Every early Christian writer said St. Paul wrote it. That is good enough for me, as opposed to modernistic liberal Protestant theories casting doubt on the Holy Scriptures.
Notice that the writer said "as some are accustomed." This shows that not all Christians met at regimented times but as they were able.
No, this means that some so-called Christians had grown accustomed to avoiding the weekly Church assembly. If you had some familiarity with Canon Law, you'd know that the Christians of the Roman Empire early on (i.e. before Emperor Constantine was on the scene) laid down a rule that a person who missed Church for three straight weeks was to be excommunicated.
While Christians should gather for the purpose of mutual edification and encouragement, as we are one Body, there are not "firey consequences" for neglecting to do so.
We gather together to worship the Lord, not as a self-help group (as if we have the power to do anything anyway of our own - what a Pelagian stance you are taking).
St. Paul certainly speaks of the fiery consequences. "For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries." The willful sin of apostasy he is referring to is manifested by a failure to continue in attendance at Church.
The judgment that you refer to applies toward those who reject Christ after having first receive Him and not about gathering or not gathering with other believers. How you can tie that in to a judgment on those who choose not to meet is ridiculous.
To reject meeting with other Christians at Church is a form of apostacy and hatred of the brotherhood. It is also a rejection of the imitation of Christ and the Apostles, who were accustomed to meet the brethren at least once per week for worship.
Come on. Is this the best a Catholic can do?
"But now you rejoice in your arrogancies. All such rejoicing is wicked. To him therefore who knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is sin." (St. James 4.16-17)
You don't believe that man is judged on his works?
People say lots of things that end up not being true.
Why do you think that Paul does not claim authorship in Hebrews like he does in every other letter? Also, why do you think he changed writing styles for only this letter?
Wouldn't it make more sense that someone else wrote it?
Do you also believe in Santa Claus?