even subconsciously) cherry-picked to fit the idea. The first person to be deceived by such a theory often is its inventor himself!

--AugustO 12:09, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

The Epistle was directed at the Hebrew population...

You are aware that not only "epistle" but also "to the Hebrews" is a misnomer - as this letter wasn't directed to the Hebrews in Palestine? --AugustO 12:51, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

The sermon clearly is intended for the Hebrew population in Jerusalem.--Andy Schlafly 13:11, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
"Clearly intended"? I wouldn't say so - there are very good rivaling theories: Alexandria or even Rome itself (that's what I'm leaning to) --AugustO 13:19, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

How can I take you serious...

...when you are obviously not reading your own sources:

The place of composition was Italy (13:24), and more precisely Rome (inscription at end of the Codex Alexandrinus), where Paul was during his first imprisonment (61-63).

Your source is stating that Jerusalem is the place to which the letter most probably was addressed. Be more careful!

AugustO 13:06, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

It's not a letter, but a sermon, which could only have been given in Jerusalem.--Andy Schlafly 13:09, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
It could have been given - but that is not what your source states! --AugustO 13:10, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Dishonesty

When you make a statement (the sermon was held in Jerusalem) and attach a source to it then the source should make the statement, too. In this case, the source states something very different (the place of composition was Italy). You are invoking the impression that your statement is corroborated by a source, and this impression is misleading. Keeping up this impression though you were repeatedly informed that it is false is just dishonest.

AugustO 14:08, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Sources are used on Conservapedia in a proper way: for their facts, not for their opinions.--Andy Schlafly 15:55, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
Circumstances of the composition

An examination both of the letter itself and of the earliest testimonies of tradition, in reference to the circumstances of its composition, leads to the following conclusions:

(1) The place of composition was Italy (13:24), and more precisely Rome (inscription at end of the Codex Alexandrinus), where Paul was during his first imprisonment (61-63).

(2) The date of its production should certainly be placed before the destruction of Jerusalem (70), and previous to the outbreak of the Jewish War (67), but after the death of James, Bishop of Jerusalem (62). According to ch. xiii, 19, 23, the Apostle was no longer a prisoner. The most probable date for its composition is, therefore, the second half of the year 63 or the beginning of 64, as Paul after his release from imprisonment probably soon undertook the missionary journey "as far as the boundaries of Western Europe" (St. Clement of Rome, "I Epistle to the Corinthians", v, n. 7), that is to Spain.

(3) The reason for its composition is probably to be found in the conditions existing in the Jewish Christian Church at Jerusalem. The faith of the Church might fall into great danger through continued persecution by the Jews, who had put James, the head of the community to a violent death. Precisely at this period the services in the temple were celebrated with great pomp, as under Albinus (62-64) the magnificent building was completed, while the Christian community had to struggle with extreme poverty. The national movement which began shortly before the outbreak of the last Jewish war would increase the danger. These circumstances might lead the Apostle to write the letter.

(4) The Apostle himself declares the aim of his writing to be the consolation and encouragement of the faithful (xiii, 22). The argument and context of the letter show that Paul wished especially to exhort to steadfastness in the Christian Faith and to warn against the danger of apostasy to the Mosaic worship.

Where are the facts in your source which show that the sermon was composed in Jerusalem? Find a source which states that the place of composition was Jerusalem. You are misusing this source - and yes, you are dishonest in doing so. AugustO 16:03, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

I see that you have corrected your position: Thank you! AugustO 16:05, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Why isn't this message to Hebrews in the Hebrew language?

Because the author wanted to be understood? --AugustO 03:42, 3 December 2012 (EST)

Was the epistle written in the time between the Resurrection and the Ascension?

IMO he idea that this epistle was written in the time between the Resurrection and the Ascension is patently absurd:

  • How was it delivered? It had to lay around for a couple of decades, until there was a community which could be addressed. Did someone stumble upon a forgotten parchment and thought: "well, that looks like the thing the guys in Jerusalem (or wherever) are looking for, let's send it to them"?
  • Obviously Jesus Christ could give advice for events which lie a score of years in the future. But would he do so? God respects our free will!

