The Pope

[BobRyan]

Well, somebody could say, "The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to use two different words. Well, that's true, because "petra" is the word in Greek that is normally used for "large rock," but — I should say petra is the Greek word that means "large rock" but it's in the feminine form. In other words, the gender of this Greek word, petra, large rock, is feminine. You do not apply a feminine form of the word in order to name a male. You adopt it by giving the masculine form. In other words what Matthew was doing, guided by the Holy Spirit, is something that was rather obvious and practically necessary. That was to take the Greek from Jesus' saying and start by saying, "I will build my Church on this massive stone, this 'petra' in the feminine but then to show that Peter gets the name, "Rock" in its proper masculine form.

You wouldn't name him Josephine or Rockina or...

Once again you have entered upon a well reasoned logical argument. The problem is that the Bible is not helping you with this problem. The NT writers insist that there is ONLY ONE PETRA that is the foundation upon which the church is based.

As you have rightly pointed out scripture itself is authored by God - so it is God that tells us to contrast Petros with PETRA in Matt 16.

And it is God that tells us that there is only ONE PETRA for the church --

1Cor 3
11 For no man can lay a foundation (PETRA) other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.[/b]
12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

RC traditions only work if you isolate one part of the Bible and "insert imagination here" to the text that you isolate.

This is a pattern that can be shown over and over in RC dotrinal teachings.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

For the first 1200 or so years the Bishop of Rome was considered the "first among equals." The Bishop of Rome pulled out of the Orthodox Catholic Church for his financial/political benefit and the Orthodox Church never recovered after the Bishop of Rome authorized a "crusade" for the sacking of Constantinople. If I was to give up on the Christian Reformed Church I would consider the Orthodox Church.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Let's drop back to verse 13, "Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi,

Hi Stan bless you in your journey, a journey I have been on for the past 4 years, but am still currently splashing in the Tiber, but it's getting tougher and tougher saying no to God.

Anyway, speaking of Caesarena Philippi: At Caesarea Philippi, there was a pagan temple built upon the rock there. There's also a cavern named "gates of hell" were the pagans sacrificed babies. This temple was dedicated to the pagan god “Pan”; this is why one of the names for this area is “Panius.” The god Pan was the god of the shepherds.

Jesus, the Good Shepherd, appointed his chief shepherd, Peter, at Panius by building his true Church (the New Temple) upon the true rock (Peter).

1.a. False God: Pan
1.b. True God: Jesus

2.a. False Temple: Pagan Temple to Pan
2.b. True Temple: The Church

3.a. False Rock: Rock upon which the pagan Temple was built
3.b. True Rock: Peter or Kepha (Aramaic form)

The headwaters of the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee flow from this rock, which water the entire Promised Land. Jesus also is drawing from this geographical fact to show that his grace and truth would flow from Peter’s bishoprick.

Also, Jesus spoke in a Hebrew dialect called Aramaic. Aramaic didn’t have different words for “Peter” and “rock” as the Greek did, but still the Gospel writer would have used kepha transliterated as “Cephas” as in John 1:42 where Jesus, speaking in Aramaic, equates kepha with the Greek petros. On a side note “Simon” in Aramaic means a grain of sand. IF petros referred only to a pebble, as many protestants claim, it would be pointless for Jesus to have renamed Peter from a grain of sand to a pebble. What kind of monumental change (in Genesis where God establishes the Abrahamic covenant? God changes Abram’s name (which means father) to Abraham (which means, father of a multitude). We learn from Genesis 17:4-5, that when a name is changed by God, this change denotes a change in status or position) in Peter’s stature would that have been?

In today’s literary world scholars are discovering more about the Greek etymology and some Protestants are beginning to realize that petros and petra are actually interchangeable terms. The Gospel writer was limited by the fact that since Peter is masculine name, it must be designated by a masculine Greek noun, i.e., petros, whereas petra is a feminine noun.

