Why Greek?

[DeaconDan]

Again DeaconDan you do not see that the scriptures do not support your anti Israel/Jewish sentiment.
Paul ancestors were not from the kingdom of Israel that broke away from the kingdom of Judah. Pauls ancestors were from Benjamin which was part of the kingdom of Judah.

Sorry, my bad. This is speck in my eye. The log in your eye is that you responded to the last relevant comment I made and totally ignored and refused to respond to the relevant comment, the Ten Tribes are not being held captive anywhere.

[DeaconDan]

Maybe we should include this scripture showing that your premise and accusations are only founded on racial prejudice.

You accuse me of racial prejudice when you theology is built on racism.

[DeaconDan]

Again your denial and contradiction against the scriptures that tell us plainly how God felt about Ishmael and Isaac

You refuse to reply to New Testament scripture and you refuse to follow even simple logic. Your argument amounts to "God lied and broke his promise because he did not like Ishmael." The fact itself that Ishmael is not part of the Promise destroys your theology that the Promise was to Abraham's children. Even this most simple of logic baffles you.

Here God says that Isaac is Abrahams only son. Yet you push for Ishmael to be in that and call God a liar for saying that Isaac is Abrahams only son the son of promise because you want to eliminate the Jews from Gods plan.

You are saying is that "God is a liar, God is a liar!"

Maybe we should include this scripture showing that your premise and accusations are only founded on racial prejudice.

You also insist "God is a racist, God is a racist!" He favors a certain race, according to you. With my God, there is no Jew or Gentile. We are all one race. You call me racist for not being racist.

They asked Jesus when the Temple will be destroyed. Jesus answered within a generation. Less than 40 years later, it was destroyed just as Jesus predicted. Jesus told the truth.

They never asked when the temple would be destroyed, in fact it was Jesus that said to them

Luke 21 5Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6"As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down." 7"Teacher," they asked, "when will these things happen?

My mistake was irrelevant and I admitted to it. Your mistake is relevant, and it would be amazing to me if you admitted to it.

Can you see that you are not even using scripture to support your doctrine.

I have repeatedly quoted scripture and you have no power to respond to it.

And here is the crux of your doctrinal stand. The scriptures are not literal but just symbolic when you want them to be to support your doctrine.

I take everything this side of "stars falling to Earth" as literal, unless the text is clear that something is not literal. You, on the other hand, point to Old Testament verses about tents and horses and insist that it really does not mean tents and horses. I take the Bible more literally than you do. You want to interpret every prophesy that has been literally fulfilled as something that has not yet been fulfilled and will be non-literally fulfilled in the future.

Also maybe you will tell me how the human race recognizes meteors as falling stars.

Meteors are not stars. Jesus might have meant stars non-literally, which would open up meteors, anything that has some resemblance to a star. I can accept that without accusing Jesus of being ignorant. Maybe there were meteors that streaked through the sky that served as warning of the coming Roman attack.

The book of Esther also records the fate of Haman, the anti- Semitic Persian, who tried to destroy the Jews of Persia centuries ago: "So they hanged Haman on the gallows he had prepared for Mordecai the Jew" (Esther 7:10).

Yet, The Assyrians crushed the kingdom of Israel without a problem. The Romans crushed Judea, and even if Rome were born that day, it would still qualify as one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen. Look at how the Arab world prospers compared to that welfare case called Israel. Maybe this contradiction could be resolved if you knew who Israel is, even though I have quoted scripture to show you. Instead of opening your eyes, you will just call me racist.

Yet you would deny this by saying that only the Church inherits Gods promises. That the Jews don’t count any more because God threw them away.

Hello, you must be reading someone else's posts. I did not say God changed his mind or changed his people. I reject is your Dual Covenant theology. God's people have always been the same and he has only one people.

[Richard_1]

DeaconDan wrote

Sorry, my bad. This is speck in my eye. The log in your eye is that you responded to the last relevant comment I made and totally ignored and refused to respond to the relevant comment, the Ten Tribes are not being held captive anywhere.

Unlike the Kingdom of Judah, which was able to return from its Babylonian Captivity, the ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom never had a foreign edict granting permission to return and rebuild their homeland. The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel refers to the ancient Tribes of Israel that disappeared from the Biblical account after the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed, enslaved and exiled by ancient Assyria. The northern 10 Tribes were taken captive and deported. Some 2 centuries later, Judah was also exiled to Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem. Gradually, over the next few centuries, the 10 Tribes integrated with the other nations and disappeared as an identifiable nation, while Judah Returned to Jerusalem after 70 years of exile.

DeaconDan wrote

You accuse me of racial prejudice when you theology is built on racism.

My theology is built on what the scriptures write about Israel. How that Israel will be nation (Genesis 12:2, Genesis 35:10, Exodus 19:6)about how Israel will be the people of God (Deuteronomy 27:9, Deuteronomy 28:9), how Israel will bring forth the Messiah (Daniel 9:25-26), how Israel will be the last people of God to be recognized as a nation unto God (Revelation 7:4).

