You should get your facts straight


You mentioned (in Is “Christian” supposed to be “natsarim”?) that the New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew. That's partially true, as Epiphanius and others have documented there was a Hebrew Matthew.

Then you mentioned that Christian was a valid term based on the assumption that the New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.  Uhm, the term Christian is not Greek, it's English so, no, Christian was not used to describe the first-century believers, which by the way, were almost exclusively Jewish.

The term "Christian" was also a derogatory term created by the Romans. Nowhere in the Old or New Testament did God or Yeshua ever call His people, Christians. In fact, they were referred to as Israel.

Since you will be held accountable for the answers you give in His name, I would highly encourage you to actually know what you are talking about.


Your argument is inconsistent. You stated that the New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew was partially true and you then argued that Matthew was written in Hebrew. But then later argue against the term "Christian" because you believe the New Testament was written in Hebrew.

A very simple way to show that the New Testament (including Matthew) was not written in Hebrew is to note the frequent translation of Hebrew words and phrases into Greek. If the text was originally written in Hebrew, these translations would not be necessary. See Was the New Testament written in Greek or Aramaic?

You cite Epiphanius, a fourth-century writer, as evidence that Matthew (written 300 years earlier) was written in Hebrew.

"Epiphanius, who lived largely in Palestine, and wrote his treatise on heresies in the latter half of the 4th century, has much to say of the Ebionites, and the Nazarenes. Speaking of the Ebionites, he says they receive the "Gospel according to Matthew" to the exclusion of the others, mentioning that it alone of the New Testament books is in Hebrew speech and Hebrew characters, and is called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (Haer., xxx.3). He goes on to say, that their "Gospel according to Matthew," as it is named, is not complete but falsified and mutilated, "and they call it the Hebrew Gospel" (Haer., xxx. 13). The quotations which Epiphanius proceeds to make show that this Gospel diverges considerably from the canonical Gospel of Mt and may well be that according to the Hebrews. It is more likely that "the Gospel according to Matthew, very full, in Hebrew," of which Epiphanius speaks, when telling about the Nazarene, is the Hebrew "Gospel of Matthew" attested by Papias, Irenaeus, and a widespread early tradition. But as Epiphanius confesses he does not know whether it has the genealogies, it is clear he was not himself acquainted with the book." ["Hebrews, Gospel According to The" International Standard Bible Encyclopedia].

More information on this topic can be found in:

Regarding the use of the term "Christian," I made a detailed list of evidence in Was the term “Christian” originally a derogatory reference? But notice that once again you contradicted yourself. You said that since "Christian" is an English word, then it could not have been applied to the first-century followers of Christ. But then you said it was a term used against disciples by the Romans. You can't have it both ways. But then neither argument is correct.

What is particularly disappointing is that you originally referenced Is “Christian” supposed to be “natsarim”? Many of the proofs I gave here were mentioned in that article; yet, you clearly didn't bother to do your research or address any of the points previously made. This doesn't make you appear knowledgeable about the topics you want to address.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email