It can still be shown from the scriptural usege of the Greek that petra does not refer exclusively to a huge rock. It could also refer to a small rock or stone. Example of this is Romans 9:32, where Paul speaks of a stumblingstone as (petra). How is it that someone can stumble and fall over a petra if it is a huge, massive rock? Doesn’t make sense to me…

I believe that there's more to this scene as with the keys given to Peter. Luke’s Gospel records the archangel Gabriel announcing to Mary that her unborn Son, Jesus, would be given the throne of His father, David. David’s throne had been vacant since the Babylonian captivity in 586 B.C. Now, reviewing Isaiah 22:23-25 and reading Matthew 16:13-19, we see Jesus establishing Peter as the “Rock”. Then Jesus promises to give Peter the “keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” As Jesus, the new King of Israel, re-establishing the Davidic throne; Jesus now appoints Peter to the office of Royal Steward, to rule over the house of the King, by giving Peter the Keys.

The office of Royal Steward was successive in Israel as Isaiah 22 points out. The other 11 Disciples being Jews, familiar with their heritage, would’ve understood what was happening. Peter was fulfilling the Royal Steward and that office would be filled by successors as was the Royal Stewards office of Israel. The steward may die, but the office continues as it does today, until the King returns!

May the peace of the Lord be with you Stan!

 

[BobRyan]

Very often it is the case that new Converts to the RCC convert in spite of the historic facts -- not because of them.

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic book "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

"the clergy at first were not sharply differentiated from the laity..the clergy married, raised families, and earned their livelihood at some trade or profession. But as the practice grew of paying them..they withdrew more and more from secular pursuits, until by the fourth century such withdrawal was deemed obligatory"

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder (as they were really known) avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and, in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest[/b]. He (the real Christian leader) saw his primary function as the ministry of the word. ..but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character."

"[b]the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister[/b] as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception, for infants could not be preached to. "

"before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred (priesthood of all) as opposed to the profane world. After Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between the church and the world, the polarity between the sacred and profane was transformed into one between the sacred clergy and the profane laity"

"legislation to this effect was first passed at the local synod of Elvira, Spain and taken up by the popes beginning with Siricius (d. 399), who enforced clerical celebacy (which was adopted mainly on the grounds that sex was incompatible with the sacred character of the clergy)"
[/quote]
So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today.

Ibid - Page 42
"the liturgy itself was considerably influenced by the Constantinian revolution. Millions of pagans suddenly entered the church
and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy;[/b] the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects, the practice of genuflection,
devotion to relics, use of candles, incense and other ceremonial features derived from the imperial court. Under this pagan influence Christians
began to face the east while praying which made it necessary for the priest to lead prayers while his back was toward the congregation."
…
pg 43
for a long time the celebrant was left considerable freedom to improvise in conducting the liturgy. Even wording of the canon was left to his
discretion.

 

[BobRyan]

Catholic Digest 11/1997 pg 100
The question:
A Baptist family who lives across the street gave me a book called the “Trail of Blood”, by J.M. Carroll. It attacks Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism, indulgences, purgatory, and so on. But I am writing to learn if there is anything in history that would justify the following quotation:

“The world has Never seen anything to compare with the persecution heaped upon the Baptists by the Catholic hierarchy of the Dark Ages. The Pope was the world’s dictator. This is why the Anabaptists before the Reformation called the Pope the Anti-Christ”. Then: “Fifty million died by persecution over a period of 1200 years because of the Catholic Church”

The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan:

“There weren’t any Baptists until 1609, generally thought of as a year occurring after the Dark Ages. (that is why the article above includes Anabaptists) Anabaptists (means anti-baptism of infants – so they re-baptized them as adults) means “re-baptizers” and was a name given to groups existing in the 3rd, 4th, 11th and 12th centuries but they had no connection with the violent civil-religious (Catholic) reformers who appeared in 1521 at Zwickau in Saxony. These 16th century Anabaptists rejected Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism and Lutheran justification by faith, among other things, and intended to substitute a new “Kingdom of God” for the social and civil order of their time. John Leyden was proclaimed King of New Sion at Munster where museums and libraries were destroyed and polygamy was introduced. This group AND Many others were Exterminated during the Peasants Wars by a Combination of civil and religious authority. Whether they were persecuted or punished depends on your point of view”

