The Epistle to the Hebrews undeniably has a very high Christology, ascribing personal pre-existence to Jesus and his being the agent of the Genesis creation (1:2-3, 10-12), as well as being one of the handful of instances where θεος is applied to Jesus (1:8-9). For a discussion, see the slides to my presentation The “Mormon” Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. What is also important is that the majority of scholars, including liberals, date Hebrews before the destruction of the temple in AD 70, showing that a “high Christology” is not a later development in Christianity, but part-and-parcel of “primitive” Christianity (also: the "High Christology" of the Book of Mormon not being anachronistic as if often believed):
Richard Carrier, who is on the extreme end of liberal scholarship (he even rejects the historicity of Jesus) is forced to date Hebrews pre-70 based on the overwhelming evidence of an early date. As he writes in his book, On the Historicity of Jesus (2014):
The author of this text is not named, and though some claimed it was Paul, that’s unlikely (stylistically, for sure), although it may have been composed by a contemporary or successor of Paul (as I suspect is the case for 1 Clement; see Chapter 8, § 5; where I also mention evidence that 1 Clement might even have used Hebrews as a source). In Heb. 13.13 the author claims to be a companion of Timothy, which could be the same Timothy Paul traveled with; the author also implies at least some of his readers were evangelized by the original apostles, and long enough ago that they should be teachers themselves by now (2.3; 5.12); and in 10.32-34 the author appears to refer to their initial persecution in the time of Paul years before (which Paul himself references in Gal. 1.13)—if these remarks are not fabrications, they would place this letter as early as the late 40s or as late as the early 60s.
Many scholars instead want to date Hebrews after the canonical Gospels, but that faces two serious objections: Hebrews shows no knowledge of these Gospels (it never references any of their unique content and never quotes from them, and what it does argue often seems to be in ignorance of what they say); and Hebrews assumes without explanation that the Jewish temple cult is still operating—that the temple hasn’t been destroyed by the Romans and the rites were outlawed. Both facts should date Hebrews before 70 CE and therefore before all the canonical Gospels. That would make it in a sense the earliest Christian ‘Gospel’, since it is mostly an elaborate treatise on the gospel and why it should be believed (it just isn’t a narrative of Jesus or a collection of his sayings, so it’s not analogous to other Gospels only in structure and genre).
The first fact is strong enough (if written later, Hebrews should reflect knowledge of the Gospels), but the second fact is the most telling. The overall argument of this letter is that Jewish Christians should backslide now, because Judaism can no longer guarantee their salvation (this letter does not advocate Torah-observant Christianity: e.g. Heb. 13.9). That the temple cult no longer existed (and God did nothing to save the Jews from destruction, not even as a nation, but neither to save his temple and the cult being paid to him there) would have been so extremely effective and important an argument in this context that for the author never once to use it is all but impossible—unless Hebrews was written before the year 70, before even the year 66 (when the Jewish War started, since the fact alone could hardly escape mention). For example (and this is just one example among many), in Heb. 10.1-4 it is clearly assumed the temple sacrifices are still being performed: because the author makes an argument against their effectiveness, yet the obvious argument—that they aren’t even being performed ay more and therefore can’t be effective even if they were—doesn’t occur to him. He even asks as a rhetorical question if the effects of these sacrifices lasted longer than a year, ‘would they not have ceased to be offered [by now]?’ (10.2). It’s undeniably clear the author has no idea here that they had ceased. We must conclude, then, they had not. I find this so decisive a point that maintaining a later date for Hebrews is simply not tenable. I know of no logically valid argument for that. I therefore side with those scholars who accept it as early. (Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014], 538-40, emphasis in bold added)
