In this section you can write a comment with any question you may have about Christianity, and we, within our capabilities, will give you an answer.
If you are a Catholic but need clarification, if you are a Protestant and you think you must correct a Catholic error, if you are an agnostic who has not give up in your search for the truth, or if you are simply a Christian but have questions or want to dig deeper, do not be afraid and ask.
When Thomas saw Jesus and still doubted, Jesus did not just reproach him for his lack of faith; he took his hand and asked him to put his finger into his wound. This is how faith problems are resolved, addressing them directly instead of trying to ignore it for fear of losing faith… or discovering it.
Leave your question below (it will be published after review):
Please maintain a respectful tone; offensive comments or those in all caps will be ignored. We appreciate it if you indicate your religion or denomination to help us better focus our response.
previous users’ questions
-
When was the formal title of Pope first officially bestowed on the Bishops of Rome?
LikeLike
-
1️⃣ Context of the Question
The primacy of Peter and of the Bishops of Rome is rooted in the very beginning of the Church, but the formal title developed over time. Understanding when the word “Pope” (Papa) became an official and exclusive title does not mean the papal office itself started then; the authority existed long before.
2️⃣ Origin of the Title “Pope”
✅ Early Meaning: The word Papa comes from the Greek pappas, meaning “father.” In the early centuries (3rd century), it was a respectful term applied to bishops in general, not only to the Bishop of Rome.
✅ Exclusive Use for Rome: By the 6th century, the term was already commonly used almost exclusively for the Bishop of Rome. Pope Gregory the Great (590–604) was widely called “Pope,” though he preferred to sign himself servus servorum Dei (“servant of the servants of God”).
✅ Formal Reservation: The title was officially reserved for the Bishop of Rome in the 11th century by Pope Gregory VII (Dictatus Papae, 1075). From that time onward, “Pope” became a title exclusively for the successor of Peter in Rome.
3️⃣ Does a Late Title Mean a Late Office?
✅ Not at all. The formalization of a title does not create the reality it expresses. For example, the word “Trinity” was defined much later, but the Triune God is present in Scripture from the beginning.
✅ Likewise, the primacy of Rome is witnessed in the earliest centuries:
– Around A.D. 107, St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke of the Church of Rome as the one “that presides in love.”
– St. Irenaeus (2nd century) said all Churches must agree with Rome because of its preeminent authority.
– Clement of Rome (late 1st century) intervened with authority in Corinth, something no other local bishop would presume to do.➖ Conclusion ➖
The formal and exclusive use of the title “Pope” was established in the 11th century, but it had been commonly associated with the Bishop of Rome since the 6th century and used as a respectful term for bishops since the 3rd century. Most importantly, the authority this title signifies goes back to Peter himself, to whom Christ gave the mission to be the rock and shepherd of the whole Church (Matthew 16:18; John 21:15-17).LikeLike
-
-
When Were the Gospels Written?
LikeLike
-
The dating of the Gospels is not just a matter of historical curiosity; it has deep implications for their reliability and authenticity as eyewitness testimonies of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
1️⃣ Why the Dating Matters
If the Gospels were written decades after the events, skeptics argue, they could have been corrupted by legend or myth. But if they were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses, then their historical reliability is much stronger.
The evidence—both internal and external—points to the fact that the Gospels were written relatively early, well within the first century, while eyewitnesses were still alive.
2️⃣ The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
✅ Mark is generally considered the earliest, likely written in the late 50s or early 60s A.D. Early Church Fathers, like Papias, attest that Mark wrote based on Peter’s preaching in Rome.
✅ Luke was written shortly after, in the early 60s A.D. The Acts of the Apostles (Luke’s second volume) ends abruptly with Paul still alive under house arrest (around 62 A.D.), strongly suggesting it was written before his death.
✅ Matthew is often dated in the 60s or early 70s A.D., though some scholars argue for even earlier. Early Christian tradition firmly attributes it to the Apostle Matthew, writing first in Aramaic or Hebrew for a Jewish audience.
3️⃣ The Gospel of John
John is usually placed later, in the 90s A.D., written by the Apostle John when he was elderly. However, even this late date still falls within the lifetime of eyewitnesses (John himself being one). Moreover, fragments of John’s Gospel (like the famous Rylands Papyrus, P52) have been dated to around 125 A.D., confirming it was circulating very early.