In the article above – Fr. Ken Ryan makes the meaning of “extermination” of that group and “many other groups” clear for modern readers.
Catholic apologists like Catholic Digest’s Fr. Ken Ryan quoted above often argue that the RCC isn't accountable for the Inquisition, since the state carried out the torturing and the executions. It was the RCC who defined these people as "heretics", however, and the RCC handed them over to the state (John 19:11).

 

[BobRyan]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45674


I'm also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II's humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines. On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor (yes!) of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being "heretics." And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost. That kind of honesty will help relations (though there is no basis for uniting the RCC with Bible-believing Protestant churches).

On the downside, Catholics still persecute Protestants worldwide much more than vice versa,

 

[BobRyan]

Vatican Hosts Inquisition Symposium

By CANDICE HUGHES

.c The Associated Press

VATICAN CITY (AP) – The Vatican assembled a blue-ribbon panel of scholars Thursday to examine the Inquisition and declared its readiness to submit the church's darkest institution to the judgment of history.

The three-day symposium is part of the Roman Catholic Church's countdown to 2000. Pope John Paul II wants the church to begin the new millennium with a clear conscience, which means facing up to past sins.

For many people, the Inquisition is one of the church's worst transgressions. For centuries, ecclesiastical ``thought police'' tried, tortured and burned people at the stake for heresy and other crimes.

``The church cannot cross the threshold of the new millennium without pressing its children to purify themselves in repentance for their errors, infidelity, incoherence,'' Cardinal Roger Etchegaray said, opening the conference.

The inquisitors went after Protestants, Jews, Muslims and presumed heretics. They persecuted scientists like Galileo. They banned the Bible in anything but Latin, which few ordinary people could read.

The Inquisition began in the 13th century and lasted into the 19th. An index of banned books endured even longer, until 1966. And it was 1992 before the church rehabilitated Galileo, condemned for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

The symposium, which gathers experts from inside and outside the church, is the Vatican's first critical look at the church's record of repression.

Among other things, it will give scholars a chance to compare notes on what they've found in the secret Vatican archives on the Inquisition, which the Holy See only recently opened.

``The church is not afraid to submit its past to the judgment of history,'' said Etchegaray, a Frenchman who leads the Vatican's Commission on the Grand Jubilee.

Closed to the public and press, the symposium is not expected to produce any definitive statement from the Vatican on the Inquisition. That is expected in 2000 as part of the grand ``mea culpa'' at the start of Christianity's third millennium.

The great question is whether the pontiff will ask forgiveness for the sins of the church's members, as it did with the Holocaust, or for the sins of the church itself. Unlike the Holocaust, the Inquisition was a church initiative authorized by the popes themselves.

Etchegaray on Thursday swept aside the idea that it can be seen a series of local campaigns whose excesses might be blamed on secular authorities. There was only one Inquisition, he said, and it was undeniably an ecclesiastical institution.

The pontiff may give a hint as to his thinking on Saturday, when he meets with participants in the conference.

About 50 scholars from Europe, the United States and Latin America are taking part.

AP-NY-10-29-98 1403EST

 

[BobRyan]

Catholic Church says must own up for Inquisition

By Alessandra Galloni

VATICAN CITY, Oct 29 (Reuters) - The Vatican on Thursday said it had to take responsibility for one of the darkest eras in Roman Catholic church history and not lay blame for the Inquisition on civil prosecutors.

Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, head of the Vatican's main committee for the year 2000, opened a three-day symposium on the Inquisition saying it was time to re-examine the work of the special court the church set up in 1233 to curb heresy.

