Loss of salvation???

[studier]

(cont'd)

If you like, I can pull together a list of the most credible modern scholarly supporters (with peer-reviewed works) for Hebrew (or Aramaic) undertext in the New Testament — so you can evaluate what’s actually academically defensible. Do you want me to do that?

Query: Yes

Response:

Good idea. Here’s a list of some of the most credible (or semi‑credible) modern scholars / academic-level proponents who argue for Hebrew (or Aramaic) undertexts / Semitic origins of parts of the New Testament — and what their evidence is. But a strong caveat: none of them command consensus in mainstream NT studies; their views are minority and often reconstructive rather than based on extant Hebrew autograph manuscripts.​

Key Scholarly Advocates & Their Evidence

1. David Bivin & Roy B. Blizzard
   • Part of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research. Caspari Center - Caspari Center+2Wikipedia+2
   • In Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, they argue for a “Life of Jesus” tradition originally in Hebrew, not Aramaic. Caspari Center - Caspari Center
   • Their argument draws on:
     1. Semitisms in the Greek Gospels — idioms, syntax, word order that are much more naturally explained by a Hebrew “under‑text” than by pure Greek. Caspari Center - Caspari Center+1
     2. Early Christian testimony: Papias’ remark (via Eusebius) that “Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language.” The BAS Library+2Caspari Center - Caspari Center+2
   • They explicitly reject that Aramaic is sufficient: for them, Hebrew underlies the Synoptics. Caspari Center - Caspari Center
2. Robert L. Lindsey / Jerusalem School
   • Lindsey was a foundational figure in the Jerusalem School. Wikipedia+1
   • He proposed that a Hebrew biography (or narrative) of Jesus underlies the Greek Synoptic Gospels. Vridar
   • The Jerusalem School more broadly argues (a) for a Semitic (especially Hebrew) “culturally Hebraic” substrate in the Gospels, and (b) that reading the Greek texts through a Hebrew lens yields theological and linguistic insights. Wikipedia+1
3. George Howard
   • In Biblical Archaeology Review / BAS Library: argues for a Hebrew original of Matthew. The BAS Library
   • He points to early Church testimony (Papias, Eusebius), possible retroversion, and linguistic features in Matthew that could reflect a Hebrew source.
4. Pinchas Lapide et al. / David Flusser
   • Flusser was a major name in the Jerusalem School. According to Did Jesus Speak Hebrew? (CFI article), Flusser strongly supported that many Semitic idioms in the Gospels are best explained by a Hebrew original, not just an Aramaic one. Christian Friends of Israel
   • Cited in some of the Hebrew‑origins scholarship. Christian Friends of Israel

Critical Academic Assessment

• A Cambridge Core article (“The Use of Hebrew and Aramaic in the Greek New Testament”) shows that there is Semitic background‑influence in the Greek NT text, but it does not support the radical thesis that all books were first written in Hebrew. Cambridge University Press & Assessment
• The Hebrew Gospel Hypothesis (i.e., that Matthew or other Gospels were first composed in Hebrew) remains a minority theory in NT scholarship. Wikipedia
• The Gospel Coalition article on “The Hebrew Gospel” (by Edwards) is critical and suggests that while some intuitively like the Hebrew‑first hypothesis, it has serious methodological problems and is not widely accepted. The Gospel Coalition

Conclusion

• Yes, there are credible modern scholars (especially in the Jerusalem School: Bivin, Blizzard, Lindsey, Flusser) who argue for a Hebrew or Semitic undertext to some Gospel traditions.
• No, the evidence does not strongly support that the entire New Testament was first composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, at least according to mainstream academic scholarship.
• Their case is made primarily through linguistic reconstruction, analysis of idioms / Semitisms, and early Christian testimony — not via discovered Hebrew autograph manuscripts.

(cont'd)

 

[studier]

(cont'd)

Response (cont'd): If you like, I can dig into peer-reviewed journal articles since 2000 (scholarly, not popular) that make the strongest case for Hebrew primacy, so you can cite up‑to-date research. Do you want me to do that?

Query: Yes

Response:
Good question. Short answer: There are some peer-reviewed / academic-level works since 2000 that touch on Semitic influence / Semitic‑substrate hypotheses in the New Testament, but very few make a strong case for a full Hebrew original of the whole NT. Below are a few notable articles + scholarly points, plus caveats. (If you want only mainstream, very highly regarded scholarship, the list is more limited.)


Some Peer‑Reviewed / Academic‑Level Works Since ~2000

1. “Name‑Recall in the Synoptic Gospels” — New Testament Studies (2023)
   • This article examines onomastic patterns (names) in the Synoptics. It suggests that Jewish names, their distribution, and how they appear in the Gospels offer insight into the compositional history of the texts. Cambridge University Press & Assessment
   • Significance: While it doesn’t argue for a full Hebrew original, it gives evidence of Jewish‑Semitic context influencing Gospel authorship and naming patterns.
2. Randall Buth & R. Steven Notley, “Differentiating Hebrew and Aramaic Backgrounds in Greek Writings” in The Language Environment of First‑Century Judaea (Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, vol. 2, Brill, 2014)
   • This is a technical, peer-reviewed contribution. According to the Biblical Language Center, their work “provides insight … into features of the synoptic gospels … like Matthew’s τότε and Mark’s εὐθύς … that cannot be found in previous discussions.” Biblical Language Center+1
   • Their conclusion: some Greek NT writings show consistent Hebraic influence, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a full Hebrew autograph for every text. Biblical Language Center
3. Andrew Koperski, “Was There an Original Semitic Gospel?” — Ad Fontes Journal (2023)
   • While not a major “established scholarly journal” like New Testament Studies, this is a peer‑reviewed journal article. Koperski reviews historical and patristic evidence (e.g., Papias) and argues there are “interesting hints” for a Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) gospel tradition. Ad Fontes
   • He acknowledges the speculative nature of the hypothesis (because there is no extant original Semitic text) but treats the case seriously.

