We have added a "Comments" page. Sub pages will be added under the main comments page as we go along.

"I, even I am Yahweh, and besides me there is no [other] saviour"

Isaiah 43:11

Christianity espouses that the original New Testament writings were in Greek. What does Christianity base this belief upon? Christianity claims that the oldest known manuscripts are in Greek and therefore it stands to reason that the New Testament was written in Greek. We call this “faulty assumption” which is, “because of this, then that”. In other words, because X is, therefore Y exists.

 

There does not exist even one single documented evidence to establish Greek primacy except statements espoused by “our contemporaries”. These more recent attestations are based upon assumptions.

 

But when we look at the contemporaries, or those closest to being contemporaries, of the Apostles we find witnesses of the Aramaic primacy. So let’s look at the evidence provided by the writings of the “CHRISTIAN CHURCH FATHERS” and historians.

 

According to Eusebius (c. 263 – c. 339)  (Hist. Eccl. 3:39:16) Papias said that Matthew collected (sunetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, sunagraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Y’shua) in the Hebraidi (Aramaic) language… St. Iranaeus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language. (Hist. Eccl 3:24:6) Eusebius tells us the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching

 

Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. History 6:14:2 Commenting on Clement 150-212 CE) In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly he (Clement of Alexandria) abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures… the Epistle to the Hebrews he asserts, was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks.

 

Jerome (c348 – 420), Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5 (382 CE) He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote Hebrew, that is his own tongue and most fluently while the things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.

 

In Volume 3 Jerome says, “On the other hand, the books, of which one is entitled his Acts, another his Gospel, a third his Preaching, a fourth his Revelation, a fifth his “Judgment” are rejected as apocryphal.”

 

Jerome goes on:

Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his (John the Just) death. He it is of whom the apostle Paul writes to the Galatians that “No one else of the apostles did I see except James the brother of the Lord,” and shortly after the event the Acts of the apostles bear witness to the matter. The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen makes use of… If the New Testament was originally written in Greek, why would Jerome translate it from Greek to Greek?

 

Continuing with Jerome:

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew… The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa [the Aramaic Peshitta], it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” and “for he shall be called a Nazarene.”

 

 

"Christ, after all spoke in the language of His contemporaries. He offered the first sacrifice of the Eucharist in Aramaic, a language understood by all the people who heard Him. The Apostles and Disciples did the same and never in a language other than that of the gathered faithful."

Codex Ambrosianus - 5th Century (c400’s)
Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy

 

Note: like earlier authors, Papias & Irenaeus, Origen claims that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. Thus, he does not support those who claim that the canonical Greek version of Matthew is older than Mark.

 

About 130 CE Papias was bishop of Hierapolis in SE Asia Minor, just a few miles NE of Colossae & Laodicea. Other than that, little is known about the personal history of the man who is responsible for establishing traditions that Matthew was written first; and Mark records the testimony of Peter.

 

Papias mentioned hearing a John. Irenaeus (c.120-203) was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (now Lyons, France), who countered gnostic speculations by claiming an unbroken chain of tradition from the apostles to the bishops, took this to mean that this bishop (Papias) was personally familiar with one of the most prominent apostles (John, son of Zebedee):

 

And Papias, who was John's auditor & Polycarp's companion, a man of the earliest era, also attests these things in writing the fourth of his books. For there are five books composed by him (Against Heresies 5.33.4).

So, then, Matthew compiled the sayings (logia) of the Lord in the Hebrew language. But everyone interpreted (or translated) them as he could (Eccles. Hist. 3.38.16).

Note: Papias' testimony expressly excludes Mark from those who interpreted this "Hebrew" text of Matthew by portraying him as the interpreter who transcribed the oral teaching of Peter. Therefore, Papias does not provide a basis for the views of Augustine & later western Christians who think that Mark edited Matthew. Nor does Papias give any information about the relative sequence of the canonical Greek versions of Matthew & Mark.

 

 

Irenaeus  ca. 120-203 CE

Matthew also published a gospel in writing among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter & Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. But after their death, Mark, the disciple & interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what Peter used to preach. And Luke, Paul's associate, also set down in a book the gospel that Paul used to preach. Later, John, the Lord's disciple --- the one who lay on his lap --- also set out the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia Minor. (Against Heresies 3.1.1)

 

The only thing in Irenaeus' statement that would lead someone to infer the chronological priority of Matthew is his attempt to link the canonical gospels with the activity of Peter & Paul. He claims that a Hebrew edition of this gospel was in circulation during the lifetime of the leading apostles, while Mark & Luke were composed "after their death."

 

Irenaeus does not support the opinion of those who claim that the current Greek edition of Matthew was composed prior to the other gospels. Nor does he claim that Mark transcribed Peter's preaching support the view of Augustine, Griesbach & other western Christians that Mark condensed Matthew.