Etchegaray said some scholars claimed there were several inquisitions: one in Rome, which worked directly under the Holy See's control, and others in Spain and in Portugal which were often aided by the local civil courts.

``We cannot ignore the fact that this (attempt to distinguish between inquisitions) has allowed some to make apologetic arguments and lay responsibility for what Iberian tribunals did onto civil authorities,'' he said.

``The fact that the Spanish and Portuguese crowns...had powers of intervention...on inquisitory tribunals does not change the ecclesiastical character of the institution,'' he said.

Pope Gregory IX created the Inquisition to help curb heresy, but church officials soon began to count on civil authorities to fine, imprison and even torture heretics.

One of the Inquisition's best known victims was the astronomer Galileo, condemned for claiming the earth revolved around the sun.

The Inquisition reached its height in the 16th century to counter the Reformation. The department later became the Holy Office and its successor now is called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which controls the orthodoxy of Catholic teaching.

Some of the conclusions of the international symposium, which ends on Saturday, could be included in a major document in which the church is expected to ask forgiveness for its past errors as part of celebrations for the year 2000.

The church ``cannot pass into the new millennium without urging its sons to purify themselves, through penitence, of its errors, its infidelities and its incoherences...,'' Father Georges Cottier, a top Vatican theologian and head of the theological commission for the year 2000, told the symposium.

Etchegaray said the conference could also draw on examples that scholars had been able to examine since January, when the Vatican opened secret files.

The archives also opened the infamous Index of Forbidden Books which Roman Catholics were not allowed to read or possess on pain of excommunication. Even the bible was on the blacklist.

Pope John Paul has said in several documents and speeches that the Church needs to assume responsibility for the Inquisition, which was responsible for the forced conversion of Jews as well as the torture and killing of heretics.

While there may have been mitigating historical factors for the behaviour of some Catholics, the Pope has said this did not prevent the church from expressing regret for the wrongs of its members in some periods of history.

He initiated the procedure that led to the rehabilitation of Galileo, completed in 1992.

19:01 10-29-98

 

[DHK]

There is much unbiblical and unsubstantiated guesswork or imaginative statements put into Agnus Dei's post. It is fanciful, but not true.

 

[Eliyahu]

Also, Jesus spoke in a Hebrew dialect called Aramaic. Aramaic didn’t have different words for “Peter” and “rock” as the Greek did, but still the Gospel writer would have used kepha transliterated as “Cephas” as in John 1:42 where Jesus, speaking in Aramaic, equates kepha with the Greek petros. On a side note “Simon” in Aramaic means a grain of sand. IF petros referred only to a pebble, as many protestants claim, it would be pointless for Jesus to have renamed Peter from a grain of sand to a pebble. What kind of monumental change (in Genesis where God establishes the Abrahamic covenant? God changes Abram’s name (which means father) to Abraham (which means, father of a multitude). We learn from Genesis 17:4-5, that when a name is changed by God, this change denotes a change in status or position) in Peter’s stature would that have been?

In today’s literary world scholars are discovering more about the Greek etymology and some Protestants are beginning to realize that petros and petra are actually interchangeable terms. The Gospel writer was limited by the fact that since Peter is masculine name, it must be designated by a masculine Greek noun, i.e., petros, whereas petra is a feminine noun.

It can still be shown from the scriptural usege of the Greek that petra does not refer exclusively to a huge rock. It could also refer to a small rock or stone. Example of this is Romans 9:32, where Paul speaks of a stumblingstone as (petra). How is it that someone can stumble and fall over a petra if it is a huge, massive rock? Doesn’t make sense to me…

You brought some plausible theory and argument.