4️⃣ Testimony of the Early Church
The early Church Fathers unanimously affirmed apostolic authorship. Writers like Irenaeus (c. 180 A.D.) claimed that Matthew and John were written by apostles themselves, while Mark and Luke were close companions of Peter and Paul, respectively.
This early and consistent testimony contradicts the modern skeptical idea that the Gospels are late, anonymous works compiled by unknown communities.
➖ Conclusion ➖
All evidence—historical, textual, and archaeological—supports that the Gospels were written in the first century, within living memory of the events. This means that the accounts of Jesus’ life were not distant legends but written testimony grounded in eyewitness memory and apostolic authority.
LikeLike
-
-
Do Luke 1:48 and Luke 11:27-28 contradict each other?
LikeLike
-
No, Luke 1:48 and Luke 11:27–28 do not contradict each other. On the contrary, they work together to reveal the full depth of Mary’s greatness and her unique role in salvation history.
1️⃣ What Luke 1:48 Says
In Luke 1:48, Mary proclaims in her Magnificat:
“From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Almighty has done great things for me.”
This verse is a prophecy and a recognition of Mary’s special role: she is the Mother of God (Theotokos), chosen and graced by God in a unique way. The Church calls her “blessed among women” (Luke 1:42) not for her own merit alone, but because of the singular grace she received to become the mother of the Redeemer.
2️⃣ What Luke 11:27–28 Says
In Luke 11:27–28, a woman in the crowd exclaims:
“Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!”
And Jesus replies:
“Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”Some interpret this as Jesus downplaying Mary’s role. But that misses the point. Jesus is not rejecting His mother’s blessedness; He is clarifying the reason for it. Mary is not blessed merely because she bore and nursed Him, but because she heard the word of God and kept it — perfectly.
3️⃣ Far From a Rejection — It’s a Confirmation
Jesus’s response in Luke 11:28 actually affirms Mary’s greatness. Who more than Mary heard the word of God (literally, through the angel Gabriel) and kept it (Luke 1:38)? She responded with perfect obedience: “Let it be done unto me according to your word.” She is the model disciple, the first Christian, and the one who kept all things in her heart (Luke 2:19, 2:51).
4️⃣ Two Sides of the Same Coin
Luke 1:48 emphasizes Mary’s public recognition as “blessed,” while Luke 11:28 gives the reason for that blessedness: obedience to God’s word. There is no contradiction. Rather, these two passages together highlight both the external honor due to Mary and the interior holiness that made her worthy of such a role.
➖ Conclusion ➖
Luke 1:48 and Luke 11:27–28 do not oppose each other but complement one another. Mary is truly “blessed among women” not just because she bore Jesus, but because she received God’s word with perfect faith and obedience. Jesus’s words reaffirm her true greatness — a greatness rooted not just in biology, but in holiness.LikeLike
-
-
Physical attractiveness in both men and women can fade over time, so what should Christians do who no longer feel attraction to their spouses or are attracted to other people?
LikeLike
-
1️⃣ The Nature of Christian Marriage
Christian marriage is not primarily based on physical attraction, but on a covenant of love and fidelity. When we marry, we promise to love our spouse “for better or for worse,” which includes times when beauty fades or feelings change. Love in marriage is rooted in the will—choosing the good of the other—more than in passing emotions.
2️⃣ Rediscovering True Love
Attraction may fade, but genuine love can deepen over time if we cultivate it.
✅ True love grows when we serve, forgive, and sacrifice for our spouse. These acts strengthen the bond far more than physical beauty ever could.
✅ Focus on your spouse’s deeper qualities: their kindness, faith, patience, and all the virtues that make them unique. Remember why you married them in the first place.
✅ Pray together and for each other. Grace can heal coldness in a marriage and rekindle tenderness.
3️⃣ Guarding the Heart
Being attracted to other people is a temptation, but Christians are called to reject sin at its root.
✅ Jesus teaches clearly: “Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)
✅ We must control our thoughts and avoid feeding fantasies. Temptation loses strength when we deliberately turn away from it.
✅ Confession and prayer are powerful helps against these struggles.
4️⃣ A Call to Holiness in Marriage
Marriage is a path to holiness. God uses the challenges of living with another person—yes, even when attraction fades—to purify our hearts and teach us real, Christ-like love. By remaining faithful, we give witness to God’s unbreakable love for His Church.