Key Scholarly / Methodological Caveats

• No extant Hebrew autograph manuscripts: There is no known first‑century Hebrew New Testament manuscript that predates or clearly underlies all canonical Greek texts.
• Semantic / syntactic Semitisms ≠ full Hebrew originals: Many scholars who argue for a “Hebraic background” do so based on idioms, syntax, vocabulary, not on recovered Hebrew source texts.
• Mixed consensus: While Semitic influence is broadly accepted, the jump from that influence to “original Hebrew composition of all NT books” is not widely accepted in mainstream NT textual criticism.
• Alternative explanations: Some scholars (e.g., in that Southeastern Theological Review article) argue that the Greek NT is original but Koine‑Greek with Semitic “flair” rather than translation from Hebrew or Aramaic. Southeastern Seminary

Conclusion (Regarding C’s Claim)

• There is serious, scholarly work (post‑2000) supporting Semitic undertexts or Hebraic influence in parts of the New Testament—especially the Gospels.
• However, the stronger thesis that all or most of the NT was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic remains a minority position and is not decisively proven in peer-reviewed scholarship.
• So, while some of C’s names and claims have academic backing, the most extreme version of the “Hebrew original NT” thesis (entire NT in Hebrew) is not fully corroborated by mainstream modern scholarship.

(cont'd)

​

 

[studier]

(cont'd)

Response cont'd: If you like, I can check very recent (2022–2025) journal‑article trends in this field, to see whether the Hebrew‑primacy thesis is gaining traction again. Do you want me to do that?

Query: Yes

Response:
Good question. I found very little solid peer-reviewed scholarship from 2022–2025 that strongly supports the full Hebrew-primacy (or Aramaic-primacy) of the entire New Testament. Here’s a breakdown of what I found, what it means, and where the conversation currently stands:


What Recent Scholarship (2022–2025) Shows (or Doesn’t Show) About Hebrew / Semitic Primacy

1. New Testament Studies article (2023): “Name-Recall in the Synoptic Gospels”
   • This article (Cambridge, New Testament Studies) analyzes onomastic (name) patterns in the Synoptics. Cambridge University Press & Assessment
   • Its conclusion: Jewish name usage is “conservative” and some onomastic data suggest Semitic influence, particularly earlier in Gospel traditions. Cambridge University Press & Assessment
   • But: It does not argue for a full Hebrew original for the Gospels. Instead, it supports a model in which the Greek texts reflect a semitic environment or substrate.
2. Andrew Koperski — “Was There an Original Semitic Gospel?” (Ad Fontes Journal, 2023)
   • Koperski surveys patristic testimony (e.g., Papias) and other historical hints for a “Semitic Gospel” in Hebrew or Aramaic. Ad Fontes
   • He acknowledges that no original Semitic text has been found, so the hypothesis remains speculative and reconstructive. Ad Fontes
   • His argument is careful: interesting “hints,” but not definitive proof.
3. Based Theology article on Semitisms in Luke (2022)
   • Cites James R. Edwards’ work (e.g., The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition) to argue that Luke’s “Special Material” (pericopes unique to Luke) has a high density of Semitic features. basedtheology.com
   • The article suggests that Luke’s source for this material could have been a Hebrew (or semitic) tradition. But again, this is not the same as demonstrating that all of Luke (or the NT) was originally written in Hebrew.
4. Tyndale Bulletin (2023)
   • There’s an article in Tyndale Bulletin 74 (2023) dealing with Hebrews 1-8 variations. Tyndale Bulletin
   • However, the piece is textual / scribal criticism, not about Hebrew primacy. It does not support the idea that the Epistle to the Hebrews was first composed in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Scholarly / Methodological Observations

• Semitic influence is still taken very seriously: Recent work continues to show Semitic (Hebrew/Aramaic) features in the Greek New Testament (names, syntax, idioms).
• Full “Hebrew original NT” remains a minority hypothesis: While there is constructive work on a Semitic substrate, mainstream critical scholarship has not widely accepted a model in which Hebrew (or Aramaic) was the original language for all NT writings.
• Lack of manuscript evidence: Even in recent work, there’s no newly discovered first-generation Hebrew autograph of any major NT book. The hypothesis often relies on retroversion (re-translating Greek back into Semitic) and early Christian testimony (church fathers).

Conclusion (in Light of Recent Trends)

• As of 2022–2025, the Hebrew-primacy thesis has not gained significantly more traction in top-tier NT journals than before.
• There is ongoing, serious academic conversation about Semitic background (especially in the Gospels), but very few recent articles defend a wholesale Hebrew original for the New Testament.
• C’s broader claim (that many NT scholars think most or all of the NT was written in Hebrew) is therefore still somewhat exaggerated in light of current scholarship.

End for now.

​

 

[studier]

@Caveman

So, some of that may assist you in your endeavor and some to most of it obviously does not support you.

FWIW, A. Fruchtenbaum was one of my part time seminary professors teaching us from some of his books a few decades ago. I have a lot of his writings on file but no longer have his books after purging my library to relocate myself easier. I have not kept up on his work.

You're pushing a very minority view, which is fine, as long as you don't push it too hard on some of us.

Your denominational or theological opinions on any doctrines are going to have to withstand some scrutiny just are everybody's.

 

[Caveman]

Your approach that we need Paleo-Hebrew to understand Christ-centered Salvation is simply and completely rejected and we can deal with any Scripture you'd like to focus on.


(cont'd next post)

Hey Studier,

I sincerely want to thank you for looking into my Hebraic Gospel perspective with a critical mind that doesn't entirely dismiss it in the way most here do. For many folks, my Hebraic view of salvation challenges their cultural, Scriptural, and doctrinal understanding of the Gospel message so much so that they find it nearly impossible to even consider any exegesis outside the traditional Christian Salvation narrative they have been taught all their lives.

Some things I freely concede upfront (always had) Greek holds the majority scholarly opinion as original NT Scripture while my view though growing in number is the minority even somewhat fringe view; and that there to date are no surviving Hebrew first century manuscripts. Remember though that Josephus wrote his History of the Jews roughly 1,000 yrs before the first surviving manuscript was found; no one doubts that he originally wrote it 1,000 yrs earlier though.

