Trusting the Church Fathers

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jun 9, 2021
1,871
425
83
#21
I think we should look at the early Church as being like toddlers . They are still not quite maturing into understanding yet . Its early and they say say good and bad things. The main issue is when we assume ,because they were ' closer ' that this means they must have been more correct and as time goes things get worse . This isn't always the case .
I can definitely agree to this viewpoint. But seeing as the original person, Papias, to report Matthew was first written in Hebrew around 44 A.D. was a close friend of Polycarp, a direct friend and Disciple of the Apostle John, it seems this information could and most likely is passed to them from the Apostle John.
 
Jun 9, 2021
1,871
425
83
#22
The primitive or apostolic church was even younger than the so called fathers but they were perfect in understanding so we must look upon the church of the fathers as having fallen away and backslidden. all the seeds which developed into Roman Catholicism were sown by so called fathers.
Not the immediate Church Fathers like Papias and Polycarp, who was a direct Disciple to the Apostle John. The RCC really did not take over until later 2nd/3rd Centuries.
 
Jun 9, 2021
1,871
425
83
#23
Even in Acts there not perfect in understanding. We shouldn't want to try to get back to the time of Acts either .
Why not?
The Holy Spirit is fresh upon the scene and many amazing things happened around then.
 
Jun 9, 2021
1,871
425
83
#24
There are writings by the Church Fathers that I agree with and writings by the Church Fathers that I don't agree with and not all of their writings agree with each other, which is just like commentaries from scholars today.
Amen!

This is why I have the list I have of those who can be directly connected to the Hebrew written Gospel of Matthew. We can say maybe some are wrong, but are all of them wrong about this topic is the real question. Personally, with so many that can be used to confirm the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, it pushes more towards the truth than anything else.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
#25
There is no actual evidence of this other than conjecture (which is not evidence). What we do have is Matthew in Greek.
You are very mistaken. Several men who wrote histories of the church have stated that it was first written in Hebrew. Besides, each person except Luke had Hebrew as their first language, each person though in Hebrew even if they wrote in Greek.

Matthew wrote to an audience who knew of old testament, and his gospel is best understood when the many references Matthew makes to the old testament are explored.
 
Jun 9, 2021
1,871
425
83
#26
You are very mistaken. Several men who wrote histories of the church have stated that it was first written in Hebrew. Besides, each person except Luke had Hebrew as their first language, each person though in Hebrew even if they wrote in Greek.

Matthew wrote to an audience who knew of old testament, and his gospel is best understood when the many references Matthew makes to the old testament are explored.
Amen!
 

throughfaith

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2020
10,467
1,593
113
#27
you wouldn't, I would. The only progress the church has ever made has been by getting back to the bible.
Which part of acts ? No gentiles are being reached until After Acts 7 .
 

throughfaith

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2020
10,467
1,593
113
#28
Why not?
The Holy Spirit is fresh upon the scene and many amazing things happened around then.
Acts is descriptive of what happened. What happened took time and inertia. There's no reaching Gentiles until After Acts 7 . There's no apostle to the gentiles until Acts 9 . There's confusion over circumcision. Most things don't get ironed out until after Acts .
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
#29
You are very mistaken.
There is not a single Hebrew manuscript of Matthew. So unless you can show us where it is found, you are the one mistaken. All the Gospel writers (including Luke) were Hebrews. But God directed them to write in Greek by divine inspiration.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,238
3,578
113
#30
"Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them."—Acts 20:28-30

Paul warned it wouldn't take long for the wolves to creep in.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
#31
There is not a single Hebrew manuscript of Matthew. So unless you can show us where it is found, you are the one mistaken. All the Gospel writers (including Luke) were Hebrews. But God directed them to write in Greek by divine inspiration.
I don't think there is one scripture that says look, you dummies, I have written this gospel in Hebrew because I am a Jewish scholar who reads the Hebrew scrolls, but you will be reading it from Greek translations of the Hebrew. God let historians tell you this is what Matthew did, but if you won't listen then you won't listen.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,238
3,578
113
#32
I don't think there is one scripture that says look, you dummies, I have written this gospel in Hebrew because I am a Jewish scholar who reads the Hebrew scrolls, but you will be reading it from Greek translations of the Hebrew. God let historians tell you this is what Matthew did, but if you won't listen then you won't listen.
Was Matthew a Hebrew scholar? He was a tax collector; I don't think you needed any fancy degree for that.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
#33
Was Matthew a Hebrew scholar? He was a tax collector; I don't think you needed any fancy degree for that.
If you don't know of the amount of knowledge of Hebrew scrolls that is seen in Matthews gospel, then you haven't read that gospel.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
#34
I don't think there is one scripture that says look, you dummies, I have written this gospel in Hebrew because I am a Jewish scholar who reads the Hebrew scrolls, but you will be reading it from Greek translations of the Hebrew. God let historians tell you this is what Matthew did, but if you won't listen then you won't listen.
Obviously you have no idea about (1) divine inspiration and (2) why God chose the Greek language for the New Testament. So let's do a quick review.

1. The nation of Israel had the Torah for about 1500 years, and the rest of the OT after that. But the history of the Jews shows that they were generally in rebellion against the prophets, and went into Assyrian and Babylonian captivity.

