Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
Galatians is believed to be one of the older extant Christian documents.
Unlike our superstar AA, I'm just now close to finishing John for the first time. But I find Luke reasonably easy to read, Acts has a nice flow, and some of Paul's letters seem to have a weird flow. He has lots of redundancies when he wrote. John and Acts tend to have a nice flow.
Philemon, one of the shorter works is actually considered authentic. Hebrews has almost always been considered non-authentic, yet it made it into canon, why?
|
Because Priscilla wrote it?
Origen thought Luke might have written it, but his famous statement that "God knows" is probably accurate.
Paul definitely didn't write it.
If you want to tie an ill-informed Mormon in knots with the NT, Hebrews is one of the best places to go. It's a commentary on why we don't need prophets anymore, has a teaching on angels that doesn't square with Mormonism (at least not in my understanding), tells its readers (and listeners, of course--this one feels like a sermon, and not a letter) why the Levitical priesthood has been replaced by Christ, why Jesus is our High Priest so we don't need an earthly High Priest any more, it just keeps going and going...
I believe Hebrews was valuable because it helped make sense of priesthood, the Jewish temple, and Christ. It quotes the LXX at length, and that probably didn't hurt it's cannonization either.