Originally Posted by Amaleq13

This belief is held by some because Eusebius tells us that Papias made that claim about a Gospel connected to Matthew but most experts do not find this claim supported by the actual text. It appears to them to have been originally written in Greek.

Originally Posted by thentian

Look, you can't support the verses under discussion with themselves! I obviously meant some other verses than the very ones we are discussing! Grr! Additionally, I must remind you of what you yourself wrote in post #971: "Angel means messenger. A messenger can be a man." It is not at all clear that the women in Luke 24:23 think they have seen an actual angel. They report having had a vision of a messenger. I'm sure you'll agree that God can use normal humans as messengers. We have no reason to think that these messengers were anything more.

Acts 12:15 doesn't work for you. When Peter knocks on the door, some superstitious men inside thinks it must be "the angel of Peter" knocking. It would seem they are afraid there is some kind of spectre or ghost outside, trying to get in. Peter is obviously not an angel, but the men mistakenly thinks it is some kind of supernatural being. Therefore they use the word ἄγγελος (angelos) but not even in the meaning of an "angel from God"! What you need is an example of an actual heavenly angel being referred to as "man" or "young man" (with or without white/dazzling robe). Preferably in Mark or Luke/Acts, and not these verses we are discussing! Best would be Mark, since he is most at odds with your harmonization attempt.

Once again you make this claim: "Mark and Luke did not write to Jews and their readers were not going to draw from the same knowledge of these descriptions." Yet, I have shown you before many verses where Mark simply uses ἄγγελος (or variations thereof). It would seem, then, that his readers do know what an angel is, or at least Mark assumes they do. Would you like some examples of the same from Luke? I can give you many, if you like.

The idioms of Hebrew and Greek are not the same. Therefore it is not very convincing when you show that an expression in Hebrew denotes some specific thing, when we are discussing how that something is expressed in greek. Granted; angels can take on the appearance of mortal men, but remember: according to Matthew, the angel had the "appearance of lightning." Did he write that just because Ezekiel and Daniel wrote something similar, or because that's what it actually looked like?

Finally, I would really appreciate it if you could answer my question from the previous post:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, if that is the case, if all the oldest ancient versions of the NT are found in languages that do not include any Hebrew language, can I form an hypothesis about to whom and when it was written?





Again, this is just speculation. Can you provide credible information that gMatthew was translated to Greek from some other language.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

'It' refers to the Septuagint which was only written in Greek.

Originally Posted by thentian

Again, of that earthquake and the zombies there is just one account. Events of that magnitude could and should have been mentioned by several of them. Matthew is not even supported by his fellow evangelists, let alone by neutral or indifferent observers like Josephus, Pliny, Philo, or Tacitus. Hostile or unreliable accounts could have mentioned it for their own purposes or to support their own whacky theories. There is nothing.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

You are confusing language with audience. I did not say Matthew wrote in hebrew. I said he wrote to Hebrews. He wrote it in Greek. The language is not what makes it obvious that it was written to Jews.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

If I find a book with pop-ups and very colorful, in ENGLISH about US Presidents, can I form a hypothesis about to whom and when it was written?

Originally Posted by sschlichter

It [gMatthew] was translated into the Greek so Jews that were Hellenized could read it.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

This is the same reason the Septuagint was translated. Jews reading Greek. Are you with me now?

Originally Posted by aChristian

Again, we have one reliable account. That is all that is necessary to establish it as fact.

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are contradicting yourself. Earlier, you implied that language was relevant to audience, now you have flip-flopped. You appear to be making stuff up.



And


Again, mis-leading information. The Septuagint was not written for Hellenized Jews, that is not the reason.

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are contradicting yourself. Earlier, you implied that language was relevant to audience, now you have flip-flopped. You appear to be making stuff up.



And


Again, mis-leading information. The Septuagint was not written for Hellenized Jews, that is not the reason.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Also, I would appreciate that when quoting me, you do not add to the quote. You have made it appear that I added [gMatthew] defining the it. It is obvious from my original post that I was referring to the Septuagint. Please do not attribute to me by adding quotes and then alter the quote. That is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE.

~Steve

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Matthew described the angels more specifically because he was writing to a Jewish audience.........

Originally Posted by sschlichter

.... I did not say Matthew wrote in hebrew. I said he wrote to Hebrews. He wrote it in Greek...