/ Topic > Re: Alleged NT Discrepancies? / TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / Newsgroups > alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 6 Oct 2002 /
.
> On 6oct Jay wrote: Hello textman, Do you believe in the inerrancy of scripture? if not, why not?
.
textman answers: Hi Jay. I suppose you might say that I believe in "partial-inerrancy"; by which I mean that the scriptures are spiritually-inerrant. This is just a fancy way of saying that the scriptures are always able to fufill their primary function of offering (to believers) hope, guidance, consolation, prayer, illumination, a word of truth, and so forth. But NOT inerrant in the sense of being literally free of any and all errors!
.
 Now some believers are of the opinion that only the original autographs were fully inerrant, but this view is not only false, but can be shown to be false by way of reference to the physical evidence --> a papyrus fragment named P52 If you wish to examine this archeological evidence for yourself, please do a search for "P52"!

P.S. "No King But Jesus, Jack." -- JackS / Sept02

/ Subject >  Re: Sola Scriptura:The Noble Bareans / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 18Mar99 writer wrote: Christians who accept the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (see Sola Scriptura:
> a Definition) will sometimes offer ACTS 17:10-11 as a proof that God intended the Bible to be the
> Supreme Authority for all matters of faith.
.
 On 3Jun99 textman replies: A truly ridiculous assertion owing to the fact that the only supreme authority for all matters of faith is Jesus Christ, and nothing other! The Bible's authority is thus *necessarily* secondary; and necessarily derives all of its power from the fact that it is also the Word of our Lord.
.
> ACTS 17:10-11 - 10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when
> they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those
> in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see
> if these things were so. - RSV
.
> One part of this passage that Sola Scriptura Christians focus on is the phrase, "...examining the
> scriptures daily..." As in the case of 2Tim 3:16-17, we must examine the passage in context, rather
> than grabbing at one single phrase and using it as proof of anything.
.
 Sound advice for any passage, I'd say.
.
> The Sola Scriptura logic behind this passage is that the Bareans were considered noble because
> they examined scripture, but a close and careful reading of scripture will show that there is no
> evidence here that scripture is given a SUPREME AUTHORITY, but rather just the opposite.
> Understood in its proper context, this particular passage becomes a cautionary tale against
> using scripture alone as the SUPREME AUTHORITY.
.
 Oh really? And just how do you figure that?
.
> One has to ask "Why are those Bareans noble?" The answer is not because they read
> scripture, the Bareans are noble because they, unlike the Thessalonians, "received the
> word with all eagerness..."
.
 That is incorrect. The only reason why anyone can suppose that the Bareans are noble is simply because the author of Luke-Acts says
that they are. Moreover, according to Paulos and Silvanus (who together co-authored the bulk of the Thessalonian correspondence) the Thessalonian believers were indeed well disposed to receive the Word. In fact, the very first verse of the NT that was written down addresses this very point: "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers" (1Thes 2:13 / RSV). Thus we see that writer has already gone astray by foolishly overlooking the very context that he claims to be examining.
.
> Then we have to ask ourselves what is meant in this passage by the phrase, "received the word".
> I will show that the "word" does not refer to a written text, but instead it is the interpretation that
> Paul puts upon the written text as it is presented to BOTH the Thessalonians and the Bareans.
.
 This too is incorrect. As 1Th.2:13 suggests, the Word of God does not come from Paul or any other human being, but is of divine origin.
For Paul and Silvanus the Word is the Gospel (ie. the good news of salvation through Christ Jesus, the Crucified One). There is no confusion here between the gospel and scripture as such. Please bear in mind that in Paul's day there was no "New Testament", and no Gospels either!
.
> In order to understand ACTS 17:10-11 correctly you have to begin with the first verse: ACTS 17:1-4 ->
> 1 Now when they (Paul and company) came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
> 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures,
> 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and
> saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ. 4 And some of them were persuaded, and
> joined Paul and Silas; as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.
> Based on the above passage it seems that Paul had a set routine.
.
 A "set routine", you say? Only a total ignoramus could possibly think so. For the three missionaries, the Greek mission was anything but "routine"! Everything about the place was strange and alien in the extreme. So much so, in fact, that when Paul first saw Athens he was overcome with paranoia, and thought that all their labors to that point had been in vain. Because of this he sent Timothy to Thessalonika just to see what was happening there. When Timothy returned with the 'good news' that all was well, Paul was overjoyed:
.
