Hebrews Matthew Manuscripts Clear Up Greek Translation Problems - Early Church Fathers Said Matthew was in Hebrews

Nehemia Gordon, Michael Rood and many others BELIEVE that the New Testament documents were originally in Hebrew...then translated into Aramaic...then finally Greek.

That's why I told you I'm out of this thread. They BELIEVE it. No fundamentals and evidence whatsoever to support their claim.

I don't debate faith, I debate fundamentals. I wish you good luck with your faith.

OP is not born again.

Do you realize how foolish you appear?

It's like saying that everyone spoke Greek in the entire area controlled by Rome. A bunch of garbage. Hebrews spoke Hebrew. Some of the merchants and more educated scholar types, like Paul, definitely spoke Greek and Hebrew and maybe other languages.

Another oddity, is that Peter was appointed to be the apostle to the Gentiles, and Paul just took that over. Christianity tends to observe misunderstandings of Paul's writings more than the recorded words of Yeshua. It's what is taught by those who have been to seminary for the most part.

I think Peter's comments about Paul and the twisting of his writings are terrifically clear in 2 Peter 3:15 and 16.

Holding forth that all Hebrews spoke Greek is like saying all Americans speak Spanish or all Mexicans speak English.

Language of Jesus

It is generally agreed by historians that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic.

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Let's add to the list all the instances of Hebrew and Greek terms that were mistranslated as 'eternal' or 'everlasting':

[link to www.tentmaker.org (secure)]

I agree, they spoke Aramaic, which is like a cousin to Hebrew. From what I can surmise, if you speak Aramaic, you will understand spoken Hebrew. Sorry I messed up in my earlier comment.

I'm familiar with Nehemiah. We don't follow his teachings, but he does have some very valuable information. Just not a follower of Yeshua, so he's not someone I seek out regularly.

Are you familiar with Andrew Gabriel Roth's Aramaic English NT? He was supposed to be doing the OT as well. Not sure where that stands.

I follow no man.

I don't know how you can't be a follower of Yeshua...that's Jesus' Hebrew name.

Not familiar with Roth.

Gordon kind of "popped up" for me while on Youtube.

It's ironic in the sense that years ago I was having trouble with alchohol. One day I heard a voice in my head who said "I need you to quit drinking".

I asked Him what do I call you, and He said "Jehovah".

Scam artist my ass.

It's still Hebrew...which was the original language of the New Testament.

He clearly states the Shem Tov Matthew is from around 1390 AD.

That doesn't mean it's not a valid copy of earlier documents.

Tread lightly or I'll boot you from this conversation.

Language of Jesus

It is generally agreed by historians that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic.

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]


.

It should be obvious to anyone that studies 1st century Israel that the gospels and the letters by every apostle except Paul would have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, most likely Aramaic as that what the average person spoke everyday there.

The idea that the "uneducated Galileans" wrote everything in Greek is dubious at best.

What he gives are fundmentals of the ancient Hebrew language.

You are just blinded to accept them.

Yeah, no manuscripts like I said, earliest dates of 500 , lol, the actual gospels were written around 80 to 100 AD by contemporaries of the apostles, pauls letters were held by the church...The book of matthew specifically was translated to modern hebrew much much later, originally written in greek. everything else is speculative

And why mention the late christian apologist at all? their arguments make no sense today..irraneus in his against heresy goes against gnostism but only addresses the material VS spiritual aspect, it was really against Marcion, pauls nephew who was actually the first one to cannonize a new testament...LOL...Maaan!!

I like his pretty costume and everything, but this guy doesn't have the slightest clue on New Testament textual criticism. He says there isn't one Greek manuscript that has anything but 13 generations listed, and that is just flat not true. I listed the ones that contain the textual variant above.

I might suggest that our illustrious rabbi take a beginner course in New Testament textual criticism.

By the way, there are no extant Hebrew texts of Matthew. So, now he's just inventing things.

DUDE!!! Perhaps you don't understand what the word manuscript means??? It means hand written...Notice the MANU latin for hand? what you're proposing is that the book of matthew written by his contemporaries, not matthew himself, around 80 years after his death, they wrote this book in hebrew? LMFAO!!! You need to do some serious catching up with that historical period man...Do you understand that the hebrew bible of today is NOT the same hebrew langugae that the original petateuch was written in? I don't know what your objective is with this thread anyway, what ulterior motive there could be but its a complete fail bro, unless you got what you were looking for

Uh, no. Our papyri date to the early 2nd century. In fact, many scholars believe P52 is a 1st century hand. The papyri are very early. Our earliest uncials such as Bezae, Vaticanus, Alexandrius are 4th and 5th century (350-450 AD).

So, anyway. There's that.

what part of the original hebrew language being in disuse by the year 300 BC do you not understand? the masoreans wrote the OT in the year 700 AD just to have a hebrew OT in existance dude!! Its not the same language, around the year 80 AD I can't imagine anyone using hebrew orally or written unless it was in synagogue, they were very secretive back then...No man, original matthew text was written in greek, in fact its not like they printed books in those days, if you wanted a copy of a book you had to take that book to a scriptorum and they would hand copy it for you...You have no manuscript or fragments of any papyri dating to that period with the book of matthew in any hebrew bruh..No such animal

Did I ever say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew? The only one I know of in all church history who suggested that Matthew may first have been composed in Hebrew is Eusebius. But there has never been found an extant Hebrew Matthew.

I just wanted to clear up his statement that all extant Greek texts have 13 names from David to Christ. It isn't true. I've listed the uncials and minuscules that list Joakim.

That's why I told you I'm out of this thread. They BELIEVE it. No fundamentals and evidence whatsoever to support their claim.

I don't debate faith, I debate fundamentals. I wish you good luck with your faith.

what part of the original hebrew language being in disuse by the year 300 BC do you not understand? the masoreans wrote the OT in the year 700 AD just to have a hebrew OT in existance dude!! Its not the same language, around the year 80 AD I can't imagine anyone using hebrew orally or written unless it was in synagogue, they were very secretive back then...No man, original matthew text was written in greek, in fact its not like they printed books in those days, if you wanted a copy of a book you had to take that book to a scriptorum and they would hand copy it for you...You have no manuscript or fragments of any papyri dating to that period with the book of matthew in any hebrew bruh..No such animal

Oh ok my bad.let me address that then, the authors went out of their way to connect Jesus to david, I find no connection...I find that all of the prophesies in scripture are forced to be met and some admittedly so in the narrative.

Its very difficult these days to get to the meat of the story as so many interpolations and bad translations over millenia has made it nearly imposible...It challenges the discernment of the poorly read. This is why you must excercise your hermaneutics with hsitorical facts from the period in question as well, if you do, you will find that the bible is not a history book...l8ters man, good convo