1. The language used by Jesus and disciples was mainly Hebrew, neither Greek nor Aramaic. Hebrew and Aramaic are very similar and called sister language, even alphabet as similar like Aleph, Beyt, Gimmel, Dalet, Hey Vav,.... almost same, but sometimes different shape as we notice in Yod.
Jesus mentioned Jot and tittle in Mt 5:18 as the smallest letters of Mosaic Law. However, in Aramaic Yod is not that smallest character nor is there tittle in Aramaic. So, we are quite sure that Jesus was speaking about the Law in Hebrew language when He mentioned Mt 5:18. Also, Jesus was talking about the Old Testament in the order of Torah/Neviim/Ketuvim ( Law/Prophet/Psalm) which was the order of Hebrew Masoretic Texts.
The title on the Cross was written in Romans/Greek/Hebrew, which doesn't say any Aramaic. Many words of Hebrew are quite different from Aramaic.
We can find this much difference when we read 2 Kings 18:26

26 Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian( Aramaic) language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jews' language in the ears of the people that are on the wall.

In other words, only the leading group of the people could understand Aramaic, but the lay people could not understand it.

The coins discovered in Bar-Korba Revolt had Hebrew inscriptions, and the recent discovery of 1 c monuments or Ossuary also had Hebrew letters.
There is one crucial evidence in the Bible that Jesus used Hebrew when he spoke to the disciples:

Acts 26:14 : Please read this verse. Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew.

The region of Caesarea Philippi was rather Aramaic/Greek speaking region and therefore when you said the prevailing language in the region was Aramaic may be correct, and I guess Jesus spoke to the multitude in that region, in Aramaic. However, if a teacher and students from Texas travel to Mexico, when the teacher teaches the US students there in Mexico, would he speak in Mexian Spanish because they are in Mexico? Nope!
The current Aramaic manuscripts are limited and we are not sure about the accuracy. What we have in detail is only Greek texts, even though there are many witnesses that the Gospel Matthew was written in Hebrew as Papias, Iraeneus, and others witnessed, then might have been translated by James ( Yakobo, the Brother of Jesus), into Greek.

In Hebrew there are three words in this connection.

Eben : this is for the Stones, either small stone or some stone for the monuments as we read Eben-Ezer ( Eben means stone, Ezer means Help as we read 1 Sam 7:12. In Romans 9:32 Paul was mentioning this as stone ( Lithon in Greek). In the first half of Rom 9:32, Paul was mentioning this Eben in Psalm 118:22

Selah : this is a big Rock which prevents the road construction or a big Rock in the size of a hill. You can find this in Isaiah 16:1 and 2 Kings 14:7.
This is a big rock and therefore could be used a border line between tribes, or it prevented the passage due to the difficulty with road construction. If you read B-D-G lexicon for Hebrew you can find strong No 5554 Selah and this is translated as Petra in Greek.

Tsur : This is a big Rock but was often used for spiritual meaning.
When Moses stood on the Rock, it was Tsur (Ex 17:6 Ex 33:21,22, Deut 32:4, 32:13, 32:15, 32:18) Of Rock that begot thee, Rock of Salvation.

For the Jews, Deut 32 was so much famous, because it is called " Ha-Azinu" which was memorized by children all the time. Jesus was telling about this to a Jewish disciple!
So, Jesus was talking to Peter about Isaiah 8:14

14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone(Eben) of stumbling and for a rock (Tsur) of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Septuagint translated this Tsur into Petra !

Apparently Jesus was distinguishing between Kefa ( Petros) and Tsur ( Petra).

Petros and Petra were not interchangeable, and Jesus knew it, and Bible is always careful in the choice of words.
Jesus Christ Himself is the Rock, read Deutronomy 32 carefully.

Bible is the Words of God, Jesus Christ Himself is the Word. Ignorance about the Words of God means ignorance about God. Apostles and the Church were built upon Jesus Christ, Without the Words of God, no church could be founded.

I have much more information, but I feel much sympathy toward your ignorance.

Roman Catholic presents often plausible interpretation and theories but they are not truth. Please reconsider it.
Jesus Christ is the only True Rock whereupon the Church is to be built.

True believers all have the key for the Heaven because of Jesus Christ and what He had done at the Cross. Read Mat 18:18 ( YOU...)

