Calling on the Name of Jesus (at baptism)

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

First of all Matthew wasn't written originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, or any other language than Greek. The name Iesous appears in Matthew 1:21, if it was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic the name in Hebrew and Aramaic didn't survive. Why????

The Greek name is what we have been reading and baptizing people for over 2,000 years. Why? Because it is found in the ORIGINAL Greek. Not one shred of evidence which would lead us to a Hebrew copy of Matthew. Guess what?

Matthew 16:18 makes absolutely NO SENSE in Hebrew or Aramaic! That is why the Roman Catholic Church uses the verse in Aramaic to prove Peter is the Pope. Because in Aramaic, there is only one word to denote rock, and if kepha was employed it would of meant Peter was the actual rock which Jesus would build upon. Sorry, but once again NO CIGAR for the Hebrew Matthew crowd.

These guys were closer to the time of the Apostles than you or me.
and they disagree with you.

Papias 150-170 AD “Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.”

Ireneus 170 AD “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”

Clement of Alexandria 150 AD -215 AD “Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned shall rest.”

Origen 210 AD “The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.”

Epiphanius 370 AD “They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.”

Jerome 382 AD “Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”

Isho'dad 850 AD “His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew.” [Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels]

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

These guys were closer to the time of the Apostles than you or me.
and they disagree with you.

Papias 150-170 AD “Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.”

Ireneus 170 AD “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”

Clement of Alexandria 150 AD -215 AD “Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned shall rest.”

Origen 210 AD “The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.”

Epiphanius 370 AD “They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.”

Jerome 382 AD “Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”

Isho'dad 850 AD “His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew.” [Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels]

Sorry, but Hebrew wasn't the lingua franca in the First Century A.D.. Also, it seems that no one can answer my questions, but feel to produce Ireneus and friends to reinforce their argument. Oh, Clement of Alexandria said "according to the Hebrews" meaning it was directed the the Judeans. So, maybe you should scrap Clement, he never actually said Matthew was written in the Hebrew language. Papias is often taken to be saying that Matthew made his notes in Aramaic, and his scribes complied Matthew in Greek. But, my questions remain and need some answers. Yet, the Hebrew Matthew crew cannot answer why the name of "Yeshua" or Ieshua was lost? If we had an Aramaic original and the Judeans translated it into Greek, what happened to Yeshua? Papias says that it was scribed, so the scribes are messing up the name and Matthew hasn't a clue? Also Matthew quotes the LXX? Oh, no, he doesn't quote the LXX, but he quotes what???? What Aramaic OT did he quote from? Targums? Some other unknown Hebrew OT? Also why is Emmanuel translated for us? Sorry, but the so called Church fathers save doesn't answer questions, but just create more.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Oh, by the way, Papias' quote, comes from Eusebius. So, basically, you have push Papias' quote further down the calendar to 300 A.D.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Oh, by the way, Papias' quote, comes from Eusebius. So, basically, you have push Papias' quote further down the calendar to 300 A.D.

Just because Eusebius is quoting him does not mean he did not say it a long time ago.

When you cite Abraham Lincoln does it mean he did not say those words many years ago?

If I quote your words a week later does it mean you did not say them a week earlier?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Just because Eusebius is quoting him does not mean he did not say it a long time ago.

When you cite Abraham Lincoln does it mean he did not say those words many years ago?

If I quote your words a week later does it mean you did not say them a week earlier?

Come on, you know that second hand information isn't as reliable as the original. Something like not having the original Gospels because they were lost in their original language and had to be reconstructed in Greek.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Sorry, but Hebrew wasn't the lingua franca in the First Century A.D.. Also, it seems that no one can answer my questions, but feel to produce Ireneus and friends to reinforce their argument. Oh, Clement of Alexandria said "according to the Hebrews" meaning it was directed the the Judeans. So, maybe you should scrap Clement, he never actually said Matthew was written in the Hebrew language. Papias is often taken to be saying that Matthew made his notes in Aramaic, and his scribes complied Matthew in Greek. But, my questions remain and need some answers. Yet, the Hebrew Matthew crew cannot answer why the name of "Yeshua" or Ieshua was lost? If we had an Aramaic original and the Judeans translated it into Greek, what happened to Yeshua? Papias says that it was scribed, so the scribes are messing up the name and Matthew hasn't a clue? Also Matthew quotes the LXX? Oh, no, he doesn't quote the LXX, but he quotes what???? What Aramaic OT did he quote from? Targums? Some other unknown Hebrew OT? Also why is Emmanuel translated for us? Sorry, but the so called Church fathers save doesn't answer questions, but just create more.

Professor Michael O. Wise disagrees with you.

"The idea was in vogue for a long time that at the time of Jesus Hebrew was a dead language and Aramaic was only spoken in a small region. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls swept into the trash, the linguistic notion that Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus. The majority of the scrolls were written in Hebrew, Aramaic texts were also abundant, but only a small minority was written in Greek." The Dead Sea Scrolls (1996) p. 9-10 by Michael Wise

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Professor Michael O. Wise disagrees with you.

"The idea was in vogue for a long time that at the time of Jesus Hebrew was a dead language and Aramaic was only spoken in a small region. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls swept into the trash, the linguistic notion that Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus. The majority of the scrolls were written in Hebrew, Aramaic texts were also abundant, but only a small minority was written in Greek." The Dead Sea Scrolls (1996) p. 9-10 by Michael Wise

Hence the point that the Hebrew was a liturgical language.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were liturgical not the Newspaper.
Your doctor isn't taking into consideration that Judea was under Greek speaking Gentile occupation for HUNDREDS of years. Book of Daniel starts out in Hebrew but was finished in Chaldean. Book of Acts 2 has Diaspora Judeans speaking every single language of the Roman Empire. The New Testament entirely written in Greek. Not one, let me say it again, not one shred of New Testament manuscript written in Aramaic or Hebrew. So, I guess we don't have the original words of Jesus, the Apostles or Paul? The so called oroginal name of Jesus was lost and as you teach, all we have is some banged up transliteration?