Another Catholic question (sorry guys!)

[bound]

Wow! That is strong stuff. Are you suggesting the Holy Spirit understands no language but Greek? Or it that just His favorite language? Where did you ever come up with that?

1st sources. :tongue3:

 

[lori4dogs]

1. Show me an apostle that says that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. (BTW, this is the first time I am hearing this.)
2. Give me any evidence anywhere that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. Do you have one shred of evidence at all.
3. Even if you have any evidence at all, suppose, just suppose I give you the benefit of the doubt for one second, what difference would it make?
4. The important thing to realize is that the entirety of the NT (Matthew included) was inspired by the Holy Spirit in the Greek language! It does not matter if he wrote in English, German, French, Latin, etc. The Holy Spirit inspired the Greek and only the Greek writing of Matthew. Matthew may have known 200 languages (he didn't), but the language that was inspired by the Holy Spirit was Greek. That is what our NT was written in. That is what you must deal with. That is what you must understand. Understand? Comprendez-vous?

I mis-spoke DHK, no apostles state that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew but plenty of early Christian writers did. Early Christian writings state that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Hebrew Gospel. Why else would they make that statement? Show me evidence that he wrote the Gospel of Matthew in Greek?

 

[lori4dogs]

Hebrew would have been the natural choice of language for Matthew to write in.

 

[Marcia]

Hebrew would have been the natural choice of language for Matthew to write in.

But the only early copies we have are in Greek. So it seems that is what God wants us to have.

 

[lori4dogs]

But the only early copies we have are in Greek. So it seems that is what God wants us to have.

But it is quite easy to translate into Hebrew and since Matthew most likely wrote the Gospel in Hebrew then we come up with a different understanding of what Jesus meant when he said 'you are Peter and upon you I will build my church'. Even that old Petra, Petros argument was weak from the start.

 

[Marcia]

But it is quite easy to translate into Hebrew and since Matthew most likely wrote the Gospel in Hebrew then we come up with a different understanding of what Jesus meant when he said 'you are Peter and upon you I will build my church'. Even that old Petra, Petros argument was weak from the start.

There is no concrete evidence that it was written in Hebrew. Greek is what God wants us to read it in as the original language.

Here is a good example of how the RCC has an agenda by asserting something with no concrete evidence. They want to translate it into Hebrew to shore up the belief about Peter; well, there is no reason to translate it into Hebrew.

Even without the Petra, Petros issue, one can see that Peter is not the first so-called pope. Peter was an evangelist and wrote some letters that are in our Bible; James was the head of the church at Rome.

 

[Marcia]

But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the Church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the Church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome, comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

Also, nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).

What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12). <More>

http://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html

 

[lori4dogs]

Naw . . . . .History too close to the actual time of Peter proves that he was indeed the first pope:

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. ... Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome ... to Miltiades.

 

[DHK]

Hebrew would have been the natural choice of language for Matthew to write in.

Lori, you are making assertions without evidence. You are no longer credible. The one thing that Alexander the Great contributed to the world of that time was the Greek language. It was the universal language of that time. Everyone understood it; but not everyone understood Hebrew. Thus the NT was written in "Koine Greek" or the Greek of the common man.

If you had any evidence of Matthew being written in Hebrew you would be able to present it. I have been through arguments like this one before. Not even Carson Webber or his teachers can win this one. No one has ever been able to produce a shred of evidence that Matthew was ever written in any other language but Greek. Seek and ye shall find.
Don't make assertions that you can't back up.
Next time you say that provide evidence.

 

[BRIANH]

No, the earliest history states that control of the church passed to the Apostles and the brother of the Lord; James.

Hegesippus is the earliest Christian historian and quoted by Eusibius.

Here is what we learn from him

James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles.

It also has this very interesting notation that destroys this whole cousin theory as the earliest writer mentions the brother of Jesus by the flesh

There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.