 "Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy, our brother and God's servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you, that no one be moved by these afflictions. ... For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent that I might know your faith, for fear that somehow the Tempter had tempted you and that our labor would be in vain. But now that Timothy has come to us [ie. Paul and Silvanus] from you, and has brought us the good news of your faith and love, and reported that you always remember us kindly and long to see us, as we long to see you - for this reason, brethren, in all our distress and affliction we have been comforted about you through your faith; for now we live, if you stand fast in the Lord. For what thanksgiving can we render to God for you, for all the joy which we feel for your sake before our God ..." [1Thes 3:1-10 / RSV]
.
> When he came to a new town, he entered the local synagogue and spent a period of three
> consecutive Sabbaths there explaining his position.
.
 This assertion is based entirely on Lukan "evidence"; none of which is supported by the evidence in Paul's authentic epistles. If you want to talk about Paul and the Thessalonians in any realistic and historical manner, then you must FIRST & FOREMOST restrict yourself to the four Thessalonian letters. Only a complete imbecile would use Luke's preformatted fables as a basis for discourse on Paul and the Thessalonians! ... In fact, we know that Paul's congregation in Thessalonika was NOT composed of Jews (ie. he tells us as much); therefore writer's statement above is pure hogwash having absolutely no value whatsoever.
.
> And what was his position?  What is Paul's interpretation of scripture, or as he called it , "the word,"?
.
 Paul's understanding of scripture was never static, but rather changed and developed considerably in the ten years between 49CE (1&2Th) & 59CE (Romans). Moreover, Paul never refers to scripture as 'the word'. If you're going to make such an idiotic assertion, please have the decency to at least back it up with the relevant texts (of which there aren't any)!
.
> Paul argued with the local Jews and showed them the passages in Isaiah that spoke of the suffering
> servant and Paul showed them that instead of coming in as a conquering hero as the Jews expected,
> the messiah, the Christ, would suffer, die and rise from the dead.
.
 Are you referring here to what Paul specifically did in Thessalonika, or do you expect us to believe that Paul followed
this pattern everywhere and never ever deviated from it by so much as one Lukan iota? ...
.
> And then Paul went outside of all scripture that was then written and Paul proclaimed to
> the Thessalonian Jews that "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ."
.
 It is far more likely that this (or something like it) was the first thing he said. Nor did he say it in the synagogue (if there
even was one in Thessalonika at the time). Nor would he wait three weeks to say it!
.
> This Jesus in Jerusalem that had died a horrible dishonorable death some ten years before
> this incident was the Messiah, the anointed one, the Christ.
.
 Ten years earlier would be about 38CE. Since Jesus was crucified round about 33CE, it would appear that your feeble estimate
is only off by half a decade or so. Pretty sloppy history you got there, writer. Please *do* get your facts straight before you
go barfing them on us; thx ever so much!
.
> The Thessalonians took a good look at scripture and a good look at Paul and they called the police.
.
 Since the original Thessalonian believers were (at first) entirely ignorant of scripture, it is inconceivable that they would get out the scales, and place Paul (their beloved founder) on one end, and the LXX on the other, and then weighing the results would call the police (of which there were none anyway)!
.
> They ran Paul out of town, even though he was able to convince a few that he was right,
> those in authority did not believe Paul's interpretation of scripture.
.
 The Thessalonians did not, of course, run him out of town. There is nothing in the Thessalonian letters even vaguely suggesting such any such thing. Moreover, Paul's interpretation of scripture was not, at that time, an issue (although Paul's unique eschatology would soon enough cause a rift between Paul and Silvanus). In the same way, "those in authority" (whatever that means) were entirely irrelevant as regards the specific situation in Thessalonika.
.
> Paul immediately traveled to the Bareans and began his routine again and this time Paul was
> able to convince them that Jesus is not only the Christ spoken of in scripture but that he had
> to suffer, die, and rise from the dead.
.
 There is no evidence that the three missionaries went to "the Bareans" after they left Thessalonika. On the contrary, the admittedly meager clues given in the Thessalonian letters suggest that the three missionaries made their way due south to Athens. It was there that the party of three stopped and stayed. It was there that Paul was overcome by the fear that caused Timothy's journey back to Thessalonika (and thus gave the impetus for the very first words of the NT to be written down upon papyrus) . . .
