Did Jesus have a Hebrew name? Really?

[eternally-gratefull]

and I have no problem with someone using any name they choose, I will use and promote the original names of Yahweh and Yahshua, but that is my choice.

I see more of the attempt to dictate certain usages come from people who will not use the name Yahweh.

I have had 3 PMs where people literally asked me not to use Yahweh, one guy even said that he was the messenger, (because we talked in PMs occasionally, but that he was the messenger for a number of people here who didnt like me using "Yahweh."

Psalm 22:22, "I will declare Your Name to My brothers! In the midst of the congregation I will give You praise!"

so then what was his name?

Not his hebrew name you keep using. the name he used to Adam, Noah and Abraham?

oh wait. you can't prove that that name really is. Because all you have is a hebrew manuscript using his hebrew name.. I mean it would be foolish of us to think he has names in other languages, And even his own language would we not? (unless your one who thinks Hebrew is the language of God. well then you are way out there.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I linked you to the Hebrew version of Mattithyah twice, if you study the oldest Hebrew version you will see its content is more original and more accurate than any version of Matt, and while it uses Yahshua/Yahushua that in no way is my reasoning for saying its content is the most accurate.

Matthew was written in hebrew, would we expect any Mathew to use his greek name? or aramic name? when he wrote everything else in Hebrew?

That does not prove anything.

 

[Hizikyah]

so then what was his name?

Not his hebrew name you keep using. the name he used to Adam, Noah and Abraham?

oh wait. you can't prove that that name really is. Because all you have is a hebrew manuscript using his hebrew name.. I mean it would be foolish of us to think he has names in other languages, And even his own language would we not? (unless your one who thinks Hebrew is the language of God. well then you are way out there.

Truth is truth.

Scripture is Scripture.

Genesis 4:26, "And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. It was then that the Name of Yahweh began to be invoked again."

Admah and Eve were still alive at the time Enosh was born and we see not only a reference to Yahweh being used by Enosh, but since it says, "the Name of Yahweh began to be invoked again" it shows us that Yahweh was also used prior to Enosh.

 

[danschance]

I linked you to the Hebrew version of Mattithyah twice, if you study the oldest Hebrew version you will see its content is more original and more accurate than any version of Matt, and while it uses Yahshua/Yahushua that in no way is my reasoning for saying its content is the most accurate.

There is no Hebrew Gospel unless it is translated from Greek.

 

[Hizikyah]

There is no Hebrew Gospel unless it is translated from Greek.

Have you done a study of the oldest Greek and oldest Hebrew texts and compared their content, idioms, and errors?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Truth is truth.

Scripture is Scripture.

Genesis 4:26, "And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. It was then that the Name of Yahweh began to be invoked again."

Admah and Eve were still alive at the time Enosh was born and we see not only a reference to Yahweh being used by Enosh, but since it says, "the Name of Yahweh began to be invoked again" it shows us that Yahweh was also used prior to Enosh.

Hmm..

So you give me a HEBREW writting and a Hebrew replaying of the account, and say that proves that Enosh called God Yahwah?

wow. So desperate are you?

That is like me using the KJV to show a english version of the same acount, Guess what, The english name is used. Not the Hebrew name. nor would it be.

Why are you so desperate to prove yourself right?

Circular reasoning to prove your point does not prove anything.

Show me a document which was written in the time of enosh to prove your point, not some document written in a hebrew language to a hebrew people.

Oh wait, thats right, you can't. So again, You can not prove your point, Not only are there no documents from that time, YOU WERE NOT THERE!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

There is no Hebrew Gospel unless it is translated from Greek.

Most scholars admit that Mathew was written in hebrew, it was written to the hebrew people. Then later translated into the greek.

 

[danschance]

I linked you to the Hebrew version of Mattithyah twice, if you study the oldest Hebrew version you will see its content is more original and more accurate than any version of Matt, and while it uses Yahshua/Yahushua that in no way is my reasoning for saying its content is the most accurate.

