The Pope

Thank you for your kind understanding, though you may disagree with me.

If you check the language used for NT, you may find a lot of articles which claim the Hebrew Primacy. I think the main persons for that claim are Papias and Iraeneus, both of whom mentioned Gospel Matthew was written in Hebrew. This story was quoted by Eusebius, Origen, Jerome.
There is a story that Thomas took the gospel Matthew when he went to India. It might have been translated by James, Brother of Jesus. Hebrews were written by Paul but translated by Luke into Greek.
When Jews communicated with Jews, did they have to write in Greek? I don't think so. Some epistles may have been written in Greek from the beginning, and Corinthians and Philippians may be such ones. Some may be written in Hebrew first.

ACts 26:14 I heard a voice speaking unto me in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul,...
( What was the contents of Speech in Hebrew tongue?) We lost the original contents in Hebrew now.

Jerusalemites recognized the dialect of Galileans from Peter ( Mt 26:73). If they spoke in Greek, they could have not recognized, or distinguish between Galilean Greek and Jerusalem Greek.

There are some valuable argument that the NT was written in Aramaic first. One of the crucial verses is Mt 26:6 where Jesus had a meal at Leper Simon. Lepers were not allowed to stay in the village or in a town. Moreover, there is no story that Jesus healed the Leper. One may say that the Leper Simon was healed before, but the nick name was still effective, but the man doesn't seem to be very much converted so.
If we accept the Aramaic primacy, the leper could have been Potter. Then we can easily resolve this issue.

Eunuch story in Acts 8 is also one of them as the Eunuchs ( demasculated person) were not allowed to go into temple for worship according to (Deut 23:1). If we follow Aramaic, it could be simply " MInister of Ethiopian Queen"

There are some more, but if we follow Aramaic, then we find another, bigger loss in the meaning of NT. There is the dilemma.
My understanding is that NT might have not been written in one language unanimously, but later on unified in one language. Aramaic was the language first translated from Hebrew. Jesus spoke in Aramaic in some region like Decpolis where the Aramaic influence was strong.
Overall, Hebrew was absolutely prevailing in the daily life of Jews at that time, as Josepus, the Historian, confessed that Greek was too difficult for the Jews at that time.
It might have been the providence of God that Hebrew texts are no longer available at this stage,. so that the believers should endeavor more to search for the Truth.
[FONT=돋움체][/FONT]

 

For those who are honestly interested in this topic, here is an excellent webpage:
http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/hebrewfirstcentury.html

I tried to research a little on Dr. Jenkins before recommending this material of his. He seems to be a nominal Christian but very universalistic in his approach, feeling other religions can also understand Christ in their own terms.... Nevertheless, although I disagree with him about that approach, I do think the material linked here is quite good regarding the time of Jesus and the languages spoken in the Israel area.

 

There’s lots of websites that represents both sides very well, we just have to discern the best we can and make an informative stand with what evidence we have.

Also, Greek may have been the ‘universal’ language, but that doesn’t mean that the Jews of Jesus’ time spoke Greek fluently on the streets. English is the ‘universal’ language on the high seas, as I know because I was a navigator in the US Navy, but that didn’t mean that the ship’s crew all spoke English.

 

Hi Eliyahu, I'll get back with you tomorrow with a better reply, since you're sincere enough to formulate a well thought out response, unlike some of the typical Romaphobic members here.

 

Jesus spoke to the masses of the people, not just to the Jews; ergo: Greek.
The NT manuscripts are all in Greek. Conclusion--Greek.
The originals were written in Greek. The inspired canon is in Greek. That is what we have to work with. Our sole source of authority in all matters of faith and doctrine is the Greek manuscripts from whence the translations of our Bibles come from.

 

And all of this is moot if one knows his history very well at all.

If there is a succession of Popes, then which of the three during the Great Schism is the right one?


"things that make you go....hmmmmmm"

 

Here’s your problem DHK, [personal attack removed.]