.
 Moreover, there is NO evidence that Paul ever preached in that great  city (ie. Athens), and every reason to suppose that he didn't. Anyone who places more stock in the revisionist legends of the second-century author of Luke-Acts than in the concrete historical realities surrounding the Greek mission AS IT REALLY HAPPENED is simply unable to read and understand the Word of God in any rational and historically enlightened manner. Because of this, such a person is supremely unfit to provide any worthy biblical exegesis to the benefit of God's People.
.
> Paul's "word" was that the one who is the messiah is the same Jesus who died as a
> criminal in Jerusalem and that same Jesus rose from the dead.
.
 That is the essential core of the gospel that the three missionaries preached to the Greeks. In no sense can all this be reduced to something called "Paul's word".
.
> Both the Thessalonians and Bareans read scripture,
.
 That is, according to Luke's fanciful fables ...
.
> but only one group as a whole accepted Paul's interpretation of scripture and that
> is why they were considered noble.
.
 Good Grief!
.
> It can not be denied that both the Thessalonians and the Bareans read scripture.
.
 Not if you accept the absurd premise that Luke-Acts is a scientific and totally accurate historical account, no. However, if you accept the plain and obvious FACT that Lk-Acts is NOT a modern scientific and unbiased history, but is actually a 'story-history' after the manner of the classical world which spawned it ... THEN, yes, you can indeed deny that the Thessalonians read scripture. That is, at *that* time. After their conversion and baptism, however, the few literate ones among the new congregation would eventually develop an interest in knowing the scriptures. But this would be well after the fact; not before the fact, as our silly writer here claims.
.
> You can not say that somehow Paul brought with him some scripture that both parties
> had never seen before.
.
 No, I wouldn't say *that*. But I will say two related things: (1) A full copy of the LXX was horrendously expensive, and doubtless well beyond the means of the poor and small new church in Thessalonika. (2) The scriptures were in no way confined to those books that Christians now find in their so-called Old Testament. In Paul's day there were many books recognized as holy and inspired; and many of these never made it into the Hebrew canon for various (and mostly silly) reasons. So the idea of a new and unknown holy book, is not, in and of itself, as unthinkable as writer implies. This is all just more evidence of writer's colossal ignorance regarding these important matters that he
pretends to know of.
.
> What Paul brought was an interpretation that was like none other that had been offered before.
.
 Wrong again, writer. What Paul brought to Greece and Macedonia was the Gospel! It was nothing less than the living and dynamic Christian Faith itself that was exported from Antioch. These Hellenistic-Jewish missionaries were driven away from Palestine by the stupidity and blindness of the 'pillars' in Jerusalem. They were compelled by the Holy Spirit herself to enter that strange and foreign land of many dangers and darksome evils. ... Without the grossly unappreciated efforts of those three apostles there would be no New Testament for idiots like writer to piss upon!
.
> Paul brought them the word of the suffering servant, the death of the messiah, the rising
> from the dead. The Thessalonians rejected this interpretation. Why?
.
 Only because you are very unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality. In Luke's fantasy world your feeble ravings may have some small measure of meaning. In reality, however, the Thessalonians were ready, willing, and able to accept the Gospel as the missionaries presented it to them. And thank God they did! For they were the prime motivation that caused Paul and Silvanus to make use of letters to solidify and clarify the Good News of Christ Jesus. Together they hammered away at the crude letter form, and fashioned it into something never before seen: the Christian epistle!
.
> Because what Paul was telling them about the identity of the Christ, that it was this Jesus who had
> died, was NOT in scripture. One can be certain that the Thessalonians were yelling things like, "show
> me that in scripture," or "where is the scripture for that?"
.
 Here we see the full flowering of that arrogant scholarly stupidity that follows its own twisted logic to every absurd conclusion; no matter how fantastic or ridiculous be the results of their convoluted reasonings. Thus it is painfully obvious that writer knows nothing whatsoever about the Thessalonians. He foolishly assumes that they were all well versed in the scriptures (presumably the LXX), but, in fact, Paul's converts were Greeks (which is to say: they were pagans), NOT Jews (or even "Jewish" Greeks). Moreover, most of them were of the lower classes; and therefore uneducated and illiterate. Thus the scenario that writer here proposes is not only historically *very* unlikely, but actually absurd in the extreme!