 

[DHK]

No, the earliest history states that control of the church passed to the Apostles and the brother of the Lord; James.

Hegesippus is the earliest Christian historian and quoted by Eusibius.

Here is what we learn from him

It also has this very interesting notation that destroys this whole cousin theory as the earliest writer mentions the brother of Jesus by the flesh

The earliest and most authoritative history book is the Bible itself which declares James as the pastor of the church at Jerusalem. He was the one that made the decisions after much consultation. As the pastor of the church it was his decision to make, not Peter, not Paul, not the apostles as a whole. It was James' decision.

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

It was the decision of James, the pastor of the church at Jerusalem.

 

[lori4dogs]

Lori, you are making assertions without evidence. You are no longer credible. The one thing that Alexander the Great contributed to the world of that time was the Greek language. It was the universal language of that time. Everyone understood it; but not everyone understood Hebrew. Thus the NT was written in "Koine Greek" or the Greek of the common man.

If you had any evidence of Matthew being written in Hebrew you would be able to present it. I have been through arguments like this one before. Not even Carson Webber or his teachers can win this one. No one has ever been able to produce a shred of evidence that Matthew was ever written in any other language but Greek. Seek and ye shall find.
Don't make assertions that you can't back up.
Next time you say that provide evidence.

Do you have one shred of evidence that he wrote in Greek? Maybe you are the one that is no longer credible. Plenty of early christian writers commented on the fact that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.

 

[lori4dogs]

Marcia said: 'There is no concrete evidence that it was written in Hebrew.'

Maybe not conrete, Marcia, but a lot of witnesses that lead a reasonable person to conclude he did write the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew.

One person, anyone in that time period that claimed Matthew wrote the Gospel in Greek??
Anyone?

 

[lori4dogs]

Naw . . . . .History too close to the actual time of Peter proves that he was indeed the first pope:

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. ... Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome ... to Miltiades.

Why no credibility DHK? Were these people making it up?

 

[Marcia]

Marcia said: 'There is no concrete evidence that it was written in Hebrew.'

Maybe not conrete, Marcia, but a lot of witnesses that lead a reasonable person to conclude he did write the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew.

One person, anyone in that time period that claimed Matthew wrote the Gospel in Greek??
Anyone?

It has to be concrete to base anything on that.

What counts is that all the copies we have are in Greek, and the other Gospels are in Greek; it is actually reasonable to conclude they were written in Greek since that is the language they were using. To try to interpret it as though it were written originally in Hebrew with no manuscript evidence for that is pretty lame. I'm sure God has a reason that it was written in Greek and that we only have Greek manuscripts for it.

 

[DHK]

Why no credibility DHK? Were these people making it up?

Please quote me one piece of evidence that shows me that Matthew was written in any other language but Greek. You have not shown that yet. Your quote did not show that at all. Where is the missing Hebrew MSS. Can you show me that? What evidence do you have?

 

[Grace&Truth]

lori I don't think this means that he wrote in Hebrew. I think that he wrote to the Hebrews, as in he is a Jew and Matthew was written as the Gospel account from a Jewish (Hebrew) prespective. If you notice that Matthew's terminolgy is Jewish and therefore the Jews would be able to relate to it. Also he gives more information in his Gospel account then the other 3 because much of it only relates to the Jews.

I mis-spoke DHK, no apostles state that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew but plenty of early Christian writers did. Early Christian writings state that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Hebrew Gospel. Why else would they make that statement? Show me evidence that he wrote the Gospel of Matthew in Greek?

 

[DHK]

lori I don't think this means that he wrote in Hebrew. I think that he wrote to the Hebrews, as in he is a Jew and Matthew was written as the Gospel account from a Jewish (Hebrew) prespective. If you notice that Matthew's terminolgy is Jewish and therefore the Jews would be able to relate to it. Also he gives more information in his Gospel account then the other 3 because much of it only relates to the Jews.

