Christianity and the End Times

quote:

---

Since the New Testament was written in Greek by Jesus' disciples it wouldn't make sense that He didn't also speak Greek. It was the common language of the day even if local areas had their own languages as well

---

Aramaic was the dominant spoken language of that region. Most of the NT was written decades later, most (perhaps all) of it by people who weren’t among the disciples. There simply is no basis for the idea that Jesus would have spoken Greek all the time.

quote:

---

Again, since the New Testament was written in Greek by Jewish fishermen and tax collectors it had to be the common language and Jesus must have spoken it.

---

That wouldn’t follow even if the premise were true. And it isn’t.

OK, you are of course following the revisuionist modern "scholars" who deny everything traditionalists believe, of course, of course, just as you did with Deniel, which makes discussion with you, well, let's just say "difficult." All the writers of the New Testament were disciples of Christ, even the couple who weren't actually with him in His lifetime, meaning Luke and Paul. The rest all knew Him personally. And the New Testament was written within the first century. But go ahead, you like the revisionists and I'm not up to arguing with you about all that twisted nonsense, so I hope I can resist the temptation to get into another futile discussion with you.

I know that you never like it when people prefer the truth - or at least the best attempt at it - to your beliefs. But that is simply your problem and getting angry about it won’t help you.

Luke makes some major changes.I will just point out that Luke is usually dated to after 70AD, while Mark may be as early as 60AD. This may explain the differences.The first sections with the signs of the end and the persecution of the disciples are mostly the same. Although Luke does add a warning not to follow those who teach that the time is near (21:8). Oddly Luke does not say that the Temple will be destroyed within a generation here - that gets left to the parable of the fig tree.The first big change is to lose the Abomination of Desolation (why?)
Instead the sign to run away is when armies surround Jerusalem. Which is better than waiting until the armies are over the last wall, but still a little late. The people are meant to leave the city (with an army in the way?) and everyone outside is supposed to stay outside (they need Jesus to tell them that?).(What seems to be envisaged in Mark and Matthew is that pagan worship, or at least the installation of an idol - like the statue of Caligula that was planned but never came to pass - would be instituted before things got too bad. That obviously didn’t happen, but it makes more sense than even Luke’s version.)The passage ends with the people of the city being taken away as captives - and the city controlled by gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.Next there are the heavenly signs and the Son of Man coming in the clouds. When the (surviving) disciples see those, they can expect to be redeemed.This is followed by the parable of the Fig Tree, and the exhortation to watch because the end will be sudden. The parable includes Jesus stating the the end will come in the present generation (21:32J.Again it is all set in our distant past. Although it may be stretched out a little by allowing the times of the Gentiles to intervene after the fall of Jerusalem it still ought to happen within the generation living at the time of Jesus’ ministry.The Olivet Discourse, then, is another failed end times prophecy. In both versions.

Really, Faith?What language do traditionalist believe that Jesus spoke most of the time?

I don't know what traditionalists believe about that. But if you think Aramaic then you have th assume that's what all the disciples spoke too, and if they wrote in Greek what sense would that make? Perhaps they were all fluently bilingual, but then Jesus would also have been fluently bilingual.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well aside from the fact that they probably didn’t write in Greek, if they did it would have been decades later and they would have had time to learn.What sense does it make to assume that people who spoke Aramaic as their native language would use any other language in speaking among themselves ?

They wrote the New Testament and they wrote it in the first century. Koine Greek was what everybody spoke, it was the "lingua franca." That is the reason the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek years earlier, because that was the common language of the day. They probably also spoke Aramaic because that was the language of Galilee, but they definitely wrote in Greek. This is the truth, you are believing revisionist lies.

I understand that you are really determined to have things your way. But that doesn’t make people who disagree revisionists or liars.The fact is that the Jews of Judaea - and Galilee predominantly spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

I've found sources that support your assertion. Lets look at one of them and follow their footnotes.
Zondervan AcademicThis article appears well written, quoting from various sources and making a strong case that supports Greek being spoken in certain settings and contexts. Aramaic was, of course, the native language, and this article suggests that Aramaic was likely the common language of the peopleWe can conclude that Jesus likely spoke Aramaic more than Greek if He knew Greek at all.

How then did the disciples write the Greek New Testament? And why on earth would they speak any differently than Jesus did?

Maybe that's a hint that they didn't?

The New Testament was written for a predominantly Gentile Church, so Greek would be more appropriate.If the disciples wrote any of it, then they had the opportunity to learn Greek or to get someone to help them.The question of why they would speak differently makes no sense, since they would have been speaking Aramaic, too.

There is a controversy for sure, and in this link, the second commentator, John Allister, BA Theology, University of Oxford (2008), seems to argue for the likelihood, whereas the first commentator dismisses it. All of us have to rely on outside sources to bolster our arguments...the only question being whether we can likely trust the academic discipline and lack of ulterior motive from these sources. In my source, I would argue that the first commentator had a bias similar to the critical thinkers here at EvC, whereas the second commentator had no motive other than to argue common sense. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I would argue that you tend to be biased, much as I am the other way. Read my link above and compare the first comment from the second. The first sounds similar to your arguments, the second is the one I of course embrace.