.
> It seems that this passage does talk very pointedly about Sola Scriptura,
.
 Actually, it does nothing of the sort ...
.
> and the Thessalonians are the ones who believe that only scripture can speak, and Paul cannot.
> They rejected this "NEW TRADITION" that Paul was presenting to them. They ran Paul out of town.
.
 Once again, there is no evidence whatsoever for such a ridiculous notion ... Unless, of course, you fancy that second century pious fables are more in tune with historical realities than the eyewitness accounts that come straight from the horse's mouth (ie. from Paul's authentic letters to the Thessalonians).
.
> This passage rather than being a support for Sola Scriptura is instead an illustration of just how hard
> it is for scripture to speak for itself.
.
 It's true that most post-modern Readers are simply incapable of reading (and understanding) the scriptures aright; but my feeling is that the bulk of this incapacity is due primarily to a gross lack of respect for the Word of God, and a fundamental want of sufficient humility and gratitude all around. Without these necessary dispositions on the part of the Believer, one can hardly be surprised if the Holy Spirit does not lend her assistance to your biblical endeavors. ... As for the many faithless readers of scripture: there is simply no hope whatsoever for them!
.
> It shows just how hard it is for scripture to be a SUPREME authority.
.
 Among the popular (apostate) churches in Canada, scripture has no real or effective authority in any case!
.
> Instead what is laid out for us here is a paradigm for the Church.
.
 Wut a nimrod!
.
> Scripture has authority, YES, but it only has authority in the hands of a divinely appointed teacher who
> can draw out the meaning of scripture with two tools; the passages of scripture themselves and the
> extra-scriptural teachings that accompany scripture so that the understanding of scripture can be known.
> http://w3.ime.net/~writer/church/saints/solanus.html
.
 The full authority of scripture derives from the Spirit of Truth which alone can convince the reader / hearer of the supreme value of these Holy Books. The "divinely appointed teacher" (NOT the episcopal muffinheads) is merely an instrument provided by Providence to assist True Believers in coming to a greater knowledge and appreciation of what the Word of God is and means and says to them in whatever condition and circumstance that they may find themselves in. In that regard, the teacher must engage any and every means possible to appeal to the Believer's mind AND heart! But even so, without the assistance of the grace of God - and the tireless efforts of the Encourager - all such teachings are in vain.

/ Subject >  Re: Sola Scriptura:The Noble Bareans / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Date > 11 June 1999 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> This assertion is based entirely on Lukan "evidence"; none of
>> which is supported by the evidence in Paul's authentic epistles. If you want to talk about Paul
>> and the Thessalonians in any realistic and historical manner, then you must FIRST & FOREMOST
>> restrict yourself to the four Thessalonian letters.
.
> On 3Jun99 writer replies: Since the essay is a discussion of Acts and how a passage is used (erroneously)
> by Sola Scriptura Christians to prove that only scripture is the supreme authority on all matters of Faith
> and Morals, the use of other parts of scripture in this case might be of interest but not of much use.
.
 textman answers: Dear writer, well said. I do not doubt the nobility of your purpose, or the sincerity of your good intentions. However, it seems to me that one cannot refute one error by means of another. Thus if some Christians wish to use the Acts of Apostles as "proof" that the Bible is the sole and supreme authority in religion, that is most unfortunate for them. Such a view is neither biblical nor rational. One can certainly attempt to show them that this is wrong, and reason with them to a more sufficient position; but one can hardly refute them by spreading lies about the Thessalonian believers.
.
 Look here, the Faith is not based on legends and pious fables. It is based on concrete historical happenings; and it is from these facts that one ought never to waver. History, reality, truth, and spirit are all intertwinned and fused together into one seamless and harmonious unity. This means recognizing Luke's stories for what they are; and one would be better off trying to convince the fundies to adopt a more reasonable approach to the scriptures than to descend to pre-critical levels of argument. Thus if one wishes to address the matter of the Bible's alleged inerrancy, or its supposed supreme and absolute authority, one could, for example, take the following approach:
.
