[HossB86]

There have been many who try to use that Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew. None have been able to prove it. Everyone of them has backed Aramaic into the Greek text to try to make their case.

Not surprised there, CB; typical. If you can't prove it simply and outright, twist it, turn it, pull it inside-out, or just lie.... take your choice(s). I remember reading one commentary (Matthew Henry, maybe) who said something to the effect that until Rome started with it's garbage, this verse was pretty much understood to say what it says; it's only after Rome started trying to twist the meaning that things get hairy.

Yeah... no problem until the 16th century. Sure.

Problems started when Rome needed "proof" for its lies.

Hoss

[CynicalBear]

>>Problems started when Rome needed "proof" for its lies.<<

Yep! Like including the apocrypha to justify false beliefs. The Catholic Church added it to what the Jews, who had been entrusted with the oracles of God, considered scripture. They then try to blame Protestants for removing them.