DeaconDan wrote

You refuse to reply to New Testament scripture and you refuse to follow even simple logic. Your argument amounts to "God lied and broke his promise because he did not like Ishmael." The fact itself that Ishmael is not part of the Promise destroys your theology that the Promise was to Abraham's children.

Yet scripture plainly states that God did not accept Ishmael as Abrahams son of Promise

Genesis 17:19-21 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

DeaconDan wrote

You also insist "God is a racist, God is a racist!" He favors a certain race, according to you.

No it is according to scripture that God chose a certain race to represent him to the world.

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

DeaconDan wrote

I have repeatedly quoted scripture and you have no power to respond to it

Well so far in this thread you have quoted scripture about 30 times and half of that was quoting what I had posted and I have posted 95 scriptures.

DeaconDan wroter

Look at how the Arab world prospers compared to that welfare case called Israel. Maybe this contradiction could be resolved if you knew who Israel is, even though I have quoted scripture to show you. Instead of opening your eyes, you will just call me racist.

Does this statement not speak as racist.

[Theophilus]

Why did the NT writers all write in Greek? I can understand why Paul would write in Greek as his letters were generally to congregations in the Greek-speaking world, but why did the other authors use it?

I think it just shows how widespread Greek as a language had become; even Paul was writing primarily to Jewish converts rather than Gentiles, yet as you say he used Greek.

The use of Greek as a lingua franca, even among Jews, developed long before Christ was born - it is a legacy of Alexander the Great's conquests. The widespread use of Greek is one of the reasons why the Septuagint (LXX) was produced between the 3rd and 1st century BC. A Greek translation of the Scriptures was needed because many Jews used Greek as their primary language.

Although there is certainly no contradictions between Hebrew and Greek versions of the OT, there are differences, and those differences do suggest the Greek to be a clearer revelation. The primary example is Isaiah 7:14; in the Hebrew scriptures it states "a young woman will conceive", whereas the Greek LXX is explicit: "a virgin will conceive." As such, the LXX came to be seen as a divinely inspired translation, and in some ways a clearer revelation than the Hebrew Scriptures (at the very least superior to the Hebrew versions of Scriptures present at the time).

Jewish scholars Philo and Josephus both assigned divine inspiration to the translators of the LXX. More importantly for Christians, the Apostles quote verbatim from the LXX in their writings, and as such so do the Christian Theologians who come after them.

Added to this the fact that all the oldest surviving NT writings are in Greek, I have to say that there must be God's providence at work here. I am not suggesting Greek is a "holy" language in the same way Muslims believe Arabic to be the purest language for the Qu'ran, however the Father decided before the foundation of the world when His Son would come to earth, and He chose a time when Greek was the most widely spoken language in and around Jerusalem. Either way, Greek allowed the Gospel to spread among both the Jews and the Gentiles, both inside and outside the Roman Empire.

[DeaconDan]

More importantly for Christians, the Apostles quote verbatim from the LXX in their writings, and as such so do the Christian Theologians who come after them.

The New Testament was written in Greek. Using the LXX would have saved the writers from themselves needing to translate when they quoted scripture. I would accept this reasoning before I would accept the inspired superiority of the LXX, which strikes me as a kind of KJV-only thinking.

As for young woman vs. virgin, the Hebrew word could have easily implied virginity (the word is never used in reference to someone who clearly is not a virgin). It is probable that native speakers of primitive Hebrew more than 2000 years ago who translated for the LXX had a better understanding of the word than we do today.

The New Testament would have been written in Greek because the Gospel is not Jewish. The rapid spread of the Gospel was part of the plan (to the "whole world" before 70AD). Writing in Greek was the most natural choice for this goal.

[eddybear]

Thank you for your reply, Theophilus, and welcome to the forum. Are you by any chance Orthodox? Just wondering, given your avatar and knowledge of this subject.

[Richard_1]

Deacon Dan wrote

The New Testament would have been written in Greek because the Gospel is not Jewish.

Your perception of the Gospel is limited and flawed. The scriptures are quite clear that the Gospel was of Jewish origin. Jesus who is the Gospel (good news of God) was a Jew and His purpose was to bring the Gospel to the Jew first because the Gospel was intended for the Jew

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The only reason the Greeks or Gentiles were given the Gospel was because the Jews rejected their Messiah but that doesn’t mean that the root of the Gospel wasn’t intended for the Jew and is of Jewish origin.

Your continued replacement theology is aptly seen in these statement and your preterist view is also on display

Deacon Dan wrote
The rapid spread of the Gospel was part of the plan (to the "whole world" before 70AD).

[Chuckt]

Why did the NT writers all write in Greek? I can understand why Paul would write in Greek as his letters were generally to congregations in the Greek-speaking world, but why did the other authors use it? For instance, Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and Matthew's gospel has a Jewish feel to it. So wouldn't it have made sense for them to write in Hebrew / Aramaic?

The Jews lost their language due to two captivities and some argue they had to re learn their language. The LXX or Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures for Greek speaking Jews.

On pain of death, Jewish scholars (see also Hellenistic Judaism) first translated the Torah into Koine Greek in the third century BCE[6]. According to the record in the Talmud,

Septuagint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Lily]

I'm bumping this one up because I thought Origen would like to get his teeth into this one.