 The true and essential Word of God is the divine revelation in the soul of man. It is the Pius of all Scripture and it is the key to the spiritual meaning of all Scripture. To substitute Scripture for the self-revealing Spirit is to put the dead letter in the place of the living Word, the outer Ark in place of the inner sanctuary, the sheath in place of the sword, the horn-pane Lantern in place of the Light. This letter killed Christ in Judea; it is killing Him now. It has split the Church into fragments and sects and is splitting it now. It always makes a "Babel" instead of a Church. It kept the Pharisees from seeing Moses face to face; it keeps men now from seeing the Lord face to face. Franck insists that, from its inherent nature, a written Scripture cannot be the final authority in religion: (a) It is outward, external, while the seat of religion is in the soul of man. (b) It is transitory and shifting, for language is always in process of change, and written words have different meanings to different ages and in different countries, while for a permanent religion there must be a living, eternal Word that fits all ages, lands, and conditions. (c) Scripture is full of mystery, contradiction, and paradox which only "The key of David" — the inner experience of the heart — can unlock. Scripture is the Manger, but, unless the Holy Spirit comes as the day star in the heart, the Wise man will not find the Christ. (d) Scripture at best brings only knowledge. It lacks the power to deliver from the sin which it describes. It cannot create the faith, the desire, the love, the will purpose which are necessary to win that which the Scriptures portray. No book — no amount of "ink, paper, and letters" — can make a man good, since religion is not knowledge, but a way of living, a transformed life, and that involves an inward life-process, a resident creative power. [from Rufus Jones, 'Spiritual Reformers in the 16th and 17th Centuries', p.60-61]

P.S.  The eleventh commandment: "Commit no nuisance!"

Paul Is NOT The Author!

/ Re: PAUL IS THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK OF HEBREWS / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christianity / Date > 5 Sept 1999 /
.
> On 25Aug99 Bill McGinnis wrote: Paul Is The Author Of The Book Of Hebrews! Some scholars
> think there is a question about who wrote the "Letter To The Hebrews" in the Bible.
> The letter itself is not signed,
.
 textman replies: Dear Bill, the mere fact that the letter is unsigned ought to be more than enough to demonstrate that Paul is not the author. After all, Paul made a habit of always identifying himself as the author of his authentic epistles; just so there would be no doubt about these matters. Therefore, if you wish us to accept your belief that Paul wrote Hebrews you will have to first explain this discrepancy.
.
> and its style, tone, and content seem somewhat different from the other letters of Paul.
.
 There is no "seem" about it. It is an obvious and apparent fact that the "style, tone, and content" are very different from that of Paul's authentic epistles. If you wish us to accept your belief that Paul wrote Hebrews you will have to explain this discrepancy *also*.
.
> So some people now feel there is a question about who actually wrote the book of Hebrews.
.
 No. Actually, many scholars are rightly certain that whoever the author was, the one thing we can say about him is that he wasn't Paul.
.
> To me, there is no question at all: Paul wrote Hebrews.
.
 Your confidence and certainty are most refreshing, Bill . . .
Ummm, btw, have you got any evidence to back up your pious feelings?
.
> The most obvious thing to note is that Paul was the dominant intellect among the early Christians.
.
 He was the dominant intellect of the Apostolic Age, to be sure. But he was certainly not the only important thinker among the early Greek churches before Adamantius.
.
> He considered himself to be the "Apostle to the Gentiles," and indeed he was first and
> foremost among those who spread the Gospel to the non-Jewish world.
.
 This does not constitute evidence that he wrote Hebrews!
.
> The book of Hebrews is a major intellectual work, filled with tight scholarship and brilliant
> reasoning. If Paul didn't write it, who did?
.
 How about someone else who wasn't Paul? . . .
Is your puny brain so small that it can't conceive such a "radical" possibility?
.
> That's one reason God chose Paul: because he had a world-class intellect. If someone
> other than Paul wrote Hebrews, why haven't we heard of him?
.
 Maybe the fact that Hebrews is a part of the NT mean's that we have heard *from* him. And maybe the fact that he neglected to sign his masterpiece means that he considered his book to be valuable in itself, such that it does not require the support of knowing who the author is.
.
> Could such a brilliant thinker have remained unknown?
.
 Of course he could! The early history of the church is full of lost manuscripts and forgotten heroes of the Faith. Only someone totally ignorant about the churches' early years could even ask such a stupid question!
.
> Stylistic differences between Hebrews and Paul's other letters are explained by the fact
> that Paul was writing in a more formal style,
.