Greek adherents will point to plausible reasons for the majority consensus view. That there is an abundance of surviving manuscripts and translators would naturally incorporated Hebraisms into NT Greek, since the New Testament authors were Jews and Greek was the predominant language of the time.

On the flip side...

There are also strong arguments for Hebrew as the original language of the New Testament. There are four surviving Sephardic manuscripts, the consistent pattern of God addressing the Jews first and then the Gentiles and the fact that the early church was initially Jewish before quickly becoming predominantly Gentile. Anti-Jewish bias and the destruction of manuscripts may explain the absence of first-century Hebrew texts.

There's an internal Covenantal Hebraic framework that permeates the entire New Testament, which reflects God’s covenantal message running clean through from Genesis to Revelation; also there's serious problems with Greek John 1’s distinction between "Word" and "Son," and Matthew’s instruction to follow the Pharisees rather than Moses—because of this it makes far more sense to me that Greek is a translation rather than the original because a translation would make a mistake like this and not the original.

I also know that my contention that the entire NT was likely originally written in Hebrew is totally a fringe view, but I have learned to question everything especially the experts, teachers and Scholars.

The fact that some (a lot) people of this ilk have abused their position is not a uncommon theme like Caiaphas in selling sacrificial animals at the Temple of God.

Historical and Modern Examples of Misuse of Office

• Medieval indulgence sellers: In the late Middle Ages, some church officials exploited their positions by selling indulgences (promises of reduced punishment for sins) for money, which sparked Martin Luther’s protest and the Protestant Reformation.
• Televangelist scandals: In the 20th and 21st centuries, several televangelists misused donations for personal gain, leading to financial and moral scandals that damaged trust in religious broadcasting.
• Sexual abuse crises: Across multiple denominations, priests and pastors have been implicated in covering up or committing abuse, leading to widespread investigations and reforms.
• Prosperity gospel exploitation: Some modern preachers have been criticized for promoting a theology that equates faith with financial blessing, while living lavishly off congregational donations.
• Educational misuse: Certain religious teachers have been accused of distorting scripture to maintain control, suppress questioning, or advance personal agendas rather than fostering genuine spiritual growth.

Your Query at least showed that there may be something there-there to the Hebrew NT premise...but Hebraic evidence is downplayed while the Greek is well established scholarly fact (humm).

No matter which side you take you must admit the conflicting Hebrew/Greek Gospel messages do not jive and are quite unsimilar in what is Salvational determinative. The Hebraic view is unapologetic in its Salvation view.

Christ crucified = Atonement = Justified = Sanctified = Glorified + nothing...

You say that I am besmudging the commonly held Salvation view that asserts Christ alone? Please show me where I am mistaken in this understanding I have of my faith, my loyalty and my endurance in the western Greek Gospel view.

Please help me by filling in the "for some" questions I have for each Salvation phase below:

Greek view = Christ crucified = Atonement (for some?) = Justified (for some?) = Sanctified (for some?) = Glorified (for some?)

Studier...I really do believe you have made an effort to see my side and I very much appreciate it. I know my view here is never going to be well received because you can't go against the grain like this and have people embrace you. I believe it is the truth through.

Can you think of when those in authority every mislead you? Even in our own recent political history, we were told by 50 intelligence officers (oh my) that Hunter's laptop was a Russia disinformation operation and that the last 4 yrs the border was not wide open. I say this to give some perspective that we need to think for ourselves and not be indoctrinated by Jim Jones or anyone else. Study to show yourself approved.

So, some of that may assist you in your endeavor and some to most of it obviously does not support you. I do appreciate it and am making a copy

FWIW, A. Fruchtenbaum was one of my part time seminary professors teaching us from some of his books a few decades ago. I have a lot of his writings on file but no longer have his books after purging my library to relocate myself easier. I have not kept up on his work. I lived in San Antonio for the last 5 yrs and I can help you recover any book you may have lost. I have virtually every hard copy commentary and virtually 90% of every audio book of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum's that I would be happy to share with you if you can think of a way our personal information isn't spread all over creation I moved just this last Spring before his 2nd book on Ezekiel came out.

I met him once and "loaned him a book by Andrew Hoy "The House of El Shaddai" (of project314.org) to get his review but he still has it and I moved a long way away...

You're pushing a very minority view, which is fine, as long as you don't push it too hard on some of us. I know, but people here get snotty when they don't like what you are saying, and God is still refining me

Your denominational or theological opinions on any doctrines are going to have to withstand some scrutiny just are everybody's. I have found that no one has been scrutinized enough to provide enough proof to persuade everyone this side of Heaven.

Let me know if you would like my help in recovering your lost Fruchtenbaum books...thanks for the constructive feedback, Studier.

 

[studier]

Hey Studier,

I sincerely want to thank you for looking into my Hebraic Gospel perspective with a critical mind that doesn't entirely dismiss it in the way most here do. For many folks, my Hebraic view of salvation challenges their cultural, Scriptural, and doctrinal understanding of the Gospel message so much so that they find it nearly impossible to even consider any exegesis outside the traditional Christian Salvation narrative they have been taught all their lives.

Some things I freely concede upfront (always had) Greek holds the majority scholarly opinion as original NT Scripture while my view though growing in number is the minority even somewhat fringe view; and that there to date are no surviving Hebrew first century manuscripts. Remember though that Josephus wrote his History of the Jews roughly 1,000 yrs before the first surviving manuscript was found; no one doubts that he originally wrote it 1,000 yrs earlier though.

Greek adherents will point to plausible reasons for the majority consensus view. That there is an abundance of surviving manuscripts and translators would naturally incorporated Hebraisms into NT Greek, since the New Testament authors were Jews and Greek was the predominant language of the time.

On the flip side...