--AugustO 08:18, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

Jesus wrote the sermon for delivery by a disciple in Jerusalem, much like Jesus's explanation on the road to Emmaus. This logical explanation is the most plausible one.--Andy Schlafly 22:39, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
So, it is not only written by Jesus himself, but is the oldest written text in the New Testament? Kept by an unknown disciple all for himself for decades, as no other apostle commented on it? „This logical explanation is the most plausible one.” Your explanation is neither logical nor plausible, just wishful thinking. Therefore it doesn't belong into any encyclopedic articles - it even looks bad in Liberal denial! --AugustO 02:55, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
It could be oldest in the New Testament, or parts of the Gospel of John could be older. Why would the relative dates matter?
As to your other objection, apostles typically did not comment on other writings. John did not comment on any of the other three Gospels. Would anyone conclude that the other three are somehow defective for that reason? Of course not.--Andy Schlafly 16:22, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
Are you claiming now that parts of the Gospel of John where written prior to the Ascension of Jesus?
--AugustO 16:34, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
Your new headline is too long, leaving too little room for the edit summary.
In response to your point, what is the big deal about speculation for when a Gospel was written? Presumably parts of Gospels, including John's, were written while Jesus was still alive. They quote Him, for example! Why does liberal denial have to extend even to claiming that nothing was written about Jesus while he was alive???--Andy Schlafly 19:17, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

I believe Matthew and John at least both knew Jesus personally. Happy Whitsun.--Patmac 19:22, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

  • „In response to your point, what is the big deal about speculation for when a Gospel was written?” *LOL* - we should get rid off all these departments for history of Christianity! It's no big deal... OTOH, in Essay:Adultress Story you make use of such research.
  • „Presumably parts of Gospels, including John's, were written while Jesus was still alive.” There is no evidence for such a speculation.
  • „ Why does liberal denial have to extend even to claiming that nothing was written about Jesus while he was alive???” Smearing your opponents instead of presenting evidence? (??) This is not a liberal vs. conservative topic, this is about good theology vs. mere speculations and wishful thinking.

--AugustO 05:58, 22 May 2013 (EDT)

This Epistle uses a same distinctive phrase once used by Jesus as quoted in the Gospel of John, which reinforces the likelihood of his authorship.

Which one? Who is quoting whom? --AugustO 15:56, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

I'm not Ivanka Trump

The first chapter makes a theological argument about the relation between Jesus and the angels, using quotations from scripture: it is comprehensible for every reader as not only "He would know about and emphasize [it]".

Quoting "The Art of the Deal" does not make me Ivanka Trump. --AugustO (talk) 09:14, August 16, 2021 (EDT)

which is sense different of the term different from its use in other biblical books

I have difficulties to parse this sentence: which is sense different of the term different from its use in other biblical books. --AugustO (talk) 04:34, August 25, 2021 (EDT)

Jesus hiding himself on the road to Emmaus was not unusual for a childlike heart to do. He hid himself on the road to Emmaus and so why not question if He hid himself in the Epistle of Hebrews (which could actually be his conversation on the road to Emmaus)? After all, Hebrews quotes, "We entertain angels unaware!" And what better way to prepare us for His Second Coming than to call us all by a love letter we discover just before He arrives. Syrian Christians understand Jesus culture as one that enjoys exaggeration. Jesus parables are full of exaggeration. Jesus said, a mountain can move with a mustard seed faith. The tiniest thing beside the greatest thing you can see. This is not a lie, nor would Jesus be lying if He disguised His voice in the Epistle of Hebrews. Authors do this all the time. In the future, I will demonstrate that the points made in this original post are worth considering.

Ministry concordance?