5️⃣ Practical Steps to Rekindle Love
For those who feel this is more than a theory and are personally struggling, here are simple but powerful steps to rebuild affection:
✅ Spend intentional time together. Share activities you both enjoy or rediscover old hobbies. Emotional closeness grows with shared experiences.
✅ Speak words of gratitude daily. Tell your spouse one or two things you truly appreciate about them, even small things. Gratitude softens the heart.
✅ Make small, loving gestures—smiling, gentle touches, thoughtful acts of service. Tenderness often awakens feelings of love again.
✅ Pray for the grace to love your spouse as Christ loves the Church. Even if feelings do not immediately return, choosing to love eventually transforms the heart.
✅ Seek spiritual guidance if necessary. A wise priest, a Christian counselor, or a marriage retreat can provide support when personal efforts seem insufficient.
➖ Conclusion ➖
Attraction may come and go, but Christian marriage is built on something far deeper: a promise before God to love faithfully. When we persevere, love matures into something more beautiful than youth or physical beauty—it becomes a reflection of Christ’s own love, which never fades.
And if this is not just a theoretical question but a real struggle for you, do not hesitate to seek help from a priest or a Christian counselor. God’s grace works through prayer, but also through the wise support of others.
LikeLike
-
-
Did Jesus have Mary’s DNA or was Mary Jesus’ surrogate mother?
LikeLike
-
Thanks for the question — it touches on a very deep mystery: how Jesus could be truly God and truly man, and what role Mary played in that.
✝️ The answer is: Yes, Jesus truly had Mary’s DNA.
She was not a surrogate, but His real biological mother.The Church has always taught that Jesus took His human nature entirely from Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit. He had no human father. There was no male seed. But that doesn’t mean He had no genetic link to Mary. Quite the opposite: He took His flesh from hers.
📖 That’s why Scripture speaks so clearly:
“Born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4) — not carried by her, but born from her.
The angel tells Mary: “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son” (Luke 1:31). Not host a son — bear your own son.
👶 So Jesus did not appear in Mary’s womb like an adopted child placed there by God.
He was conceived in her womb, from her own substance, formed from her humanity.🧬 Would modern science say Jesus had Mary’s DNA?
We can’t know the technical details — it’s a mystery, not a lab experiment. But theologically, yes: His body was truly and fully taken from Mary.
She didn’t just carry Him: she gave Him His humanity.📌 That’s why we call her Theotokos — Mother of God.
Not just a vessel. Not just a channel.
But truly His mother, in every real and meaningful sense.LikeLike
-
-
Does it make any difference whether you are a Latin rite Catholic or an Eastern rite Catholic?
LikeLike
-
Yes, it does make a difference, but not in the way people often assume. Both Latin and Eastern Catholics are fully Catholic, united under the same Pope, share the same faith and sacraments, and are in full communion. However, there are legitimate and meaningful differences in liturgy, discipline, and spiritual emphasis.
1️⃣ One Church, Many Expressions
The Catholic Church is not monolithic in practice. While Latin (or Roman) Catholics are the majority, there are 23 Eastern Catholic Churches (like the Maronite, Byzantine, Chaldean, Melkite, etc.) with their own ancient liturgical traditions and spiritual customs. They all profess the same Catholic faith and are equally part of the one Church founded by Christ.2️⃣ Liturgy and Spirituality
The most noticeable difference is in the liturgy. Eastern Catholic liturgies (like the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) are generally more elaborate, with different chants, vestments, and calendar. They emphasize the mystery and transcendence of God, while the Latin Rite has historically emphasized order, clarity, and doctrinal precision.✅ Eastern spirituality often focuses on theosis (divinization), seeing salvation as participation in the divine life.
✅ Western spirituality tends to highlight grace, redemption, and the satisfaction of divine justice.
Both approaches are complementary, not contradictory.
3️⃣ Disciplines and Practices
Eastern Catholics may have married priests (though bishops must be celibate), fast on different days, and administer the sacraments differently—like giving Confirmation (Chrismation) and Eucharist at Baptism, even for infants.None of this affects doctrine. These are disciplinary differences approved by the Church and part of her rich diversity.