 

[Eliyahu]

One more Info about this passage.
Throughout the whole OT, I think Kefa was used only once, in Jeremiah 4:29 - climb rocks. So, the logic by Agnes may be supported here exceptionally as it meant bigger Rocks as well. The word Kefa was borrowed from Aramaic Keipa.

But if we read the whole Bible OT, we find 78 times where the Tsur was used ( according to Blueletterbible.com)

Deu 32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked : thou art waxen fat , thou art grown thick , thou art covered [with fatness]; then he forsook God [which] made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation .

Deu 32:18 Of the Rock [that] begat thee thou art unmindful , and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

Psa 18:2 The LORD [is] my rock, and my fortress , and my deliverer ; my God , my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, [and] my high tower

Psa 18:31 For who [is] God save the LORD? or who [is] a rock save our God ?

Psa 18:46 The LORD liveth; and blessed [be] my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted .

Psa 28:1 [[[A Psalm] of David .]] Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, [if] thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit .

Psa 62:6 He only [is] my rock and my salvation : [he is] my defence; I shall not be moved .

Psa 62:6 He only [is] my rock and my salvation : [he is] my defence ; I shall not be moved

This selection is from www.Blueletterbible.com

The above Rocks are all Tsur, not Kefa.

I am very sure that Jesus was speaking to Kefa, the true Rock Tsur as everybody knew the importance of this Rock, as King David often praised.

NT writers were very much mindful about the selection and choice of words. When they chose different words in Greek, there must have been a distinction.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Hi Eliyahu I originally had a response, but decided not to post it. Your mind is made up that Hebrew was the primary language and I’ve been taught otherwise from Theologians and historians that a form Hebrew dialect namely Aramaic was the primary language. I’m not saying that Hebrew was non-existence either, just not the common language.

I’ve studied both arguments for and against and the evidence in my opinion is stronger in support of what I’ve been taught.

Thanks for your input!

 

[DHK]

Hi Eliyahu I originally had a response, but decided not to post it. Your mind is made up that Hebrew was the primary language and I’ve been taught otherwise from Theologians and historians that a form Hebrew dialect namely Aramaic was the primary language. I’m not saying that Hebrew was non-existence either, just not the common language.

I’ve studied both arguments for and against and the evidence in my opinion is stronger in support of what I’ve been taught.

Thanks for your input!

Read the context. Jesus was originally speaking to his disciples. Matthew chapters 5,6,7 are called the sermon on the Mount. As he began to speak, he was on a plain, and a great crowd began to gather. This forced Christ to go farther up the mount so that all could listen. There is no possible way that he would be speaking in either Hebrew or Aramaic. The crowd was mixed--both Jews and Gentiles. The universal language of the day was Greek. Jesus's appeal was to the entire crowd. He spoke in Greek.

Secondly, it doesn't matter what you second guess the language to be written in. The inspired manuscripts were written in Greek. That much we know for sure. The entire New Testament was written in Greek. God, the Holy Spirit handed down His Word, preserved in the Greek language. All other languages are moot. His inspired language that we must work with is Greek. That is what His Word is inscripturated in. If you want to deal with Mat.16:18 from a Scriptural basis you are, of a necessity, forced to use the Greek language. That is what the New Testament is written in, and that is what God has inspired. It doesn't matter two hoots what you think otherwise. God's Word came to us in the Greek language.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The universal language of the day was Greek. Jesus's appeal was to the entire crowd. He spoke in Greek.

:laugh: :laugh: , typical of Protestants eh DHK, Eliyahu says Hebrew was the primary language: The language used by Jesus and disciples was mainly Hebrew, neither Greek nor Aramaic

Mr. DHK says Greek was the language of the day!:laugh:

Who’s right DHK?:BangHead:

 

[DHK]

Mr. DHK says Greek was the language of the day!:laugh:

Who’s right DHK?:BangHead:

Nevermind what others say. I gave you my reasons. Refute them if you can.