If it is true that the authorship of Hebrews is actually of Jesus, it would almost perfectly correspond with His statement, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt. 15:24) —LT (Matthew 26:52) Monday, 18:18, April 24, 2023 (EDT)

Why Jesus did not write the Epistle to the Hebrews

Even if you set aside the "Italy issue", Ancient Near East culture was a modest culture and more communal than American culture which is much more individualistic. So it makes sense that someone else would shower praise on Jesus via authoring the Epistle to the Hebrews and that Jesus would not be tooting his own horn by writing the book Himself. Conservative (talk) 13:01, February 22, 2025 (EST)

46 arguments that Jesus did NOT write the Epistle to the Hebrews. Also, why the essay "Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?" is not persuasive

Saint Jerome was definitely not a liberal.[1]

Below are 46 arguments that Jesus did NOT write the Epistle to the Hebrews. Also, why the essay "Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?" is not persuasive:

Interesting, but easy to rebut Grok's liberal falsehoods. I've rebutted the first five counterarguments by Grok, and added them to this entry. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:32, October 11, 2025 (EDT)
Did any of the early church fathers indicate that Jesus wrote the Epistle of Hebrews? Did any of the early church fathers propose an author or other authors for the Book of Hebrews. If so, who were they? Were any of the early church fathers who proposed an author of the Epistle of Hebrews someone other than Jesus liberals? What percentage of the early church fathers were liberals? Please give a summary section.
Summary: "No early church father claimed Jesus wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the epistle’s content and style suggest a human author reflecting on Christ’s work. Several fathers proposed authors: Paul (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, Augustine), Barnabas (Tertullian), Luke, or Clement of Rome (Origen and others as possibilities). The Western church, including figures like Hippolytus, often rejected Pauline authorship due to stylistic differences but did not always propose alternatives. The term “liberal” is anachronistic, but none of the fathers who discussed Hebrews’ authorship were outside the proto-orthodox consensus; their debates were scholarly, not heretical. Estimating the percentage of “liberal” church fathers is difficult, but likely less than 10% held speculative views, and this did not significantly affect discussions of Hebrews. The authorship question remained unresolved, with Origen’s “God knows” capturing the early church’s uncertainty."
Did any early church father, prominent Christian or Christian body in history ever take the position that Jesus wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews? Did any early church father, prominent Christian or Christian body in history ever take the position that someone other than Jesus wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews? Please give a summary statement.
Summary: "No historical Christian source—whether an early Church Father, prominent figure, or ecclesiastical body—ever attributed the Epistle to the Hebrews to Jesus. Instead, early discussions focused on Paul, Barnabas, Luke, Clement of Rome, or others, with some admitting uncertainty. The consensus in both Eastern and Western churches eventually leaned toward Pauline authorship or influence, though debates persisted. The idea of Jesus as the author is absent from historical records." Conservative (talk) 07:37, October 12, 2025 (EDT)

Response: early church fathers lacked the modern tools of literary analysis available to us today, and early church fathers were thus incorrect about several aspects of authorship. For example, many did not realize that Gospel of Mark was written first, and many mistakenly thought that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.

The early church fathers had the benefit of historical primacy so they would have had better access to any oral tradition or documentation. And some or all of them were very literate men. The early church also had the benefit of historical primacy so the early church would have had better access to any oral tradition or documentation.
On top of this, throughout church history there have been no prominent Christians or church bodies which have indicated that Jesus may have written the Epistle of Hebrews. Conservative (talk) 17:58, October 12, 2025 (EDT)


"early church fathers lacked the modern tools of literary analysis available to us today" - the very definition of Progressivism. Because of the passage of time, we are so much smarter than them. (Kamala Harris could have written this Grok response [2]). RobSZelensky Must Go! 22:27, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
User: Aschlafly, you wrote: "early church fathers lacked the modern tools of literary analysis available to us today, and early church fathers were thus incorrect about several aspects of authorship. For example, many did not realize that Gospel of Mark was written first, and many mistakenly thought that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews."
Besides what I wrote above, I will make these additional points: 1) Bible software and literary analysis tools are widely available. And yet, your hypothesis that Jesus wrote Epistle of Hebrews is an extremely fringe view. I am not aware of any scholar or prominent person/organization within Christendom that takes this view. And I have never met another Christian who takes this extremely fringe view.
Next, you wrote: "many did not realize that Gospel of Mark was written first". This is not a fact. It is a hypothesis called the "Marcan Priority hypothesis" and the leading counter hypotheses are the "Matthean Priority (Griesbach Hypothesis)", independent composition and its simply unknown.[3] You continually elevate mere opinions to fact status when it is unwarranted to do so. For example, Grok estimates that the Marcan Priority hypothesis is the strongest hypothesis with a probability of 80-85% of it being true and that 80–90% of New Testament scholars support Marcan Priority.[4] While it may be more likely that the Marcan Hypothesis is true, it not a fact. Conservative (talk) 05:47, October 15, 2025 (EDT)
The theory of Marcan priority did not begin until the mid-1800s. The false Augustinian hypothesis that Mark was an abridgement of Matthew and Luke was widely accepted for 1,300 years. This history is easily confirmed by internet searches today.
80-90% acceptance of Marcan priority today, amid this history, makes it a virtual certainty.
Liberal denial is a stubborn thing, and it stands in the way of recognizing Jesus as the intellectual giant who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. Also, Christian leaders have institutional impediments to recognizing new insights about the Bible.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:51, October 16, 2025 (EDT)