I never question St. John, I stated that Aramaic was such a common language that people obviously per John 19:13, 17 referred to Aramaic as ‘Hebrew’. Do a little research DHK for yourself and you’ll discover quite easily that the words; ‘Golgotha’ and ‘Gabbatha’ John spoke of are of ARAMAIC origin.

Please keep your ‘opinions’ to yourself and please present to the class a why these words aren’t of Aramaic origin, other than “well that’s what the bible says”.

[Moderator's Warning: The BB Posting Rules, to which you agreed, require you to show grace to your fellow posters at all times. Likewise, the BB rules forbid you from making personal attacks (i.e. using unkind language or name calling) against your fellow posters. Debate the issues without attacking the person holding the opposing view. Failure to abide by these rules will result in a 10-day suspension of your BB membership.]

 

As Josephus mentioned the most of Jews hated Greek culture even though they might have to accept it for official communication because of the political pressure, because Jews considered Greek full of myths, spoken by pork meat eating people, full of idolatry.

So, we can see that Jesus was talking about Hebrew Bible ( Mt 5:18, 23:35, Luke 24:44).
On top fo the Cross, the title was written in Hebrew. Why was it written in Hebrew? because many people could read Hebrew? Were they Romans? No. Were they Greek? Nope! Were they Syrian? Nope!
Jews could read Hebrew. Peter spoke in Galilean Dialect. Was it Galilean dialect of Latin? No! Was it Galilean dialect of Greek ? Nope! Was there distincition between Galilee Aramaic and Jerusalem Aramaic? Nope!

Why does John say Gabbatha in Hebrew ( John 19:13) in the Hebrew Golgotha ( John 19:17) ?

Why did Jesus speak to Paul in Hebrew?

Acts 26:
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue,

Why did Paul deliver a speech in Hebrew to the crowd of Jerusalem?

Acts 21:40
Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22:2
And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith


Should we trust the human writings more than the Bible?

Why did the coins used during Bar-Korba Revolt have the inscriptions in Hebrew? Isn't it normal that the commonly used language is written on the coins?

When Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew, did Paul translate it into Greek immediately?

How did the thousands of Jerusalem people understand the speech by Paul in Hebrew?

Golgotha was Hebrew used in 2Kings 9:35( Jezebel), 1 Chr 10:10 ( Saul's head), Judges 9:53, Exodus 16:16 ( omer per capita)
This type of Hebrew was originated from Aramaic, but was completely localized and become Hebrew.

However, there are several Aramaic which was purely Aramaic at that time, such as Tali-tacumi, Ephata, Eli Eli Lama Sabachtani, but these were not many. Actually many people could not understand Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani.

I am quite sure that Hebrew was the main language in Israel in 1c and moreover for the religious life and worship service, Bible discussions, Hebrew was absolutely main tool of communication.

It is likely that the Saints in Antioch did greatly for the translation and compilation later on.

 

The question you must answer, is not why he used them on the cross, but why he translated them for the common person to be able to understand them. Each time he gives a Hebraic phrase he gives the meaning of it in the Greek language. Why is that? Because both the manuscript of John's gospel, and the language commonly spoken, was koine Greek--common Greek--the Greek of the common person.
Hebrew had almost faded out of existence. It was read in the synagogues, for it was the sacred language of the Jews. It was understood but rarely spoken. The Masoretic Text was written in Hebrew. A related language was Aramaic. It was more common than Hebrew, but not the most common language. It would be spoken only among the Jews. The lingua franca of the day was Greek. It was the universal language of the day, the language that Alexander the Great left the world. Everyone, everywhere spoke Greek--from the slave to the Emperor. Everyone. Latin was the official language, a language that had to be known for it emanatied from Rome where the government was. All official documents were signed in Latin. Thus the Jews knew many languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and possibly some more depending upon which area of the world they lived in. Check Acts chapter two for that answer. "How hear we every man in the "language" wherein we were born." They were not dumb people.
They spoke Greek as the common language. The manuscripts are written in Greek. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. You cannot argue with God. God inspired His Word in Greek. That much we know. If you want to discuss Scripture you must do it from the Greek, not from any other language, unless the context gives direct reference, as it does in the occasional expression that John gives--in which he also gives the Greek translation.