 You mean he put his tux on first? 
.
> not to those who already loved him and accepted him, but to those who were more
> sceptical and disbelieving.
.
 Hey Billy Boy, when did Paul ever write to someone other than specific churches and persons? Did he ever address an epistle to skeptics and unbelievers? ... No? ... Then where did you get this absurd fantasy?
.
> He needed to convince them more than he needed to convince the Corinthians, for instance.
.
 Really? ... Obviously you don't know very much about the early Corinthian believers!
.
> The fact that he did not sign the letter to the Hebrews is easily explained: he didn't want to
> appear too self-important to them.
.
 Obviously you know nothing about Paul either. His authority as an apostle was always a very high priority with him! But for Bill's sake he put aside his abrasive personality so as to assume a far more humble and pleasant persona. Thus if we are to follow Bill in his arrogant foolishness, we must now imagine that Paul was a split-personality who could switch from one persona to the other at will, the way we switch a light-bulb on and off!
.
> He wanted the letter to be evaluated on the basis of what it said rather than on the basis of who wrote it.
.
 Exactly. But now Bill comes along and spits in the author's face saying: "You can't hide from me! I know who you are. You're Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles."
.
> Throughout Hebrews, Jesus is referred to as "priest" or "high priest" or "great high priest,"
> yet the word "priest" never even appears in any other of Paul's known letters.
.
 More proof that Paul is NOT the author!
.
> If Paul is the author of Hebrews,
.
 He's not ...
.
> why does he describe Jesus as "priest" in Hebrews when he does not use that description anywhere else?
.
 A stupid question merits a stupid answer ... See below:
.
> The answer is simple: the Hebrews were quite familiar with the concept of "priest."
.
 So then Paul got bored being 'the Apostle to the Gentiles', and so he decided to branch out and become 'the Apostle to the Hebrews' as well. Is that right, Bill?
.
> In fact many of them were, no doubt, priests themselves!
.
 Many of whom exactly?
.
> So Paul was using good rhetorical technique when he tried to explain something new (Jesus
> Christ) in terms of something his audience already knew about and accepted (priests).
.
 Yes, that is what the author of Hebrews was doing alright; but none of
this demonstrates (or even vaguely suggests) that Paul was that author!
.
> Finally, it is well established that Paul and Timothy worked closely together for many
> years and that Timothy was essentially Paul's favorite student.
.
 Your fundamental disrespect for Timothy is apparent in your calling him 'Paul's student'. Timothy was much more than Paul's flunky. As the only person who could tolerate the more bizarre and irritating aspects of Paul's very unlikable personality, Timothy was an invaluable friend and companion, as well as an apostle in his own right. Indeed, without Timothy's constant assistance and encouragement, Paul simply could not have been the man - or apostle - that he was.
.
> Hebrews makes reference to Timothy in a way that could only confirm
> a close relationship between Timothy and the writer of the letter.
.
 "You should understand that our brother Timothy has been released,
with whom I shall see you if he comes soon" (Heb 13:23 / RSV).
.
> This had to Paul. If not Paul, who else could it have been?
.
 Someone else who knew, or knew of, Timothy. No doubt he met many people in his day; and doubtless made an impression on them.
In any case, this rather obscure reference does NOT demonstrate that Paul "had to" be the author.
.
> Therefore, I conclude beyond a doubt that Paul is the author of
> The Letter To The Hebrews in the New Testament. <snip remainder>
.
  Thus we see that the sum total of Bill's "evidence" for Paul as the author of Hebrews amounts to ... nothing at all! From this we can rightly conclude that the only reason Bill forwards his so-called "conclusion" is that he "feels" it to be so. Alas, poor Bill seems not to understand that the biblical sciences do not proceed from feelings (for others can just as easily "feel" that Paul was not the author), but rather concerns itself with the proper evaluation of the evidence provided by the texts. The evidence in Hebrews clearly suggests that Paul was not the author, but Bill confidently dismisses all the evidence because his feelings are doubtless a far more reliable guide to the truth of things than the tedious and boring gruntwork of thousands of bible scholars. Therefore, if you have any questions regarding the Sacred Scriptures please don't bother yourself with asking what the scholars have to say about it. Just go ask Bill what he feels to be the truth; for his feelings are apparently an infallible and inerrant guide to everything!