You are a lone wolf whose arguments in this matter are illogical as I point out below. I realize that Galileo was a lone wolf, but he wasn't making illogical arguments. Conservative (talk) 12:28, October 16, 2025 (EDT)

Every insight is a "lone wolf" that gradually gets accepted as it overcomes liberal denial. 51 reasons confirm this insight that Jesus wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:28, October 16, 2025 (EDT)
Liberalism started in the 17th century. There are no historical records of any prominent Christian or Christian body from the crucifixation of Jesus until now bringing forth the position that Jesus wrote the Epistle of Hebrews.
Your liberal denialism talk is farcical in this context and you obviously are using it as a cudgel for anything you disagree with. And if memory serves, you have done this in other contexts. Conservative (talk) 14:12, October 16, 2025 (EDT)

Does the essay "Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?" commit logical fallacies? Yes it does!

""I find your arguments strewn with gaping defects in logic." - Spock in the television series Star Trek

Does the essay "Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?" whose archive version is at https://archive.ph/NwQ58#selection-33.0-33.51 commit logical fallacies? If so, what are they? And please give me your confidence level from 1 to 100 that a particular logical fallacy was committed from 1 to 100 where 100 is certainty where a logical fallacy was apparently committed. List any logical fallacies by their order of strength where the strongest cases of a logical fallacy being committed come first.:

Summary:

"Question: On a scale from 1 to 100 on the amount of illogical reasoning scale where 100 is totally illogical, how illogical is this essay?

On a scale from 1 to 100, where 100 is totally illogical, I assign the essay a score of 85.

The essay commits several logical fallacies, with the argument from silence and speculative reasoning being the most prominent due to their frequent occurrence across the 51 reasons and rebuttals. Circular reasoning and false dichotomy are also significant, while appeal to authority and post hoc fallacies are less pervasive. These fallacies undermine the essay’s claim that Jesus authored Hebrews, as they rely heavily on assumptions and the absence of evidence rather than concrete textual or historical support. The confidence levels reflect the strength and frequency of each fallacy, with the highest confidence assigned to the most pervasive issues."[5] Conservative (talk) 05:42, October 12, 2025 (EDT)

"Justification: The essay is heavily reliant on logical fallacies (argument from silence, speculative reasoning, circular reasoning) that undermine its central claim. The lack of direct evidence, combined with speculative leaps and weak rebuttals, makes the argument largely illogical. However, it is not “totally illogical” (100) because it includes some textual analysis and attempts to engage with counterarguments, even if inadequately. The score reflects a significant deviation from logical standards but acknowledges the essay’s partial grounding in biblical texts and its creative, if unpersuasive, hypothesis.