Go to google, then type "Hebrew gospel of Matthew" and see if you can find one? I have done this and it does not show up in the search. Instead I get hits for "Hebrew gospel hypothesis". There is no evidence for a Hebrew gospel besides some statements 100 years after the gospels were written and that is not hard proof, it's just a legend.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Go to google, then type "Hebrew gospel of Matthew" and see if you can find one? I have done this and it does not show up in the search. Instead I get hits for "Hebrew gospel hypothesis". There is no evidence for a Hebrew gospel besides some statements 100 years after the gospels were written and that is not hard proof, it's just a legend.

it would not matter if mathew was written in hebrew or not. It still would not prove Jesus was given a hebrew name,

 

[danschance]

Most scholars admit that Mathew was written in hebrew, it was written to the hebrew people. Then later translated into the greek.

From the website below:

"This peculiar argument against the long-standing belief that Aramaic (or Hebrew) was the language in which Matthew originally composed his Gospel was first raised in the 16th century by the Dutch theologian and patristics scholar Desiderius Erasmus. He reasoned that, since there is no evidence of an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew's Gospel, it is futile to argue that the work originally appeared in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek (as most patristics scholars hold).

This is not really much of an argument. It is an argument from silence and can be used just as effectively against the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, since there are likewise no extant originals of the Gospel in Greek. After all, the earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek, yet not a single manuscript is an original. They're all copies. From the mere fact of Greek manuscripts we can't conclude that the originals must have been written in Greek yes, there may be a presumption of that, but not actually a proof."

Was Matthew's Gospel first written in Aramaic or Hebrew? | Catholic Answers

 

[eternally-gratefull]

it would not matter if mathew was written in hebrew or not. It still would not prove Jesus was given a hebrew name,

i would say the fact Jesus Called God by his aramic name (eloi) when he hung on the cross. in his most sever pain would show aramic was jesus first language. (although he was most likely fluent in all)

when we are in pain, it is natural to use your natural language to scream out in pain.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

From the website below:

"This peculiar argument against the long-standing belief that Aramaic (or Hebrew) was the language in which Matthew originally composed his Gospel was first raised in the 16th century by the Dutch theologian and patristics scholar Desiderius Erasmus. He reasoned that, since there is no evidence of an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew's Gospel, it is futile to argue that the work originally appeared in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek (as most patristics scholars hold).

This is not really much of an argument. It is an argument from silence and can be used just as effectively against the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, since there are likewise no extant originals of the Gospel in Greek. After all, the earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek, yet not a single manuscript is an original. They're all copies. From the mere fact of Greek manuscripts we can't conclude that the originals must have been written in Greek yes, there may be a presumption of that, but not actually a proof."

Was Matthew's Gospel first written in Aramaic or Hebrew? | Catholic Answers

sorry bro. but I would not put faith in anything which comes from a catholic website..

just saying.

and as I said, is it really worth arguing? it does not prove anything.

 

[Hizikyah]

From the website below:

"This peculiar argument against the long-standing belief that Aramaic (or Hebrew) was the language in which Matthew originally composed his Gospel was first raised in the 16th century by the Dutch theologian and patristics scholar Desiderius Erasmus. He reasoned that, since there is no evidence of an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew's Gospel, it is futile to argue that the work originally appeared in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek (as most patristics scholars hold).

This is not really much of an argument. It is an argument from silence and can be used just as effectively against the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, since there are likewise no extant originals of the Gospel in Greek. After all, the earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek, yet not a single manuscript is an original. They're all copies. From the mere fact of Greek manuscripts we can't conclude that the originals must have been written in Greek yes, there may be a presumption of that, but not actually a proof."

Was Matthew's Gospel first written in Aramaic or Hebrew? | Catholic Answers

Why check anything for ourselves when we can go to "Catholic Answers" and have them command us in all "truth"

 

[Linda70]

There is no Hebrew Gospel unless it is translated from Greek.