4️⃣ Misunderstandings and Identity
Some Latin Catholics mistakenly see Eastern Catholics as “half Orthodox,” or think they are somehow “less Catholic.” Others wrongly assume Eastern Catholics are “Latin Catholics with different decorations.” Both views are mistaken.Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox—they are in communion with the Pope. Nor are they Latin Catholics—they preserve distinct traditions, theology, and law within the one Catholic Church.
➖ Conclusion ➖
Being Latin or Eastern does make a difference in how we live and experience the Catholic faith, but not in what we believe. It’s like speaking different dialects of the same language. Unity in doctrine and authority, diversity in expression—this is one of the great strengths of the Catholic Church.LikeLike
-
-
Is there any historical evidence of Peter being in Rome during apostolic times?
LikeLike
-
Yes, there is historical evidence—both direct and indirect—that the Apostle Peter was in Rome during apostolic times.
1️⃣ Testimony of Early Christian Writings
Multiple early Christian sources affirm Peter’s presence and martyrdom in Rome. These include:
✅ Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), who wrote about the “sufferings” of Peter and Paul in Rome.
✅ Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD), who referred to the Roman Church as “presiding in love,” a likely reference to its apostolic foundation.
✅ Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 180 AD), who explicitly stated that Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome and handed over the episcopal office to Linus.
✅ Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170 AD), who wrote that Peter and Paul taught in Italy and were martyred in Rome.2️⃣ Archaeological Evidence
Archaeology also lends weight to the tradition:
✅ Excavations under St. Peter’s Basilica in the 20th century uncovered a necropolis and a shrine believed to be Peter’s tomb.
✅ Inscriptions and second-century graffiti refer to Peter’s name with veneration, supporting the belief that he was buried there.3️⃣ Counterpoints Addressed
Some skeptics argue that the New Testament does not mention Peter’s journey to Rome. However:
✅ The New Testament is not a travelogue; its silence does not imply absence.
✅ Peter’s reference to “Babylon” in 1 Peter 5:13 is widely understood by early Christians and scholars as a code for Rome.
✅ The unanimous testimony of the early Church Fathers cannot be dismissed without substantial counter-evidence, which critics fail to provide.4️⃣ Importance for the Church
Peter’s presence in Rome is more than historical curiosity; it underpins the Church’s understanding of apostolic succession and the primacy of the Roman See. The continuity of leadership from Peter to the bishops of Rome is a cornerstone of Catholic ecclesiology.➖ Conclusion ➖
While Scripture doesn’t spell it out, the convergence of patristic testimony, historical tradition, and archaeological findings makes it very clear: Peter was in Rome and was martyred there. This fact is not just a point of history but a foundation of the Catholic Church’s understanding of the papacy and apostolic authority.LikeLike
-
How can we be sure that Peter founded the Church of Rome?
The church of Rome had already been founded when Peter arrived in Rome?
LikeLike
-
We can totally be sure. We have an article explaining that in detail. It is not in English yet, but here you can read an automatic translation: https://apologia21-com.translate.goog/2012/11/12/estuvo-pedro-en-roma-nacimiento-de-la-iglesia-romana/?_x_tr_sl=es&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=es&_x_tr_pto=wapp
LikeLike
-
-
Historically when was the bishop of Rome recognized as having authority over all churches, or the first account of this in the church fathers?
LikeLike
-
The authority of the Bishop of Rome over all the churches was not a later invention, but a reality rooted in the apostolic foundation of the Church and clearly visible from the very first century.
1️⃣ Clement of Rome and the Church in Corinth
Around 96 AD, Pope Clement I wrote to the Church in Corinth to resolve serious internal disputes. What’s striking is:
✅ The Corinthians had their own bishop, yet they turned to Rome for guidance, skipping closer churches like Ephesus. This shows they recognized Rome’s authority.
✅ Clement does not speak as a mere fraternal advisor; he gives directives with apostolic gravity, as someone who has authority to restore order.
✅ Most tellingly, according to Eusebius (Church History 4.23), the Corinthians received the letter with joy and continued reading it in their liturgy for generations—hardly the reaction of a church being illegitimately bossed around.2️⃣ Early Recognition of Roman Primacy
✅ Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) describes the Roman Church as “presiding in love,” a phrase that, in ancient usage, pointed to real authority, not just honor.
✅ Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 180 AD) stated that every Church must agree with Rome because of its “preeminent authority” (Against Heresies 3.3.2). This wasn’t poetic flattery—it was theology and ecclesiology.