There are also strong arguments for Hebrew as the original language of the New Testament. There are four surviving Sephardic manuscripts, the consistent pattern of God addressing the Jews first and then the Gentiles and the fact that the early church was initially Jewish before quickly becoming predominantly Gentile. Anti-Jewish bias and the destruction of manuscripts may explain the absence of first-century Hebrew texts.

There's an internal Covenantal Hebraic framework that permeates the entire New Testament, which reflects God’s covenantal message running clean through from Genesis to Revelation; also there's serious problems with Greek John 1’s distinction between "Word" and "Son," and Matthew’s instruction to follow the Pharisees rather than Moses—because of this it makes far more sense to me that Greek is a translation rather than the original because a translation would make a mistake like this and not the original.

I also know that my contention that the entire NT was likely originally written in Hebrew is totally a fringe view, but I have learned to question everything especially the experts, teachers and Scholars.

The fact that some (a lot) people of this ilk have abused their position is not a uncommon theme like Caiaphas in selling sacrificial animals at the Temple of God.

Historical and Modern Examples of Misuse of Office

• Medieval indulgence sellers: In the late Middle Ages, some church officials exploited their positions by selling indulgences (promises of reduced punishment for sins) for money, which sparked Martin Luther’s protest and the Protestant Reformation.
• Televangelist scandals: In the 20th and 21st centuries, several televangelists misused donations for personal gain, leading to financial and moral scandals that damaged trust in religious broadcasting.
• Sexual abuse crises: Across multiple denominations, priests and pastors have been implicated in covering up or committing abuse, leading to widespread investigations and reforms.
• Prosperity gospel exploitation: Some modern preachers have been criticized for promoting a theology that equates faith with financial blessing, while living lavishly off congregational donations.
• Educational misuse: Certain religious teachers have been accused of distorting scripture to maintain control, suppress questioning, or advance personal agendas rather than fostering genuine spiritual growth.

Your Query at least showed that there may be something there-there to the Hebrew NT premise...but Hebraic evidence is downplayed while the Greek is well established scholarly fact (humm).

No matter which side you take you must admit the conflicting Hebrew/Greek Gospel messages do not jive and are quite unsimilar in what is Salvational determinative. The Hebraic view is unapologetic in its Salvation view.

Christ crucified = Atonement = Justified = Sanctified = Glorified + nothing...

You say that I am besmudging the commonly held Salvation view that asserts Christ alone? Please show me where I am mistaken in this understanding I have of my faith, my loyalty and my endurance in the western Greek Gospel view.

Please help me by filling in the "for some" questions I have for each Salvation phase below:

Greek view = Christ crucified = Atonement (for some?) = Justified (for some?) = Sanctified (for some?) = Glorified (for some?)

Studier...I really do believe you have made an effort to see my side and I very much appreciate it. I know my view here is never going to be well received because you can't go against the grain like this and have people embrace you. I believe it is the truth through.

Can you think of when those in authority every mislead you? Even in our own recent political history, we were told by 50 intelligence officers (oh my) that Hunter's laptop was a Russia disinformation operation and that the last 4 yrs the border was not wide open. I say this to give some perspective that we need to think for ourselves and not be indoctrinated by Jim Jones or anyone else. Study to show yourself approved.

So, some of that may assist you in your endeavor and some to most of it obviously does not support you. I do appreciate it and am making a copy

FWIW, A. Fruchtenbaum was one of my part time seminary professors teaching us from some of his books a few decades ago. I have a lot of his writings on file but no longer have his books after purging my library to relocate myself easier. I have not kept up on his work. I lived in San Antonio for the last 5 yrs and I can help you recover any book you may have lost. I have virtually every hard copy commentary and virtually 90% of every audio book of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum's that I would be happy to share with you if you can think of a way our personal information isn't spread all over creation I moved just this last Spring before his 2nd book on Ezekiel came out.

I met him once and "loaned him a book by Andrew Hoy "The House of El Shaddai" (of project314.org) to get his review but he still has it and I moved a long way away...

You're pushing a very minority view, which is fine, as long as you don't push it too hard on some of us. I know, but people here get snotty when they don't like what you are saying, and God is still refining me

Your denominational or theological opinions on any doctrines are going to have to withstand some scrutiny just are everybody's. I have found that no one has been scrutinized enough to provide enough proof to persuade everyone this side of Heaven.

Let me know if you would like my help in recovering your lost Fruchtenbaum books...thanks for the constructive feedback, Studier.

Thanks for the comments.

I'm all for continued research and interpretational work and have been for some time, especially after I shed systematic theology and just focused on the Text.

I probably already mentioned I have been reading Messianic studies for a few decades and was originally quite hopeful it would provide more than I think it has. I'm watching some Hebrew ministries and may jump in and get geared-up in Hebrew after starting a few times but not getting solid instruction. I know just enough to work through it to some degree. This interest caused me to look at Benner when I saw him and to get a couple of his books. Just understanding what a word means here and there can be profound.

Not sure if you know this, but Daniel Wallace as I recall is involved in a group that is still scouring the globe for ancient manuscripts. The work and search is far from being over and theology is far from being completely settled. But we work with what we have.

Also, what's called 'The New Perspective on Paul or something similar has been going on for a few decades and is providing some interesting perspectives on his use of rhetoric for instance. Take his knowledge of Torah plus his knowledge of Greek culture as a citizen growing up in it and try to fathom the work he was doing to find a blending of two very distinct cultures.

There are also some very interesting scholars - even non-Christian - that have done a lot of work in what the cultures were at the time of the NT writing. They shed much light on things Paul and early Christianity were having to contend with in things like the depth of cultural focus on and commitment to the gods, etc.

So, in my view, any work that can be done in both the Hebrew and Greek cultures to pick up the nuance of Hebrew meanings and structures in the Text and to pick up things the Greek rhetoric of Paul is where our understandings will grow. IMO the Spirit assists as and when God desires. If we go back through theological history at least a few doctrines took almost 500 years to gain some consensus. Ultimately all is His timing.