 

[Amy.G]

:laugh: :laugh: , typical of Protestants eh DHK, Eliyahu says Hebrew was the primary language: The language used by Jesus and disciples was mainly Hebrew, neither Greek nor Aramaic

Mr. DHK says Greek was the language of the day!:laugh:

Who’s right DHK?:BangHead:

Why were the gospels written in greek if the disciples (apostles) did not speak greek?

 

[Helen]

Why were the gospels written in greek if the disciples (apostles) did not speak greek?

They did speak Greek. Greek was the international language of the day, as English is now. Israel was the hub of several trade routes and so Israelites knew Greek.

 

[Amy.G]

They did speak Greek. Greek was the international language of the day, as English is now. Israel was the hub of several trade routes and so Israelites knew Greek.

That's what I thought. Thanks Helen.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Why were the gospels written in greek if the disciples (apostles) did not speak greek?

Well obviously the Gospels were written near the beginning of the Christian movement and not immediately after Christ’s ascension, so by then most, if not all, of the Gospel writers were in Greek speaking countries. Furthermore, there is much debate as to whether or not Matthew and Mark was actually written in Greek, some scholars claim the Gospels were written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek, but no evidence exists.

It is in my opinion from Bible as well as background history is that the primary language was Aramaic, since Babylonian exile. Hebrew was used in the synagogues, but the street language was Aramaic. It’s also suggested that Aramaic was so common place that the Jewish people began to refer to it as ‘Hebrew’. Note John 19:13,17, John suggests that ‘Gabbatha’ is Hebrew and ‘Golgotha’ is Hebrew, but both are clearly of Aramaic origins.

Plus I have as of yet find any Reputable Bible historian who has claimed that the language of Jesus’ time wasn’t primarily Aramaic.

 

[DHK]

Well obviously the Gospels were written near the beginning of the Christian movement and not immediately after Christ’s ascension, so by then most, if not all, of the Gospel writers were in Greek speaking countries. Furthermore, there is much debate as to whether or not Matthew and Mark was actually written in Greek, some scholars claim the Gospels were written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek, but no evidence exists.

Before putting foot in mouth you would do well to do some study first.
The gospels were written between 50 and 98 A.D. That is quite a span of time. We know when the gospels were written, and don't have to guess at their diates. The liberals may want to deny authoriship, dates, and even language, but the inspiration of the books still remains.
Hebrew was almost a dead language at that time, and both Hebrew and Aramaic were known only among the Jews. Look in the book of Acts:

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

The Roman guard didn't have a clue what Paul was saying. He was speaking Hebrew, (or possibly Aramaic), a language that the Jews could understand, but not the general populace. The fact that he spoke to them in Hebrew surprised them, and they respected both him and the sacred language that he spoke.

All the gospels, as all the books of the NT, were written in Greek. There is no evidence to the contrary. If so, bring it forth. No false allegations please.

It is in my opinion from Bible as well as background history is that the primary language was Aramaic, since Babylonian exile.

Opinions are worthless. Just present the facts.

Hebrew was used in the synagogues, but the street language was Aramaic.

That is false. (A synonym for a lie). Aramaic was not a well known language at all. Greek was the universal language of the day as a consequence of the former Greek empire established by Alexander the Great. Now Rome was in power, and the official language was Latin, a language used for signing all official documents and such. But Greek was the lingua franca of the day.

It’s also suggested that Aramaic was so common place that the Jewish people began to refer to it as ‘Hebrew’. Note John 19:13,17, John suggests that ‘Gabbatha’ is Hebrew and ‘Golgotha’ is Hebrew, but both are clearly of Aramaic origins.

John states that these were Hebrew sayings. Why question him? They were Hebrew sayings on the cross, and he gives the translations of them.

Plus I have as of yet find any Reputable Bible historian who has claimed that the language of Jesus’ time wasn’t primarily Aramaic.

No, as he spoke to the masses of the people he would have spoken the language that they all understood--Greek.