2. When Jesus of Nazareth, the King-Messiah of Israel came to earth, He was accepted by some, but the nation of Israel rejected Him, had Him crucified through the Romans. "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not".

3. After His resurrection and after Pentecost, the Jews in Palestine did not fully embrace Christ as their Lord and Savior. Even so, Paul went to all the synagogues in the Roman empire to preach the Gospel out of the Old Testament, as well as his personal witness. Once again the Jews scattered outside Judea generally rejected Christ. In fact they attacked Paul.

4. Finally, while Paul was under house arrest in Rome, he tried to bring the Jews over there to Christ but could not win them all. So he said that he would leave the Jews and focus on the Gentiles.

5. Given this history of the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews -- the ones who should have received Christ 100% -- God caused all the evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), as well as the other apostles to write the New Testament books in Greek by divine inspiration.

6. Greek was the lingua franca or common language of the Roman empire (as English is the universal language today), and God's plan was to convert the Roman empire to Christianity. This happened within about 200-400 years. All of Europe and North Africa became Christian. and Christianity also spread throughout the world, even as far as India.

7. Because of this almost all the manuscripts of the New Testament are in Greek. Some are in Old Latin translations, and also in other languages (such as Arabic, Ethiopic, etc). So for Syrian (and other Christians who spoke Aramaic) the GREEK NT was translated into Aramaic in the 2nd century AD. It is called the Peshitta. This is the only genuine translation of Matthew into Aramaic.

Later on 14th century Jewish rabbis (e.g. Shem Tov) translated Matthew into Hebrew and began to claim that these translations went all the way back to Matthew. But that was just baloney.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,385
13,735
113
#35
You are very mistaken. Several men who wrote histories of the church have stated that it was first written in Hebrew. Besides, each person except Luke had Hebrew as their first language, each person though in Hebrew even if they wrote in Greek.

Matthew wrote to an audience who knew of old testament, and his gospel is best understood when the many references Matthew makes to the old testament are explored.
Hebrew was already the language of scholars, not the common people, by the time Christ came. There is evidence of this as early as Ezra.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,180
1,574
113
68
Brighton, MI
#36
If we use the oldest known Greek Bibles [Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus], look at what's missing in their Copies that we have in our current Bibles.

Mark 16 ends at Verse 8 and 1 John 5:6-8 does not state anything about the Father-Son-Holy Spirit:

6 This is he that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ: not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood; and it is the Spirit that testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

7 For they that testify are three,

8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.


So, why couldn't a Hebrew Matthew existed and blotted out like Mark 16 and 1 John 5:6-8 were added to later?
https://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm
http://www.ntgreek.org/SeminaryPape...ry and the Gospels that Jesus Spoke Greek.pdf

Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.

— Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1

Greek was their dialect back then. Fitzmyer refuted his own claim that Aramaic thing in BAR.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
#40
Obviously you have no idea about (1) divine inspiration and (2) why God chose the Greek language for the New Testament. So let's do a quick review.

1. The nation of Israel had the Torah for about 1500 years, and the rest of the OT after that. But the history of the Jews shows that they were generally in rebellion against the prophets, and went into Assyrian and Babylonian captivity.

2. When Jesus of Nazareth, the King-Messiah of Israel came to earth, He was accepted by some, but the nation of Israel rejected Him, had Him crucified through the Romans. "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not".

3. After His resurrection and after Pentecost, the Jews in Palestine did not fully embrace Christ as their Lord and Savior. Even so, Paul went to all the synagogues in the Roman empire to preach the Gospel out of the Old Testament, as well as his personal witness. Once again the Jews scattered outside Judea generally rejected Christ. In fact they attacked Paul.

4. Finally, while Paul was under house arrest in Rome, he tried to bring the Jews over there to Christ but could not win them all. So he said that he would leave the Jews and focus on the Gentiles.

5. Given this history of the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews -- the ones who should have received Christ 100% -- God caused all the evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), as well as the other apostles to write the New Testament books in Greek by divine inspiration.

6. Greek was the lingua franca or common language of the Roman empire (as English is the universal language today), and God's plan was to convert the Roman empire to Christianity. This happened within about 200-400 years. All of Europe and North Africa became Christian. and Christianity also spread throughout the world, even as far as India.

7. Because of this almost all the manuscripts of the New Testament are in Greek. Some are in Old Latin translations, and also in other languages (such as Arabic, Ethiopic, etc). So for Syrian (and other Christians who spoke Aramaic) the GREEK NT was translated into Aramaic in the 2nd century AD. It is called the Peshitta. This is the only genuine translation of Matthew into Aramaic.

Later on 14th century Jewish rabbis (e.g. Shem Tov) translated Matthew into Hebrew and began to claim that these translations went all the way back to Matthew. But that was just baloney.
Much of the new testament is written in Greek, but written by men who knew and thought of scripture as they had learned to think of it through the scrolls in Hebrew. Hebrew meaning of words is very important to understanding scripture. I wonder why this fact is spoken of as these posts speak of it?

A large portion of the hew testament either quotes or refers to the old testament that was mainly written in Hebrew. How do these anti Hebrew people thing God could get these authors to know these scriptures if they weren't able to read them?