 

These are primary examples of Christianity’s “faulty assumptions”. But are these mere “assumptions”? Or can these be blatant cover ups of the truth? I have heard sermons on the “Church Fathers” but I have never heard the above evidences taught. Do Christian priests and pastors intentionally teach half-truths? The Bible teaches that half-truths are lies. So is Christianity teaching lies? This evidence leads me to ask a number of questions.

 

Are courses on the “Church Fathers” taught in the seminaries? If not, why not? Afterall, they are very important witnesses to numerous things occurring in the “early church”. If the “Church Fathers” are taught, do seminaries include the evidences demonstrated above? If they do teach these evidences why are the Christian priests and pastors telling us the New Testament was written in Greek? Why do Christian priests and pastors continually cite Greek words and Greek definitions in their sermons if they know the scriptures were written in Aramaic? Wouldn’t we have a better understanding of what Messiah and His Schlichim actually said and wrote? And wouldn’t it give us better insights into the phrases, idioms and culture of the scriptures?  What would happen to the credibility of all these Christian denominations, teachers, seminaries and pastors if the world community learned the truth?

 

The “Biblical Scholars” are men and women of high prestige with years and years of research under their belts. Many of them are college professors in both secular colleges and seminaries. And the vast majority of them hold numerous copyrights on Biblical translations and text books. Surely, with the myriad years of technical research all of these Biblical Scholars possess they would have uncovered the above statements by the “Church Fathers”. These Scholars would certainly have investigated the writings of the “Church Fathers” to attain accurate evidence to support the copyrights of their translations and books.

 

If these “Biblical Scholars” know the writings of the “Church Fathers” then they would know that Yeshua and the society he lived in were Aramaic speakers as the evidence above points out. Why would these “Scholars” teach us that the Jews at that time were a Greek speaking culture when the evidence demonstrates otherwise? If the general population of the world learned the truth what effect would it have on the copyrights these “Scholars” possess? Would the works of these “Scholars” continue to generate multi-billion dollar sales annually? What would happen to the credibility of these “Scholars” if the world community discovered the truth?

 

We would have to believe that Christian authors are meticulous in researching the scriptures and other evidences before writing their books and making their Biblical teaching cd’s and dvd’s. Afterall, these authors also have copyrights to protect. Surely, with all their research prior to publication, these Christian authors must know the truth. Do these Christian authors simply parrot what their pastors, priests and “Biblical Scholars” teach them? What worth would their copyrights have, and what credibility would these authors have if the world community discovered the truth?

 

How many times have we heard the stale Christian cliche, “Confession is good for the soul”? It’s much harder to confess the truth when a multi-billion dollar a year industry is staked upon it. Perhaps the answers to these questions are best answered by Yeshua. What did Yeshua say about, and to, the religious leaders of the money making priestly system of His day? Is there really any difference?

 

Constantine said, “You do not control people through politics nor military might. You control people through religion.” You conquer people through military might and you manipulate their activities through politics. But you control people through religion. And so it was that Constantine became the father of the pagan Christian church that conquered through the military might of the inquisitions, manipulated peoples lives through the politics of the Vatican and controlled the hearts and minds of the faithful with a new religion created through Hellenized re-written scriptures.

 

If any Christian group, Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical, Mormon, or Christian Nazarene thinks the Vatican has nothing to do with their denomination then they need to educate themselves in the history section of this web site.  If you worship your god on the first day of the week, “sun”-day, if you observe christmas as the birth of your messiah, if you observe easter as the resurrection day of your messiah, you are obeying the laws, dogma and Catholic based Greek scriptures of the Catholic church. As a matter of fact, just about everything on the Christian calendar today comes from the laws, decrees and dogma passed in the Vatican councils.

 

Getting back to our discussion on primacy I would now like to introduce you to a couple of paraphrased examples, from Andrew Gabriel Roth’s works, that are contradictions in Greek translations, that raise problems, but are very clear in the Aramaic.

 

John 21:15-17,

15 When they had broken their fast, Yeshua said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these things? He said to him, Yes, my Lord, you know that I love you. Jesus said to him, Feed my lambs.

16 He said to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me? He said to him, Yes, my Lord, you know that I love you. Yeshua said to him, Feed my sheep.

17 He said to him again the third time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me? It grieved Peter because he said to him the third time, Do you love me? So he said to him, My Lord, you understand well everything, you know that I love you. Yeshua said to him, Feed my ewes.  

 

Yeshua spoke of lambs, sheep and ewes. In this way Yeshua emphasized that every individual of God's flock, young and old, male and female, is important, each individual is equal to the others, and needs to be strengthened spiritually. Yeshua therefore admonished Peter that he should care for all, men, women and children. This detail was lost completely in the Greek because the Greek translators could not recognize and differentiate the underlying idioms and multiple uses of the same/similar word of the Aramaic language.

 

The Greek text has major contradictions between the accounts of Yeshua’s genealogies according to Matthew and Luke. Here are a few of them:

 Matthew 1:17 mentions that the generations listed follow a 14-14-14 structure. However when we check the generations from Babylon to Yeshua there appear to be only 13, which would make a 14-14-13 structure. Therefore the Greek text contradicts itself.
 