My confidence in this assessment is 90%. The high confidence reflects the clear identification of multiple fallacies across the essay’s arguments, supported by specific examples from the text. The slight uncertainty (10%) accounts for the possibility that some textual interpretations (e.g., unique vocabulary, style) could be seen as partially valid, though not sufficient to overcome the logical flaws."[6] Conservative (talk) 05:49, October 12, 2025 (EDT)

Response: So even Grok concedes that the Epistle to the Hebrews has unique vocabulary and style, but it fails to admit that the elegance of this flawless Epistle is at the highest level ever written in Greek in all of history. No one in the Middle East was capable of this, other than the Son of God.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:52, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
Is the Epistle of Hebrews written at the highest level of Greek in all of history or is it merely one of the finest examples of Greek writing? Plato and Thucydides wrote in elegant Greek as well. As a lawyer, you know the burden of proof is alway upon the claimant and you didn't provide any evidence that the Epistle to the Hebrews is written at the "highest level of Greek in all of history". Hebrews is certainly in the elite category of Greek literature, but "highest level of Greek in all of history" is a Mount Everest high bar level of Greek literary skill and you provide zero evidence in relation to this claim. And I know that you are not a Greek scholar.
Next, you wrote "No one in the Middle East was capable of this". How do you know this? This is also an unsupported claim.
Grok indicated that you used "speculative reasoning" in this essay. The above unsupported claims you made directly above appear to be speculative reasoning. Conservative (talk) 18:27, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
Response:
{{cquote|Even in the first centuries commentators noticed the striking purity of language and elegance of Greek style that characterized the Epistle to the Hebrews (Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius, Church History VI.14.2-4; Origen, ibid., VI, xxv, n. 11-14). This observation is confirmed by later authorities. In fact the author of the Epistle shows great familiarity with the rules of the Greek literary language of his age. Of all the New Testament authors he has the best style. His writing may even be included among those examples of artistic Greek prose whose rhythm recalls the parallelism of Hebrew poetry (cf. Fr. Blass, "[Barnabas] Brief an die Hebraer". Text with indications of the rhythm, Halle, 1903).[7]
As to no one else in the Middle East at that time being capable of such elegance in Greek, Paul was among the elite but this is far abve the level of Paul.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:34, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
Andy, you set the extremely high bar of "highest level of Greek in all of history". You still haven't cleared the evidential bar of supporting this claim. And I strongly suspect that you never will. So I am moving on. Conservative (talk) 22:42, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
By the way, you mentioned Clement of Alexandria in your above post as far as the quality of the Greek in the Epistle to the Hebrews. So I will point out that Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, and Augustine took the position that the Apostle Paul probably wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.[8] Conservative (talk) 22:49, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
Andy, you wrote again, "As to no one else in the Middle East at that time being capable of such elegance in Greek". Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy. So is argument by repetition (argumentum ad nauseam). Conservative (talk) 22:56, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
Grok itself uses a lot of "speculative reasoning". Its responses are far from definitive. RobSZelensky Must Go! 23:04, October 12, 2025 (EDT)

Given the high level of Greek writing for the Epistle of Hebrew who are the most likely authors?

Bias is shown by Grok's unwillingness to consider Jesus as even a possible author.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 02:50, October 30, 2025 (EDT)
Two thousand years of Christendom looking for the best answers for the author of Hebrews is at play. A jury of your peers, ruled out your hypothesis. Your hypothesis has been overruled. Grok just pulled that up counselor.
But Grok also looked at the weaknesses of your argumentation in terms of logic and evidence. Logical reasoning can be programmed into machines. Conservative (talk) 07:20, October 30, 2025 (EDT)
Grok didn't rule out this hypothesis of Jesus as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Rather, in Grok's bias, it refused even to consider this hypothesis. On appeal in court, it's a reversible error for an abuse of discretion when a lower judge refuses even to consider an issue.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:03, October 30, 2025 (EDT)
The Christian community has the same literary analysis software that you said helped make you believe that Jesus wrote the Epistle of Hebrews. Furthermore, Christendom is indwelt with the Holy Spirit. You are the lone wolf indicating that Jesus probably wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. I predict that Christendom and Grok will never be persuaded by any cries of bias that you assert. Conservative (talk) 13:20, October 30, 2025 (EDT)
Your prediction about Grok never being persuaded is probably true. But Christendom accepts truths about authorship of the Bible, albeit slowly. Paul was the established author of the Epistle to the Hebrews for a millennium, and the KJV published that Paul was its author. Now Christendom recognizes otherwise, and the logical next step is to recognize who was the author of this masterpiece: Jesus Himself.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:31, October 30, 2025 (EDT)

Your essay "The Hidden Hand of Marriage" was a very good essay.