Thanks for the offer on Arnold's materials. I'm pretty much only building a digital library now and in reality am just in the Text most of the time and not even looking at other things I have unless needing to for something in a forum or something.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

These scholars have argued (to varying degrees) that parts or all of the NT were first composed in Hebrew/Aramaic:

Aramaic, possibly yes; Hebrew, untenable. I wish you would stop talking about the two as if they are the same.

It makes absolutely no sense that the NT writers would have composed writings in Hebrew that the populace didn't know and that they themselves probably weren't fluent in.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

For many folks, my Hebraic view of salvation challenges their cultural, Scriptural, and doctrinal understanding of the Gospel message so much so that they find it nearly impossible to even consider any exegesis outside the traditional Christian Salvation narrative they have been taught all their lives.

It doesn't challenge me at all. IMO it's identical to every other aberration of sound doctrine that omits obedience from the salvational equation. You just have a new hat-trick delivery I've never seen before

 

[studier]

aberration of sound doctrine that omits obedience from the salvational equation

One of the if not the core issue as I see it, both pre & post "faith".

 

[Albert]

This discussion in my opinion has caused more arguments then edify The reader in my experience with it. I would advise everyone who joins in this discussion to pray before you join in and ask God by his Holy Spirit to lead and teach us the truth of this subject.

 

[Caveman]

Thanks for the comments.

I too reject much of systematic theology (maybe not for the same reasons as you) where first century believers Covenant understanding (Later coined as Covenant Theology) is seen as substrate; as well as many of the doctrinal positions that sprang forth from it.

First-century Jewish believers didn’t invent “Covenant Theology” as a system, because they lived covenantally.

To me the Greek influence is the culprit here, for presenting a clearly different Gospel than the Hebraic view, the wrong theology that supports it and the inverted realignment where Systematic Theology is the umbrella for Covenant Theology.

Main Reasons Covenant Was Displaced

• Shift in Audience: Christianity moved from a Jewish covenantal context into a Greco‑Roman world. Gentile converts were less familiar with covenant categories, so leaders leaned on philosophical language that resonated culturally.
• Philosophical Precision: Greek categories (ousia = essence, hypostasis = person, logos = word/reason) offered clarity for defining doctrines like the Trinity and Christology. This precision was seen as necessary to combat heresies.
• Defense of Orthodoxy: Councils such as Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), and Chalcedon (451) used metaphysical terms to safeguard orthodoxy. Covenant language was too narrative‑historical to serve as the “roof” in these debates.
• Universality: Covenant was tied to Israel’s story, while Greek categories seemed more “universal” and adaptable for a diverse empire. This made systematic theology more appealing in a multi‑ethnic church.
• Cultural Prestige: Greek philosophy carried intellectual authority. Using its categories gave Christianity credibility in the wider culture, but at the cost of sidelining covenantal frameworks.
• Loss of Jewish Roots: As the church distanced itself from Judaism, covenantal categories lost prominence. Allegorical interpretation (Origen, Augustine) further minimized covenant continuity, favoring abstract doctrinal formulations.

You know my position that Greek presents a Gospel that is fundamentally different from the Hebraic Gospel I believe is actually presented in the New Covenant. In a similar way the Greek influenced Systematic Theology has managed to reposition itself as the umbrella above Covenant Theology (later coined). This to me is foundational because it skews what was originally intended into a warped Greek view once again. I also believe this was the intended purpose; and because of the change from Hebraic to a Greek viewpoint it altered the NT Gospel Salvation message of Christ Alone (+ nothing) to Christ + me determinative Salvation.

First‑Century Jewish Believers

• Messiah in Israel’s story: Jesus was seen as the fulfillment of covenant promises — the one to restore Israel.
• Torah continuity: Many Jewish believers (like those in Acts) still kept Sabbath, circumcision, and temple worship, interpreting Jesus as the climax of the Law, not its replacement.
• Apocalyptic hope: Jesus was understood as inaugurating God’s kingdom, with imminent expectation of judgment and renewal.
• Titles used: “Son of Man,” “Messiah,” “Servant of the Lord” — all rooted in Hebrew Scriptures, not Greek metaphysics.

🏛 Greek Philosophical Reinterpretations

• Logos theology (John 1): Jesus as the divine Logos, a concept borrowed from Stoic and Platonic thought, bridging God and creation.
• Metaphysical categories: Greek philosophy reframed Jesus in terms of essence, nature, and substance — leading to debates about the Trinity and Christ’s divinity.
• Universal ethics: Christianity absorbed Stoic moral ideals, shifting from Jewish covenantal identity to a universal moral law for all humanity.
• Immortality of the soul: Platonic dualism influenced Christian views of heaven, hell, and eternal life, moving beyond Jewish resurrection hope.

I started about 15 yrs ago looking into how first century Believers saw the Gospel. I was living in Seattle and started going to El Shaddai where Mark Biltz was teaching.

He took me into his office and showed me a Torah scroll opened to Genesis 1:1 and showed me how the Bet was so much larger than the all rest of the Hebrew letters; some smaller letters, some were above, below, inverted and broken and it all meant something he said that you could not see in any English Bible.

That wowed me at first, but unfortunately I have come to know that these anomalies are a relatively recent phenomenon, because it does not even trace back to the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls; and it does not show up in Paleo Hebrew either.

Jeff Benner does a good job bringing out the meaning of Hebrew words and presenting the Hebrew culture; which I find essential to understanding the Bible. Words like “Keep” the Covenant are about guarding a living relationship instead of legal obedience.

I hope Daniel Wallace one day finds some first century Hebrew manuscripts.

I believe Greek influenced Systematic Theology has in effect usurped the original Covenantal view of first century Believers; it muddied the waters much like Pharisaical Law usurped Torah teachings.

Again, to me the core distortion of God’s Covenant Salvation Gospel is NT Greeks linguistic construct. It has morphed the original Hebraic Gospel, which is easily seen by the contradictory Salvation models and messages of both views; there really should not be any dispute on this point…you may not agree there is a Hebreaic Covenant Gospel, but that is really all you can argue because these two views of Salvation do not line up.

