Equating language with religion falsely would be what the Roman Jews did for the New Testament.
Huh?
The Book of Acts states that Jesus spoke Hebrew to his Apostles
In antiquity Jewish Palestinian Aramaic is often called "Hebrew", meaning "the language of the Hebrews". Actual Hebrew had fallen out of disuse for centuries among Palestinian Jews. So when you read "Hebrew" in ancient sources such as the books of the New Testament or elsewhere, it is almost always going to mean Aramaic, specifically the dialect of Aramaic that was spoken by Palestinian Jews.
and elsewhere that they were given the power to speak all languages. We know that Aramaic was the language of Jesus time and there is a claim that the Book of Matthew was written in Aramaic, albeit from a Greek source,
This is a bit backwards. Ancient tradition says that Matthew composed a list of sayings (logia) of Jesus in Aramaic, but then later wrote the Gospel which bears his name in Greek. So the original Matthew was in Greek, the Aramaic "proto-gospel" is known only by tradition. Though it is somewhat interesting that modern scholarship tends to speak of a the hypothetical Q-document, often along with the Markan Priority hypothesis (with a minority of scholars adhering to a Matthean Priority). The supposed Q-document shares a lot in common with the traditional Aramaic sayings text attributed to St. Matthew.
Note, also, that those ancient sources use "Hebrew" here, which again meant Aramaic at the time.
as all the Gospels were, but only Hebrew and Aramaic are Semitic and Abrahamic languages and Christians that speak those native languages are in very small number.
Syriac and other Aramaic languages were spoken in Christian communities where those languages already existed. Christianity adapted to and adopted the languages of its adherents. When Christianity went to Egypt, the language of the indigenous Egyptian Church was Coptic. When Christianity went to Ethiopia, the language of the indigenous Ethiopian Church was Ge'ez (which, just for the record, is also a Semitic language). Christianity among the Slavs was Slavic, Christianity among the Latins was Latin, Christianity among the Celts was Celtic, etc.
Considering the scripture for the commisioning of the 12 and the process for replacing Judas after he died, there should have been a never ending Commission of 12 that spoke Hebrew or Aramaic or inevitably Syrian, which just is not how history played out.
Why? There is no indication that a continuation of twelve apostles was ever necessary, nor does it matter what languages they spoke. Judas was replaced, this was something the Eleven decided to do because they felt it important to keep their number--but when the twelve apostles began to die nobody felt the need to replace them.
Instead the apostles ordained bishops and presbyters to act as pastors of the various communities which they established. Which is why we have the bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter, the bishop of Antioch as the successor of Sts. Peter and Paul, the bishop of Alexandria as the successor of St. Mark, the bishop of Byzantium (later Constantinople) as the successor of St. Andrew, the bishop of Jerusalem the successor of St. James, etc. The apostolic authority of the Church was preserved through those the apostles chose to continue in their stead to look over the churches.
This is where Christian pastors come from, consisting of bishops and presbyters.
Even if you consider that the Gospels were written in Greek then the Greek Orthodox should have been the authority on interpreting their own language, instead they ended becoming communist and now bankrupt chain smokers that cant even win a medal in their own Olympics.
I can assure you, that the Greek Orthodox Church didn't "become communist". As for the rest, uh...what?
Just so we're clear, the Greek Orthodox Church is one autocephelous body within Eastern Orthodoxy. Other autocephelous jurisdictions within Eastern Orthodoxy include the Russian Orthodox Church, the Georgian Orthodox Church, the Antiochene Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church in America, and so on and so forth. Eastern Orthodoxy is a single religious body consisting of semi-autonomous (autocephelous) church bodies; since Orthodoxy does not recognize a single individual as being the "leader" of all Orthodox Christians. Orthodoxy believes that the Church has only one Head, and that's Jesus Christ, but the Church is organized geographically, with patriarchal bishops overseeing each autocephelous jurisdiction, and each jurisdiction consisting of a number of diocese each with their own bishop, with presbyters under them serving the local communities within those diocese.
Historically the Church recognized five major centers of Christianity, and each of the bishops of those major centers became known as patriarchs, and their pastoral sees as "patriarchates". These five ancient sees constitute was was called the Pentarchy, and they consisted of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
My point is over half the Christian population is Catholic and would be declared apostasy in the time of Jesus.
On the basis of....what exactly?
Because most Catholics don't speak Syriac or some other Semitic language? That's...that's weird.
A quick read of 1Timothy 3 reveals the rules for a Bishop which Catholicism clearly does not follow and their practice of celibacy has produced rampant homosexual pedophilia that contradicts the Noahide laws to be fruitful and multiply.
1) The proscription prohibits the ordination of men who have more than one wife or who are unfaithful; it does not proscribe that bishops must be married.
2) In Catholicism celibacy is only a requirement in the Latin Rite. This is why there are lots of married Catholic priests all around the world, most of them just aren't in the Latin Rite, but are in one of the Eastern Rites. And even in the Latin Rite there are known cases of exemption, there are a number of cases of Anglican priests converting to Catholicism, and these married Anglican priests are able to receive Holy Orders and remain married.
Further: Clerical celibacy is not, in Catholicism, some kind of doctrine; it is instead regarded as a discipline--which is why it is not universal within Catholicism and only applies to Latin Rite Catholic priests.
Even Further: The conflating of homosexuality with pedophilia is alarminly homophobic here; but ignoring that for the moment, how do you figure that celibacy is the cause of child abuse? Does getting married somehow make someone not abuse children? Because, I don't know if you've ever watched the news before, but maybe you should?
That being said I do not consider anyone that declares catholic in their creed to be of the Abrahamic faith, ie. Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist all do or anyone that teaches Abraham pbuh and Sarah pbuh had the same father! Of the over 20k denominations of Christianity very few can trace their "royal priesthood" to Jesus. So here again remains The Big Question, if 1.2b Catholics are the chosen, then why are 6.1b people blessed with more descendants or how ever you want to slice it.
I...don't...what?
-CryptoLutheran