However, Does the essay at https://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Did_Jesus_Write_the_Epistle_to_the_Hebrews%3F have factual errors? If so, how many?:

Summary statement: "The essay contains 12 factual errors — enough to completely discredit its thesis that Jesus wrote Hebrews."

On top of this, Grok pointed out the essay's logical fallacies. And Grok found 46 arguments that Jesus did not write the Epistles.

The "SS Jesus wrote the Epistle of Hebrews" has been completely blown out of the water. About 2,000 years of Christendom has not embraced your hypothesis and will continue to do this until the Second Coming of Jesus.

Go back to writing the essays that have more factual support. Conservative (talk) 21:39, October 30, 2025 (EDT)

AI & Grok is beginning to look more and more like the Golden Calf everyday.
"They worship the work of their hands" - Isaiah 2:8. RobSZelensky Must Go! 21:50, October 30, 2025 (EDT)
Without bringing up notions that do not rely on observational science, tell me how an AI gattling gun can cut down an army of unfounded and illogical ideas. Please give me a response in internet friendly and easy to read format., Grok
If someone unleashes an army of illogical and unfounded arguments in a debate, can you easily cut them down with an AI gattling gun? If so, how?, ChatGPT
Get there with the "Firstest with the mostest" - General Nathan Bedford Forrest
"Speed is the soul of war. The side which can concentrate the greatest force in the shortest time wins." - John Frederick Charles Fuller (British theorist, WWI/WWII) Conservative (talk) 22:02, October 30, 2025 (EDT)
Is. 2:8: a cultural tendency to value human craftsmanship over divine worship - Biblehub. RobSZelensky Must Go! 22:05, October 30, 2025 (EDT)
I see. I better get rid of the screwdriver that I own. Conservative (talk) 22:25, October 30, 2025 (EDT)
What a dunce ("Thou Raca"). RobSAbnormal is fine. Stupid isn't. 09:28, April 3, 2026 (EDT)

"Many great works were anonymous."

"Many great works were anonymous."--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:04, December 28, 2025 (EST) [9]

Why don't we just rest with the consensus that the Book of Hebrews is the Word of God, whether spoken through the mouth of Jesus, Paul, Barnabas, or whoever? RobSAbnormal is fine. Stupid isn't. 08:50, April 3, 2026 (EDT)


“ Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. ”

—Hebrews 13:9

“ But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. ”

—Hebrews 5:14

Note: The internal text itself implies the term "meat" or "meats" is not necessarily limited to dietary restrictions, but can also refer to spiritual food.

RobSAbnormal is fine. Stupid isn't. 09:09, April 3, 2026 (EDT)

Hebrews 13:23 notes that Timothy had recently been released from prison. This places the writing during the apostolic era while key companions of the apostles were still active. Jesus' ascension happened 40 days after his resurrection.

Hebrews 13:23 notes that Timothy had recently been released from prison. This places the writing during the apostolic era while key companions of the apostles were still active. Jesus' ascension happened 40 days after his resurrection.

Hebrews 13:23 is a knockout blow to Andy Schlafly's hypothesis that Jesus wrote the Epistles to the Hebrews. So what is Andy going to do now? Do the Hail Mary pass of saying some scribe added Hebrews 13:23 at a later date? If he did this he would be slapping Karl Popper in the face as he would be resisting falsification of his hypothesis. Conservative (talk) 15:36, September 29, 2026 (EDT)

Key point: I put this query into ChatGPT: "Do most copies of Hebrews have Hebrews 12: 22-23 in them? Can you tell me about what percentage? Do the earliest manuscripts of the Epistle to the Hebrews have these verses in them?" See: ChatGPT query about Hebrews ChatGPT responded: "Yes. Hebrews 12:22–23 is extremely well attested in the manuscript tradition, and importantly, the verses are present in the earliest substantial manuscript of Hebrews that actually reaches that far into the book." Conservative (talk) 12:40, September 30, 2026 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mystery:Did_Jesus_Write_the_Epistle_to_the_Hebrews%3F&oldid=2206297"