One thing I want to concede though is that if my contention is true and I totally believe it is, then I also have to accept that God has allowed it to be so, just like He allows anyone in authority to hold their position; so I accept He has His purpose. That doesn’t mean that what I am saying isn’t true, only that God has allowed this to go on. In the dark ages He allowed the Scriptures to be virtually hidden from the masses as priests abused their position by extorting people selling them indulgences.

Paul was an amazing man that God used for sure…remember when he tried to out Greek the Greeks by meeting them on their own intellectual turf, quoting their poets, appealing to reason, and then boldly proclaiming the unseen God revealed through Jesus Christ; but even so only a handful came to Believe in Athens.

By contrast (learned his lesson) Paul specifically said that he didn’t come with eloquence or human wisdom and that he resolved to know “nothing… except Jesus Christ and Him crucified to those in Corinth where many came to Believe.

I believe God is working through the Greek but its doctrinal theology and the Gospel message that sprang from it is not the same as understood by first century Believers who held a Covenantal Theology view because that is the view they lived out before it was coined as such much later.

Covenant Theology then is the thread that is weaved throughout the entire Bible, while doctrines of men come and go as men will it so.

Some enacted early doctrines were later trashed:

List of early church doctrines that later faded or were cast aside:

• Imminent return of Christ: Early Christians lived with urgency, expecting Jesus to return in their lifetime. As decades passed, this doctrine was softened into a more distant eschatology.
• Communal living and shared possessions: Acts 2–4 describes believers pooling resources so “none had need.” This radical economic sharing faded as the church grew and became wealthier.
• Strict pacifism: Early Christians refused military service and rejected violence. By the 4th century, after Constantine, Christians increasingly accepted war and political power.
• Jewish law observance: Some early believers kept kosher and Sabbath laws. As Gentile Christianity expanded, these practices were abandoned.
• Charismatic prophecy and ecstatic worship: Movements like Montanism emphasized ongoing prophecy and spiritual gifts. Mainstream Christianity later restricted these expressions to avoid disorder.
• Rejection of wealth and luxury: Early Christians often warned against riches. Later, the church accumulated wealth and power, especially after becoming aligned with empire.
• Women in leadership: Evidence shows women served as deacons, prophets, and even apostles (Junia in Romans 16:7). Over time, these roles were restricted in most traditions.
• Rigid stance on apostasy (lapsi): In times of persecution, those who denied Christ were often excluded permanently. Later, doctrines of penance and forgiveness softened this.
• Multiple Christologies: Early communities debated Jesus’ nature (divine, human, or both). Councils like Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451) standardized Trinitarian orthodoxy, discarding alternatives like Arianism.

(Thanks for the offer on Arnold's materials). Like I said, I have all of Benner books digitally and 90% of all of Fruchtenbaum’s books digitally.

 

[Caveman]

Aramaic, possibly yes; Hebrew, untenable. I wish you would stop talking about the two as if they are the same.

It makes absolutely no sense that the NT writers would have composed writings in Hebrew that the populace didn't know and that they themselves probably weren't fluent in.

You say this though it is fact..when it's anything but!

It makes all the sense because the first Christians were composed mostly of Jews!

"That they themselves" you refer to I take to mean the Jewish Christians?

You know there were a lot of Hellenized Jews to be sure, but many Jews were not, and they abhorred those Jews who were; besides you can just look at your own nation and know there are many people in our country who still speak FLUENTLY their native language Hispanics, Russians ect; a contemporary FACT that is likely the same as then...

 

[Caveman]

It doesn't challenge me at all. IMO it's identical to every other aberration of sound doctrine that omits obedience from the salvational equation. You just have a new hat-trick delivery I've never seen before

So called "sound doctrine" changes over time as men decide it so; just look at early church doctrines that have fell out of favor.

(Covenants are everlasting...doctrines of men...not so much!)

Covenant Theology is the thread that is weaved throughout the entire Bible, while doctrines of men come and go as men will it so.

List of early church doctrines that later faded or were cast aside:

• Imminent return of Christ: Early Christians lived with urgency, expecting Jesus to return in their lifetime. As decades passed, this doctrine was softened into a more distant eschatology.
• Communal living and shared possessions: Acts 2–4 describes believers pooling resources so “none had need.” This radical economic sharing faded as the church grew and became wealthier.
• Strict pacifism: Early Christians refused military service and rejected violence. By the 4th century, after Constantine, Christians increasingly accepted war and political power.
• Jewish law observance: Some early believers kept kosher and Sabbath laws. As Gentile Christianity expanded, these practices were abandoned.
• Charismatic prophecy and ecstatic worship: Movements like Montanism emphasized ongoing prophecy and spiritual gifts. Mainstream Christianity later restricted these expressions to avoid disorder.
• Rejection of wealth and luxury: Early Christians often warned against riches. Later, the church accumulated wealth and power, especially after becoming aligned with empire.
• Women in leadership: Evidence shows women served as deacons, prophets, and even apostles (Junia in Romans 16:7). Over time, these roles were restricted in most traditions.
• Rigid stance on apostasy (lapsi): In times of persecution, those who denied Christ were often excluded permanently. Later, doctrines of penance and forgiveness softened this.
• Multiple Christologies: Early communities debated Jesus’ nature (divine, human, or both). Councils like Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451) standardized Trinitarian orthodoxy, discarding alternatives like Arianism.

You're so wrong...my Hebraic view of Salvation definitely does challenge YOUR cultural, Scriptural, and doctrinal understanding of the Gospel message, so much so that YOU find it nearly impossible to even consider any exegesis outside the traditional Christian Salvation narrative YOU have been taught all YOUR life....

AND

Besides...you can't or won't even defend the Western view of Salvation you say you Believe!

Let's see if you can defend and explain your Belief so that even a Caveman can understand you...

Please show me I am mistaken and where I have a "wrong" understanding of YOUR Gospel; a Gospel where Salvation is dependent on my faith, my loyalty and my endurance.