1. According to the Gospel writers both genealogies are of Joseph, so why do they list different names? Some have tried to explain that Luke actually gives the genealogy through Mary, while Matthew through Joseph, but this is a desperate attempt to make the text say something different than what it really does say.
    
2. If in fact no genealogy of Mary is provided, then how could we be sure that Yeshua is indeed a descendant of king David?

 

The reading of the original Aramaic solves this conundrum at once. Whereas the Greek in Matthew 1:16 calls Joseph the "husband" of Mary, the Aramaic text calls him the "gowra" of Mary. This term can mean husband but it can also mean "man" or "father" (gowra means “protector” which can mean father, guardian, uncle, grandfather or husband). A few verses later the Aramaic uses a different word, “baalah”, when Matthew is talking about "Joseph, the husband of Mary". Baalah can “only” mean husband. Apparently Matthew was speaking of two different Joseph’s and wanted to make clear the difference by using different terms. The Joseph of verse 16 being the father of Mary solves all contradictions:

 

1. It explains why the genealogies are different: Matthew actually gives Mary's genealogy whereas Luke gives her husband Joseph's.
    
2. It provides the "missing" generation so that Matthew's structure of 14-14-14 is correct.
    
3. It shows that Mary really was a descendant of David, making Yeshua a legal heir to David's throne.

 

If all of this is not enough evidence for you, let’s look at an example of a Hebraic/Aramaic poetic writing style employed by Rav Shaul (Apostle Paul) in his letter to Timothy. This style of poetically transitioning between thoughts as well as transitioning from the Brit Chadasha to the Tanakh (Old Testament) and back to the Brit Chadasha could not be carried over into the Greek or the English. In fact, the deep meaning and poetic structure is completely lost in translation to Greek/English. This example is found in Andrew Gabriel Roth’s translation of the Aramaic English New Testament and his book, Ruach Qadim - Aramaic Origins Of The New Testament” pages 315-316.

 

Although Rav Shaul (Paul) is considered a less than fluent orator, his exceptional written communication skills are expressed through his ability to toggle poetic verbal parallels from the Tanakh (Old Testament) to his native Aramaic, and back again, without having to actually go into explanations and citations. This is a very Hebrew way of communicating.

 

I have taken the liberty of color coding Andrew’s example, using some paraphrasing, and added line numbers in parenthesis to help the reader follow along.

 

A Hebrew/Aramaic reader would immediately catch the poetry and parallel meanings that Paul was able to deliver through his powerful complex messages in short verses like this example in 1 Timothy 3:16.

 

Line numbers ( )

 

(1) w'sherirayt rab

And truly great
 

(2) haw arza hela d'kanota

is this divine mystery of righteousness

(3) d'atgli b'besra

It is revealed in the flesh

(4) w'atzaddaq b'rokh

Justified in the Spirit

(5) w'atkhazi l'malaka

Seen by angels

(6) w'atkeraz beyt amah

Preached to the Gentiles

(7) w'athaymin b'almah

Believed on in the world

(8) w'astadaq b'shubkha

And received up into glory

 

There are two words used for “righteousness”; the last word in line 2 (kanota) and the first word in line 4 (atzaddaq). Kanota also suggests “priest” even though their roots are slightly different (kan/khan). Rab, in line 1 means “high/great”. This lines up in the text as rab kanota/khana meaning “high priest”. In similar fashion atzaddaq is placed over malaka. In this case, malaka means angel/messenger. But it is spelled and pronounced almost identical to malak meaning “King”. When we arrange these words we have Malak + Atzaddaq = Melchizedec – the King of Salem.

 

This is a very deep Hebrew/Aramaic poetic pattern contrasting the Levitical rab khana (high priest) with Melchisedec whose priestly line Messiah represents.

 

Between these placements is a toggle phrase, atgli b’besra in line 3 which means “revealed in the flesh”. gali means “reveal” and it is also the homonym for Galilee – the place where Messiah was “revealed in the flesh”.

 

Other combinations are:

Atkhazi (seen)/Atkeraz (preached)
Beyt ammah (house of Gentiles/peoples)/B'almah (in the earth/land)

 

This last combination is reminiscent of:

 

I am going to take the Israelite people (ammah) from among the “nations” (Goyim/Gentiles) they have gone to, and gather them from every quarter, and bring them back to their own land (almah). I will make them a single nation (goy) in the land (almah).
Ezekiel 37:21-22

 

One final evidence is matching up the “vernacular” with its contemporaries. Again, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls identify the Aramaic Peshitta as being contemporary to that period using the same grammar, poetry and structures of the region.

 

So, the question arises, “Do you want to learn the truth based on the factual evidence, or do you just try to prove 'you' are right because your ‘pastor said so’ or because some “Biblical scholar” wrote to the contrary?” The Netzari never argue scriptures. We just put the truth before you and you must decide in your own heart whether you accept it or reject it.