 

Seems you are already rcc since you are already misleading what scripture says, beleivieng lies over scripture.

 

In any case, either the NT was written in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, Papacy cannot be justified, Peter cannot be the first Pope. He never claimed so, but called himself as one of the elders ( 1 Peter 5:1). He was rebuked by Paul ( Gal 2:14) Can anyone rebuke the Pope today?

Why does nobody rebuke Pope when he said he respects Muslims?
Do all Catholics respect Muslims? In other words, Roman Catholics respect Muslims and are learning from them ? Papcy is ridiculous as the history proves.
Read the story about Pope Alexander 6.

 

not to mention the gates of hell prevailed against Peter when he denied Christ... upon this Rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it

 

So what are you trying to tell us? You are a good orator? A persuasive speaker? But in the end you have no real facts to base your arguments on.

 

I have to agree with DHK,

In this whole thread, I was beginning to wonder if stan the man was a hit and run poster. He hadn't posted in this thread he started in a few days, and then when he does return, he only want you to read what he has, he hasn't responded to anything in the perivous posts.

Oh well...

Jamie

 

Ah, it would seem that stan the man IS only here to present his views on others...

What is the internet name they call people like that?

thank goodness.. Drop and go on a slow internet connection is much better for us.

Jamie

 

Albright is a Liberal, thus I don't put much stock in what he says. It seems that he has cozied up pretty much to what the Catholics have already said many times before. As the Bible says: "There is nothing new under the sun."

1. Jesus does not use Aramaic. Prove it if he does. Where is your evidence? This is just imaginary thinking without any facts. We asked you to present facts--not vain imagination. The lingua franca of the day was Greek. The manuscripts were written in Greek. I can show you my Greek NT if you wish--a far-removed copy of the original.

2. Peter is not the foundation of the church. Christ is. He is the chief cornerstone. He is the rock of our salvation. He is the rock of offence upon which the unsaved stumble. Over and over again he is referred to as the chief cornerstone. It is not Peter; it is Christ.

Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

1 Peter 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

Again, this is typical Catholic theology. I have heard it all before. It is not Protestant at all. Trying to read into Scripture things that are not there is despicable. This Isaiah passage has nothing to do with Peter. It is a typical Catholic way of justifying man-made doctrines.

The keys of the kingdom are given to all the disciples. It is the old fashioned message of the gospel. Every believer has that key, not just Peter or any of the popes--but every believer.

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The same so-called "key" was given to all the disciples just two chapters later. It was not given to just Peter only.

As I said, Albright's opinion is not worth much. This has nothing to do with Isaiah 22, and there is no proof that he is quoting it. Where is your evidence? Is your only evidence: Albright says this, and Albright says that? Why not just plagiarize?

You haven't looked very hard. When the Catholic epologists came to this board they put up this strawman all the time.

Show or demonstrate where Jesus quotes from Isaiah 22. You haven't done that yet.

And did Jesus say anything about the House of Judah? Eliakim? Hilkiah? I think not!

 

How could God build His Eternal Church on the fragile, feeble, corruptible human being?

Have you read my post?
Actually Deut 32:15, 18 talk about Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ as the Rock of Salvation.
Nowdays, people invent many ways to shake this Rock.

Rock'N Roll: The Rock is rolling because they shake!
Rolling Stone: The True Stone is rolling!
Easy(EZ) Rock : Less Talk More Music, (We don't want to hear Gospel any more! shut upt and then listen to the pagan, sexy music!)

Satan continues to shake this True Rock!

That coincides with the historical effort by Roman Catholic, that the church was not built on the True Rock, Jesus Christ, but was built upon human tradition and the human being Peter!

Any denial of Jesus Christ as the True Rock works against God of Salvation and Jesus Christ, the True Rock, Our Shield and Rock where we can hide ourselves.

Watch out whereupon you stand !