Please help me by filling in the "for some" questions I have for each Salvation phase below:

Greek view = Christ crucified = Atonement (for some?) = Justified (for some?) = Sanctified (for some?) = Glorified (for some?)

I know you can't defend it because the Western doctrine of Salvation has too many holes in it.

On the one hand we so totally failed the Mosaic Covenant that God had to bring in the Renewed Covenant established in the Life Blood of His Only Begotten Son. He brought us Salvation as a free gift because God so Loved the world with Christ Crucified and Him Alone!

BUT

On the other hand, your Salvation Gospel is conditionally received by my faith, my loyalty, my enduring to the end ect...This is not the same Gospel the first century Believers Believed!

The Hebraic view is unapologetic in its Salvation view.

Christ crucified = Atonement = Justified = Sanctified = Glorified + nothing...

But regardless...

Since you're not at all challenged...please help me by filling in the "for some" questions I have for each Salvation phase below:

Greek view = Christ crucified = Atonement (for some?) = Justified (for some?) = Sanctified (for some?) = Glorified (for some?)

I know you won't because you can't...it's a bridge too far!

I will be curious as to what kind of pretzeled twisted gobbledygook you patch together to make some semblance of sense of your skewed Salvation doctrine.

 

[MyChristianPundit]

It is possible for one to loose salvation. If you truly accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you will not delight in sin.

"For concerning those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify the Son of God for themselves again, and put him to open shame." Hebrews 6:4-6

The grace of God doesn't permit us to keep walking in sin. Instead , the Lord has called us to separate ourselves from the world. Have nothing to do with darkness because as Christians, we are the light of the world. The "once saved always saved" heresy is destructive and unscriptural. I pray that we hold on to the faith and walk in righteousness to please and glorify God always.

 

[Caveman]

It is possible for one to loose salvation. If you truly accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you will not delight in sin.

"For concerning those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify the Son of God for themselves again, and put him to open shame." Hebrews 6:4-6

The grace of God doesn't permit us to keep walking in sin. Instead , the Lord has called us to separate ourselves from the world. Have nothing to do with darkness because as Christians, we are the light of the world. The "once saved always saved" heresy is destructive and unscriptural. I pray that we hold on to the faith and walk in righteousness to please and glorify God always.

You are seeing the Gospel from a Greek western view the first century believers didn't have...you've been Greeked like most have...

In Greek-influenced theology, salvation is often treated as a static possession (something you “have” and could “lose”). But in Hebraic covenantal thought, salvation is relational — it’s about fidelity to the covenant and ongoing trust in the covenant mediator (Jesus).

How Hebrews 6:4–6 fits this relational lens

• Not a lost possession: The text isn’t saying someone “misplaced” salvation like an object. Instead, it’s describing a covenant relationship that has been ruptured.
• Covenant betrayal: To “fall away” after tasting the Spirit and the powers of the age to come is to decisively reject the covenant itself — like breaking a marriage vow.
• Irreversibility without Christ: The impossibility of renewal is not because God refuses repentance, but because there is no other covenantal path. If one rejects Christ, there is no alternative sacrifice or mediator to return to.
• Return to the Savior: Restoration is only possible if the person turns back to Jesus, the covenant mediator. Until that happens, the relationship remains broken.

The big picture
From this view, Hebrews 6 is a warning passage: don’t abandon the covenant relationship you’ve entered. If you do, the bond is shattered — but the door is always open if you return to Christ, because He alone is the covenant’s foundation.

 

[Caveman]

You are seeing the Gospel from a Greek western view the first century believers didn't have...you've been Greeked like most have...

In Greek-influenced theology, salvation is often treated as a static possession (something you “have” and could “lose”). But in Hebraic covenantal thought, salvation is relational — it’s about fidelity to the covenant and ongoing trust in the covenant mediator (Jesus).

How Hebrews 6:4–6 fits this relational lens

• Not a lost possession: The text isn’t saying someone “misplaced” salvation like an object. Instead, it’s describing a covenant relationship that has been ruptured.
• Covenant betrayal: To “fall away” after tasting the Spirit and the powers of the age to come is to decisively reject the covenant itself — like breaking a marriage vow.
• Irreversibility without Christ: The impossibility of renewal is not because God refuses repentance, but because there is no other covenantal path. If one rejects Christ, there is no alternative sacrifice or mediator to return to.
• Return to the Savior: Restoration is only possible if the person turns back to Jesus, the covenant mediator. Until that happens, the relationship remains broken.

The big picture
From this view, Hebrews 6 is a warning passage: don’t abandon the covenant relationship you’ve entered. If you do, the bond is shattered — but the door is always open if you return to Christ, because He alone is the covenant’s foundation.

Western Gospel is a "Meism Salvation" because your Salvation is you determinative...your faith, your belief, your endurance to the end and your loyalty...that's the Greek Gospel view. Whereas the Hebraic Gospel is Christ Alone + nothing!

Please show me I am mistaken and where I have a "wrong" understanding of YOUR Gospel; a Gospel where Salvation is dependent on my faith, my loyalty and my endurance.

Please help me by filling in the "for some" questions I have for each Salvation phase below:

Greek view = Christ crucified = Atonement (for some?) = Justified (for some?) = Sanctified (for some?) = Glorified (for some?)

 

[Caveman]

It is possible for one to loose salvation. If you truly accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you will not delight in sin.

"For concerning those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify the Son of God for themselves again, and put him to open shame." Hebrews 6:4-6

The grace of God doesn't permit us to keep walking in sin. Instead , the Lord has called us to separate ourselves from the world. Have nothing to do with darkness because as Christians, we are the light of the world. The "once saved always saved" heresy is destructive and unscriptural. I pray that we hold on to the faith and walk in righteousness to please and glorify God always.

The Hebraic view is unapologetic in its Salvation view.

Christ crucified = Atonement = Justified = Sanctified = Glorified + nothing...

 

[studier]

This sounds like a blend of Determinism and Free Grace theologies. For me it's all pointless apart from looking at specific Scriptures and explaining why they in any language mean what someone proposes that they mean.