✅ From these testimonies, it is clear: Rome’s authority was not self-proclaimed; it was received and respected throughout the Christian world.3️⃣ The Exercise of Authority in the Third Century
As the Church grew and challenges arose, Rome’s role as arbiter of orthodoxy became more visible:
✅ Pope Victor I (late 2nd century) attempted to settle the date of Easter universally—an effort that, although controversial, shows the expectation that Rome could settle disputes.
✅ Pope Stephen I (mid-3rd century) insisted on Rome’s practice in disputes about baptism, citing his succession from Peter.
✅ Even Cyprian of Carthage, who defended the independence of bishops, acknowledged that the bishop of Rome occupies the cathedra Petri—the chair of Peter himself.4️⃣ Councils and the Voice of Peter
✅ By the 5th century, the role of the Pope was fully evident. At the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), when Pope Leo I’s Tome was read aloud, the bishops responded: “Peter has spoken through Leo!”
✅ This wasn’t rhetoric—it was a recognition that the Pope, as Peter’s successor, spoke with apostolic authority.➖ Conclusion ➖
The idea that Roman primacy was “invented” later is simply not supported by history. From the very beginning, the Bishop of Rome was recognized as possessing a unique, authoritative role in the Church, rooted in his succession from Peter. What developed over time was not the authority itself, but the ways that authority was expressed and defended. The early Church did not see Roman primacy as an intrusion—but as a guarantee of unity and truth.LikeLike
Instead of “From Nazareth” was Jesus a “Nazarite”??
LikeLike
-
It’s a thoughtful question—and no, Jesus was not a Nazarite. Although the words “Nazarite” and “Nazarene” sound similar in English, they refer to completely different realities. Jesus was rightly called a Nazarene, not a Nazarite, and the distinction is more than just linguistic—it’s theological and historical.
1️⃣ Nazarite: a vow, not a hometown
The Nazarite (or Nazirite) was someone under a special Old Testament vow (Numbers 6:1–21). It involved abstaining from wine and grapes, avoiding contact with the dead, and not cutting one’s hair. This was a temporary or lifelong vow of dedication to God. Famous examples include Samson and (possibly) Samuel.This is not just a lifestyle—it’s a specific legal status under the Mosaic Law, visibly marked by behavior and appearance.
2️⃣ Jesus did not live as a Nazarite
Jesus drank wine (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34), participated in weddings (John 2), and touched the dead (Mark 5:41; Luke 7:14), all actions that would violate a Nazarite vow.Moreover, no Gospel writer ever suggests that He took such a vow, and none of the early Christian sources treat Him as a Nazarite in this legal-religious sense.
3️⃣ Nazarene: from Nazareth
The term “Nazarene” (Greek Nazōraios) simply means someone from Nazareth, a small town in Galilee. Matthew 2:23 tells us that Jesus “would be called a Nazarene,” fulfilling the prophets’ message, not as a direct citation but as a summation of the prophecies that portrayed the Messiah as humble and despised (cf. Isaiah 53).Nazareth was a place of low reputation (cf. John 1:46), and calling Jesus a Nazarene underlined His humility and connection to the “despised” Servant figure.
➖ Conclusion ➖
So, while the suggestion is understandable—especially given the similarity of the words—the evidence strongly supports the traditional understanding: Jesus was from Nazareth (a Nazarene), not under the Nazarite vow. The Gospel accounts and His actions confirm this. Confusing the two leads to theological misunderstandings about who Jesus was and how He lived out His mission.LikeLike
What is the difference between Hebrew Bible and Greek septuagint?
LikeLike
-
1️⃣ LANGUAGE AND ORIGIN
The Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, is the collection of Jewish Scriptures written primarily in Hebrew, with some parts in Aramaic. It is the official canon of Rabbinic Judaism.The Septuagint is a Greek translation of those Scriptures, begun around the 3rd century BC in Alexandria by Jewish scholars for the Greek-speaking Jewish diaspora. It includes the books of the Hebrew Bible, but also additional texts not found in the later Jewish canon.
2️⃣ DIFFERENCE IN CONTENT
✅ The Hebrew Bible contains 24 books, arranged in three sections: Torah (Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings).
✅ The Septuagint includes all of these, but also books later called “Deuterocanonical” by the Catholic Church—such as Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Daniel and Esther not found in Hebrew.
