Authorship of Hebrews: Reviewing Cortez’s Case—Part 4

Recently, Félix Cortez published an article on the Spectrum website arguing that Paul the apostle was the author of the Letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament. This essay, published weekly in four parts, is a review of that paper and its evidence and findings, a response to the elements of his case, and a summary of my own views on the issue.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

This issue is a perfect example why we - corporately and individually - must decide what constitutes the nuts and bolts of he Gospel, that makes it necessary to even have a “New” Testament. At least, let’s not make books like Hebrews the “hill” on which our faith lives or dies.

Numerous writings at the time, even books of the Bible, were written under pseudonyms. If their content doesn’t change the central message of the Gospel, it’s all good; but, if we make our distinctive and definitive message out of one of these disputed books, we may need to think again. Obviously there will be push-back on disputing anything stated in the Bible, with the argument that it would make us distrust anything written there, we need to understand more clearly what faith should actually be based upon.

i think Cortez’s view that Paul wrote Hebrews is more convincing than this 4 part refutation…and if authorship doesn’t matter, why fight the traditional view that Paul is the author, as if it does matter…

The primary question facing SAD-ism is a microcosm of the bigger dilemma faced by Christianity and the broader problem of all organized religions.

Specifically, did EGW or whoever wrote Hebrews have the authority to speak for Jesus and more generally, can any human-including Jesus-speak for god?

Reasonably, an almighty god by definition must have the power to communicate directly with any of his creatures and as far as I’m concerned, if there is any good news in the NT, it is that, I.e., god is always with us.

So logically it seems prudent to be skeptical of anyone who claims that god miraculously gave him or her a message that our creator didn’t-or for some reason-couldn’t have delivered to everyone personally.

For my part, I’m particularly suspicious of those who claim to speak for people who can neither confirm or refute the content of their “massages from on high” due to the fact that the message purportedly came from a dead person.

(And, yes, I’m looking at evangelists like EGW, Paul and whomever else claims to be god’s gift to humanity or anyone who insists that their words must be accepted on faith as they cannot immediately be verified by reasonable thought and direct experience.)


1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.