Replies

.
Qabbalah has absolutely nothing to do with the scriptures, and no Pharisee sage has ever had any respect for Torah.

They actively defie Torah with their Takanot. (literally changing the message of Torah against itself)

Qabbalah is literally the opposite path to Yeshua’s way.

Matthew 23 (in the original Hebrew, and if it is not presented in Hebrew, it is not scripture) is a total demolition of all that the Pharisees practiced.
.

Matthew 23 (in the original Hebrew, and if it is not presented in Hebrew, it is not scripture)

That's an interesting opinion you have there.

It's seems pretty strange to me, but maybe I'm just missing something. Before I get to my questions let me state a few facts as I understand them, maybe I'm wrong about some of these:

Most people who read Hebrew are Jewish
Most people who care about Matthew and the New Testament are Christians.
only a very tiny percent of all the Christians in the world converted from Judaism.
and, only a very tiny percent of all the Christians in the world read Hebrew
The first extant copies of the New Testament, dating to the first century, are in Koine Greek, not Hebrew.

So where do you come about you belief that the New Testament much be translated into Hebrew to be "real scripture"?

I know that Moslems hold that the Koran was dictated to Mohammed in Arabic by an angel, and that therefore each word in the Koran is the sacred word of God, and if you translate it, it is no longer the Koran, but rather only a translation of the Koran. That's one reason that Islam encourages people to learn Arabic, and one reason that Islam is often seen as a very powerful program to encourage Arabization of other cultures. That is a tool of cultural colonization.

Christianity (ie: New Testament) could perhaps have been said to have been a tool of the Roman Empire in a similar way. Latin was pretty important to the early church.

One of the big breakthroughs of the Reformation, I have always been taught, was that it removed the need for "the common people" to either learn Latin or receive teachings from the Priests and Bishops. To use a modern term: the Reformation "disintermediated" Christianity. And of course the Catholics took a while but eventually (Vatican II) followed suit, and mostly replaced latin with local languages for everyone.

Your claim (if I'm not reading too much into it) suggests that you profoundly disagree with this trend, and take a dim view of translations of the Bible (other than into Hebrew).

To read an untranslated Bible doesn't it need to be in Koine Greek for the New Testament and Hebrew for most of the Old?

Is the use of Hebrew that your feel similar to the use of Arabic by devout Moslems?