Now this is quite true.
Matthew writes with the Jews in mind, presenting Christ as the Messiah.
Mark writes with the Romans in mind presenting Christ as a Servant.
Luke writes with the Greeks in mind presenting Christ as a Perfect Man.
John writes with the world in mind presenting Christ as the Son of God.

 

[WalkswithJesus]

Your personal assault of me is unwarranted. I am not KJVO. I never said the Bible is preserved in the KJV. I have no use for that nonsense. If your form of argument is throwing aspersions at another than we can stop now.

I apologize if I mis-understood your position. I gathered that from your various posts and the authors you cite.

It is apparent to me that you have not studied this matter out very thoroughly. If you have you have used rose-colored glasses picking up very liberal texts. Perhaps you have been to the Jesus Seminar, have faith in Vatican II, trust in the writings of Bishop Sheen, and German Rationalists, I don't know. But wherever you are getting your information from it is not accurate. Even the most basic of textbooks in most Bible Colleges contradict those things which you post on this board.

The Jesus Seminar …. You are crazy – I have no truck with their tripe – especially Spong. As for your basic textbooks and Bible Colleges – name them – the text books and colleges. Even colleges and the text books they use and/or faculty write can be written with a POV [you obviously think your POV is correct others may have a difference of opinion. You are throwing aspersions – rose colored glasses, liberal texts, and lack of study – well the feeling is mutual right back your way – which is not getting us any where.

 

[WalkswithJesus]

I have 8 years of post-secondary education, most of it in theology.
So when you come up with off-the-wall comments like the Septuagint is a collection of Hebrew writings (not just the OT), I am going to doubt where you get such information. Much of the information I have given I don't have to reference because it is basic, learned over many years of teaching. For example, your statement that dates back to 464 is ludicrous. The only plausible truth in it may be that the "oldest extant Peshitta dates to 464, but that doesn't mean that it came into existence then. It is more than 200 years older than that. That is just common knowledge.

So you have not graduated yet? Sorry, what’s holding you back? An inability to study history objectively? There is noting ‘off the wall’ about the Septuagint being a collection of Jewish/Hebrew writings translated or written in the Greek language. Clue one here: they writers/translators did not sit down to write an “Old Testament” … the term OT has come to be associated with a collection of writings that pre-date the New Testament Christian writings .. That is reading back into history what those writings are called and ergo what constituted those writings. You state that the Septuagint was ‘finished’ in 150 BC.

What is your source for that corpus being ‘complete’ and what constituted the ‘complete’ Septuagint? You have no objective definitive evidence for that statement. In fact, the evidence in the form of texts like the Codex Sinaiticus, even the Peshitta and Codex Vaticanus give witness to the form of the Septuagint and the writings contained. Wild oldest does not mean best – you can’t argue for a Septuagint that is vastly different then extant ancient versions and witness texts. Just saying something with no evidence to back it up does not make it true so it is your argument that is “full of holes”

Your argumentation is full of holes. All the Jews had the OT at that time. That is what they referred to as the Scriptures in verses such as Acts 17:11. They weren't missing any books for it was canonized by 400 B.C. At the time of Christ, as he went into the synagogue he picked up the Scriptures and read from them. They had the OT.
This discussion revolves around the NT, with the exception of the apocrypha. The Peshitta contains all of the NT's 27 books. That is the important thing to take home with you. Whether or not it was connected with the OT is not important. The OT was available elsewhere.

Now the holes are truly showing, losing the argument on the contents of the Septuagint, they don’t matter – now the Peshitta contains all of the NT and that is what is important … Jesus read from scrolls in the synagogue, specifically Isaiah so that is the only work that you can state with a certainty was available. Now I am not advocating that Isaiah was the only scroll present – just that you cannot use that passage to “proof text” the presence or absence of any other writings not what comprised the corpus of the Hebrew Canon. And the term “Canon” as we use it is a Christian concept.