What is a Hebrew Gospel? I know that the Gospel preached by the Apostles is still the "power of God unto salvation to whoever believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (Gentile)." (Romans 1:16)

I have a copy of the Hebrew-English New Covenant (Published by the Hope of Israel Baptist Mission). It is an evangelistic NT, prophecy edition. It was given to me at church by two missionaries from the International Board of Jewish Missions. Apparently there are scholars who do translate the Greek into Hebrew. Since I am no Greek or Hebrew scholar, I would have to assume that this Hebrew-English New Covenant is accurate to the Greek text.

 

[danschance]

sorry bro. but I would not put faith in anything which comes from a catholic website..

just saying.

and as I said, is it really worth arguing? it does not prove anything.

Yes, it is worth posting or arguing as Hiz believes this fairy tale of a Hebrew Gospel which has yet to be found. Lack of evidence is not evidence. Assertions made without proof are meaningless.

Ireneaus in 180 AD claimed Matthew was written in Hebrew. However, Origen latter wrote that That the belief that Matthew was written in Hebrew was a "tradition". Tradition is hearsay and therefore not proof at all.

 

[danschance]

What is a Hebrew Gospel? I know that the Gospel preached by the Apostles is still the "power of God unto salvation to whoever believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (Gentile)." (Romans 1:16)

I have a copy of the Hebrew-English New Covenant (Published by the Hope of Israel Baptist Mission). It is an evangelistic NT, prophecy edition. It was given to me at church by two missionaries from the International Board of Jewish Missions. Apparently there are scholars who do translate the Greek into Hebrew. Since I am no Greek or Hebrew scholar, I would have to assume that this Hebrew-English New Covenant is accurate to the Greek text.

Actually, Hiz claims there is in existence right now a ancient Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and he claims that is is the original.

 

[Hizikyah]

Yes, it is worth posting or arguing as Hiz believes this fairy tale of a Hebrew Gospel which has yet to be found. Lack of evidence is not evidence. Assertions made without proof are meaningless.

Ireneaus in 180 AD claimed Matthew was written in Hebrew. However, Origen latter wrote that That the belief that Matthew was written in Hebrew was a "tradition". Tradition is hearsay and therefore not proof at all.

Linked you to the microfilm copy twice....

 

[danschance]

and I have no problem with someone using any name they choose, I will use and promote the original names of Yahweh and Yahshua, but that is my choice.

I see more of the attempt to dictate certain usages come from people who will not use the name Yahweh.

I have had 3 PMs where people literally asked me not to use Yahweh, one guy even said that he was the messenger, (because we talked in PMs occasionally, but that he was the messenger for a number of people here who didnt like me using "Yahweh."

Psalm 22:22, "I will declare Your Name to My brothers! In the midst of the congregation I will give You praise!"

I can see how it might be irritating to others, but I don't care what name you call God of Jesus. In the bible God has many names, many titles and in many languages there are differences in spelling and pronouncing it. I really don't think God cares as long as you are using that name (any name) with respect.

It does bother me that you use Hebrew names for Greek names and use non-standard nomenclature for bible references because it is confusing. I have asked you to stop in the past but you continue and I ignore those passages you post with the unfamiliar names, because I have no idea which books you are referring to and it seems like a shoddy alteration. Do as you wish.

 

[crossnote]

All the earliest manuscripts and manuscript fragments found have the Gospel of Matthew in Greek, though most definitely the Gospel of Matthew originally was written to the Jews.

 

[danschance]

All the earliest manuscripts and manuscript fragments found have the Gospel of Matthew in Greek, though most definitely the Gospel of Matthew originally was written to the Jews.

I told him this several times and yet he clings stubbornly to the fairy tale that Mathew was written in Hebrew and copies of it exist. You can lead a horse to water but....