✅ These additional books were used and revered by many Jews before and during the time of Christ.
3️⃣ DIFFERENCE IN ORDER AND STRUCTURE
The order of books in the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew Bible. For example, the Prophets are placed later, and the arrangement feels more thematic than historical or liturgical. This structure influenced the order of books in Christian Old Testaments.4️⃣ IMPORTANCE FOR CHRISTIANITY
The early Church adopted the Septuagint as its Old Testament. Most Old Testament quotations in the New Testament match the Septuagint wording, not the Masoretic Hebrew text.➖ CONCLUSION ➖
The Hebrew Bible reflects the canon accepted by Rabbinic Judaism after the time of Christ, while the Septuagint represents an older, broader collection of sacred texts widely used in the Jewish world—including by Jesus and the Apostles. For Catholics, the Septuagint preserves books and readings inspired by the Holy Spirit that the later Jewish canon excluded.LikeLike
Should a Christian married woman be submissive to her husband?
LikeLike
-
1️⃣ UNDERSTANDING “SUBMISSION” IN THE BIBLICAL SENSE
The concept of a wife being “submissive” to her husband is often misunderstood. In Ephesians 5:22-24, St. Paul says, “Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord.” However, this must be read in context: the very previous verse (v.21) commands all Christians to “be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.”Biblical submission is not about domination or inferiority. It is about love, order, and self-giving within the family, reflecting the relationship between Christ and the Church.
2️⃣ THE HUSBAND’S DUTY: SACRIFICIAL LOVE
✅ Ephesians 5:25 gives the husband the more demanding role: to love his wife “as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her.” That means total, sacrificial, self-emptying love. It is a call to serve, protect, and elevate his wife, not to control or demean her.✅ A Christian husband who lives his vocation well will make his wife’s submission a joyful and free act of love, not an imposed burden.
3️⃣ HARMONY, NOT HIERARCHY
Christian marriage is not a power struggle. It is a covenant in which husband and wife complement each other. Submission, rightly understood, is mutual: each spouse gives of themselves for the other’s sanctification.➖ CONCLUSION ➖
Yes, a Christian wife is called to be submissive to her husband—but only in the context of a relationship rooted in Christ, mutual respect, and sacrificial love. True submission is not slavery; it is a reflection of divine love, in which authority and service go hand in hand. A Christian husband must lead not as a tyrant, but as Christ leads the Church: by laying down his life.LikeLike
Was the New Testament originally written in Aramaic?
LikeLike
-
No, the New Testament was not originally written in Aramaic. The vast majority of it was composed in Greek, although there is a strong early tradition that at least one Gospel—Matthew’s—may have first existed in Aramaic or Hebrew.
1️⃣ Greek as the Common Language
Koine Greek was the common language of the Eastern Roman Empire in the first century. It was the language of trade, culture, and communication. Even among Jews in Palestine and the diaspora, Greek was widely understood and used.
✅ Writing in Greek allowed the apostles and early Christians to reach the broadest possible audience, both Jewish and Gentile.2️⃣ Evidence from the Manuscripts
All the earliest surviving manuscripts of the New Testament are in Greek. There is no conclusive evidence of a complete Aramaic original for any of the books. However, Church Fathers such as Papias, Irenaeus, and Jerome report that Matthew may have composed his Gospel “in the Hebrew dialect,” which many interpret as Aramaic.
➕ While no copy of this hypothetical Aramaic version has survived, the early testimony leaves open the possibility of an original Semitic draft of Matthew.3️⃣ Aramaic Expressions
Several Aramaic phrases are preserved in the Gospels (like “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”), confirming Jesus’ spoken language and the Semitic setting of many events.4️⃣ Theological Clarity in Greek
Greek allowed the New Testament authors to use precise philosophical and theological vocabulary. Terms like “Logos,” “agape,” and “charis” carried profound meanings that helped articulate Christian doctrine in a universal way.➖ Conclusion ➖
While Jesus and His disciples spoke Aramaic and some Aramaic expressions survive in the text, the New Testament as we have it was written in Greek. The Gospel of Matthew might have had an earlier version in Aramaic, but the canonical form is Greek. This choice was providential, allowing the message of salvation to spread clearly and effectively throughout the known world.LikeLike
Apologia 2.1 in English 
Leave a reply to stabraam Cancel reply