 

[studier]

Please show me I am mistaken and where I have a "wrong" understanding of YOUR Gospel; a Gospel where Salvation is dependent on my faith, my loyalty and my endurance.

You are seeing the Gospel from a Greek western view the first century believers didn't have...you've been Greeked like most have...

In Greek-influenced theology, salvation is often treated as a static possession (something you “have” and could “lose”). But in Hebraic covenantal thought, salvation is relational — it’s about fidelity to the covenant and ongoing trust in the covenant mediator (Jesus).

How Hebrews 6:4–6 fits this relational lens

• Not a lost possession: The text isn’t saying someone “misplaced” salvation like an object. Instead, it’s describing a covenant relationship that has been ruptured.
• Covenant betrayal: To “fall away” after tasting the Spirit and the powers of the age to come is to decisively reject the covenant itself — like breaking a marriage vow.
• Irreversibility without Christ: The impossibility of renewal is not because God refuses repentance, but because there is no other covenantal path. If one rejects Christ, there is no alternative sacrifice or mediator to return to.
• Return to the Savior: Restoration is only possible if the person turns back to Jesus, the covenant mediator. Until that happens, the relationship remains broken.

The big picture
From this view, Hebrews 6 is a warning passage: don’t abandon the covenant relationship you’ve entered. If you do, the bond is shattered — but the door is always open if you return to Christ, because He alone is the covenant’s foundation.

Haven’t you just shown that salvation or covenant participation is conditional when you say it’s about fidelity and that, after breaking the covenant, restoration requires turning back to Christ - since this presumes the person previously accepted Christ and must endure - even though you earlier insisted that faith, loyalty, and endurance aren’t conditions for salvation? Aren’t good relationships cooperative?

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

So called "sound doctrine" changes over time as men decide it so; just look at early church doctrines that have fell out of favor.

(Covenants are everlasting...doctrines of men...not so much!)

Covenant Theology is the thread that is weaved throughout the entire Bible, while doctrines of men come and go as men will it so.

List of early church doctrines that later faded or were cast aside:

• Imminent return of Christ: Early Christians lived with urgency, expecting Jesus to return in their lifetime. As decades passed, this doctrine was softened into a more distant eschatology.
• Communal living and shared possessions: Acts 2–4 describes believers pooling resources so “none had need.” This radical economic sharing faded as the church grew and became wealthier.
• Strict pacifism: Early Christians refused military service and rejected violence. By the 4th century, after Constantine, Christians increasingly accepted war and political power.
• Jewish law observance: Some early believers kept kosher and Sabbath laws. As Gentile Christianity expanded, these practices were abandoned.
• Charismatic prophecy and ecstatic worship: Movements like Montanism emphasized ongoing prophecy and spiritual gifts. Mainstream Christianity later restricted these expressions to avoid disorder.
• Rejection of wealth and luxury: Early Christians often warned against riches. Later, the church accumulated wealth and power, especially after becoming aligned with empire.
• Women in leadership: Evidence shows women served as deacons, prophets, and even apostles (Junia in Romans 16:7). Over time, these roles were restricted in most traditions.
• Rigid stance on apostasy (lapsi): In times of persecution, those who denied Christ were often excluded permanently. Later, doctrines of penance and forgiveness softened this.
• Multiple Christologies: Early communities debated Jesus’ nature (divine, human, or both). Councils like Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451) standardized Trinitarian orthodoxy, discarding alternatives like Arianism.

You're so wrong...my Hebraic view of Salvation definitely does challenge YOUR cultural, Scriptural, and doctrinal understanding of the Gospel message, so much so that YOU find it nearly impossible to even consider any exegesis outside the traditional Christian Salvation narrative YOU have been taught all YOUR life....

AND

Besides...you can't or won't even defend the Western view of Salvation you say you Believe!

Let's see if you can defend and explain your Belief so that even a Caveman can understand you...

Please show me I am mistaken and where I have a "wrong" understanding of YOUR Gospel; a Gospel where Salvation is dependent on my faith, my loyalty and my endurance.

Please help me by filling in the "for some" questions I have for each Salvation phase below:

Greek view = Christ crucified = Atonement (for some?) = Justified (for some?) = Sanctified (for some?) = Glorified (for some?)

I know you can't defend it because the Western doctrine of Salvation has too many holes in it.

On the one hand we so totally failed the Mosaic Covenant that God had to bring in the Renewed Covenant established in the Life Blood of His Only Begotten Son. He brought us Salvation as a free gift because God so Loved the world with Christ Crucified and Him Alone!

BUT

On the other hand, your Salvation Gospel is conditionally received by my faith, my loyalty, my enduring to the end ect...This is not the same Gospel the first century Believers Believed!

The Hebraic view is unapologetic in its Salvation view.

Christ crucified = Atonement = Justified = Sanctified = Glorified + nothing...

But regardless...

Since you're not at all challenged...please help me by filling in the "for some" questions I have for each Salvation phase below:

Greek view = Christ crucified = Atonement (for some?) = Justified (for some?) = Sanctified (for some?) = Glorified (for some?)

I know you won't because you can't...it's a bridge too far!

I will be curious as to what kind of pretzeled twisted gobbledygook you patch together to make some semblance of sense of your skewed Salvation doctrine.

You're a man of many words that clutter the mind, but don't speak to the heart, therefore it's impossible for me to follow your disjointed reasoning. Covenant theology has nothing to do with Hebraic vs Greek mindsets. Absolutely nothing.

I think covenants are the proper way to view God's dealings with mankind, but every covenant made with Israel was conditioned upon obedience. Under the covenant of circumcision the condition was circumcision; under the covenant of law made at Sinai and the covenant of blessings and curses made in Moab it was obedience to the law; under the new covenant it is obedience to Jesus' words. Scripture witnesses that conditional covenants can be broken. If you think the new covenant relationship can't be broken through disobedience, then you're just kidding yourself. Vain faith just "believes", whereas unhypocritical faith acts on what Christ says.

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Romans 11:19-21​