Introduction to Hebrews and part one.

I think our next book to study will be Hebrews. I tried to do an in depth study of Hebrews a couple of times as a christian and gave up. I was using a Bible study guide before. It only confused me because there seemed to be a lot of speculation and subjective opinion. Let's see how it goes this time.

First, let's read what Wikipedia has to say about the book of Hebrews here.

Hebrews is called an epistle or letter because there is a postscript which sounds personal, mentions Timothy, and sends greetings to unspecified leaders from unspecified persons in Italy. However, there is no greeting or address from or to a specific person or church at the beginning of Hebrews. There is also no claim of authorship in the entire book. The mention of Italy seems to suggest authorship by Paul or his cohorts, which may be exactly what the author intended us to think. The main body of the text, before the postscript, ends with an amen, leading me to think that was the original ending. Multiple other authors have been hypothesized throughout the centuries. The author still remains unknown.

The date of the writing is also unknown, with speculations ranging from 63 CE on into the second century. The oldest existing manuscripts of Hebrews are fragments from the late second century-early third century.  The book appears to be directed specifically at Jewish christians.

The book begins by talking about how god spoke to the Hebrews of old through the prophets but in those "last days" he spoke through his son. (If those were the last days, what are these days?) Right off the bat, Jesus is identified as the son of god. He is the heir of all things. Why does god need an heir? Is he going to die? That's what heirs are for, right? They inherit the father's property upon his death. If the father is eternal, what happens to the heir?

Next we are told that the universe was made through the son. This is news. The son didn't appear in the first chapter of Genesis. Oh wait, next we are told the son is the "radiance of god's glory." Is he shiny? Maybe he is the light in "let there be light." Next we are told the son is the exact representation of god's being. What does that mean? Is he the spitting image of god? In what way? Is he a clone? Does god have a body? If not, did Jesus have a body? That is not clear yet. We are also told the son sustains all things by his powerful word. Again, what in the heck does that mean? How does he do that?

The text then assumes that we know how the son provided purification for sins, after which he sat at the right hand of god in heaven. Presumably, god and Jesus have bottoms to sit with and heavenly chairs to sit on, unless they sit on clouds. In this way the son became superior to the angels, because God never called any angel his son. How do we know god called anyone his son? Must we take them at their word? What if Jesus was actually a liar, or a lunatic? If someone today told you god spoke to him and told him he was god's son, what would you think? You and I both know you would think he is bonkers.

The text gives two old testament references for god calling someone his son. Let's take a look at them. The first is Psalm 2:7. Who wrote this? Nobody knows, but it is presumed to be David speaking. Who is it talking about? "God's anointed one" which is a phrase for the king god has sanctified to lead the Jews, presumably David. This is all about the king/David being called god's son and being given the nations as an inheritance. (Not only that, The psalm goes on to say he will dash them to pieces like pottery!) Is the writer of the book of Hebrews referring to David? Nope. He's referring to Jesus. Is Jesus going to dash the nations to pieces like pottery? Hmm. That psalm also goes on to say that kings better kiss the son or he might get angry and destroy them. Nice guy this son of god.

Nativity wrap up

First, we have no idea who wrote these stories and where they got their information. No other bible authors tell a story of Jesus's birth, not even Paul, who was the most prolific writer before the gospel accounts came along.  There is no historical corroboration, except for the existence of Herod and Quirinius with his census, but they were ten years apart. We can see that Matthew and Luke have two very different stories with different casts of characters. In Matthew, Mary has a very minor role, merely birthing Jesus. In Luke, she takes a significant part in the story with dialogue. There she becomes "blessed."

Naturally, a virgin conception of a male child appears to be an impossibility to us today. In that time, the microscopic mechanics of reproduction were not known. It was believed that the male "planted the seed" that would become a child. The woman's womb was the fertile, or barren, ground in which the seed grew. God was responsible for making the woman fertile or barren. If she was barren, she was in disgrace. Ultimately, the child belonged to the father, not the mother. Supposedly, the Holy Spirit was Jesus's father.

That a child should be concieved by a male God with a human mother was not a surprising thing in the first century. We  can recall our  school literature classes where we learned about ancient mythology and abundance of male gods who impregnated beautiful young women and had "special" children. Zeus alone was notorious. Here are some links to peruse:

Son of God
Demigod
List of demigods
Zeus's offspring

To read a fuller critique of  Jesus and his life as recorded in the bible, I recommend The Christ by John E. Remsberg, found here.