A spokesman for Carmen Welker has posted the following list of comments in reaction to our assertion that their implausible claim that Paul the Apostle did not speak Greek well and that since there is no manuscript evidence for Aramaic originals, their contentions are blatantly absurd.

One 'Gomez Cooley' from this heretical sect (that denies One God in Three Persons and that The Holy Spirit is a Person) ‚  resorts of all things to anti Messianic websites that hate any reference to any Hebrew teaching or belief to support his absurd position, ignorantly oblivious to the fact that these same websites would also hate what he claims to stand for.

Mr. Cooley in a fashion we can only define as cowardly completely avoids the issue of our proof that Paul the Apostle spoke fluent Greek. He likewise avoids the central fact that as we pointed out there exists no Aramaic manuscript evidence to support their fanciful conjectures.

He also appears to assert that we stated that his she-boss Carmen Welker was in the chaplaincy corpse. We ourselves said she was not because Chaplains are officers with Post degrees in theology. She was a sergeant.

In any event, unable to challenge the two issues we raised about ‚   their hideous statements about Paul The Apostle not knowing Greek and the absence of Aramaic primary manuscripts , he then diverts into side issues circumventing what we actually stated.

1. We affirmed the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research constructs academic arguments for underlying original Hebrew texts, yet lack manuscript evidence. But Hebrew is not Aramaic. What is this ignorant man Gomez Cooley talking about?

2. We never suggested that Jesus and The Apostles did not speak Aramaic; on the contrary - as our recorded materials prove we have always taught they did. Yet they may also have spoken and written in Mishnaic Hebrew. Hence his citation of the post Nicean Codex Ambrosianus is irrelevant. Speaking is one thing, writing is another. What is Gomez Cooley talking about?

3. The Epistle to the Hebrew has absolutely no Apostolic attestation or even Pre-Nicean attestation as to Pauline authorship (as all other Pauline Epistles do). Hebrews also lacks the Pauline identifying salutary distinctive ' Grace & Peace to you from God our Father and The Lord Jesus Christ" contained in all Pauline Epistles. Instead he comes up with a 4th century post Nicean reference to an early third century reference as if that is suppose to prove something. All epistles have a recorded pre Nicean attestation of authorship except Hebrews where the author is not even internally identified in the text (as Paul always is). Again, such foolish people would be laughed out of any scholarly symposium as utter clowns. What is Cooley talking about?

4. We affirmed the existence of the Papias/ Heggisippus contention of Matthew's originally written in Hebrew. Why does Mr. Cooley write as if we did not? We did not state that Papias did not get this report from Irenius (he likely did). We simply stated that this is the one source cited by Eusebius for Matthew (the most Hebraic ‚   of the Gospels) and there are no others nor any Hebrew manuscripts. Moreover, Hebrew is one thing, while Aramaic is another. Once more - what is Cooley talking about?

5) Likewise, Jerome learned Hebrew in Bethlehem. It states he translated into Latin for the Vulgate and a Greek translation from Hebrew, not Aramaic. They are two different languages. What is Gomez Cooley talking about?

In short, we noted The Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research having academic support (but no manuscripts) for Hebrew New Testament source texts, but not Aramaic. But Gomez Cooley does not even appear to know the difference between the two languages Hebrew and Aramaic.

6) Why moreover would such a man as Mr. Cooley (we find it difficult to envision anything more stupid than a non Jew named Gomez Cooley who denies One God in Three Persons and The Person-Hood of The Holy Spirit, dressing up like an orthodox Jew trying to keep the law of Moses) resort to anti Hebrew root websites to find ‚  allies? Mr. Cooley is plainly not even rational.

7) The idea that we are afraid of a woman named Carmen Welker who is so demonstrably ignorant that she idiotically postulates that Paul The Apostle could hardly even speak Greek is too ludicrous a charge to deserve serious comment.

We stand by our statements that Paul the Apostle was fluent in Greek and the babbling foolishness of Carmen Welker that he did not establishes her lack of credibility. We likewise stand by our position that Welker, Cooley or any of those in this demonic cult can produce a single Aramaic source manuscript; they cannot because everyone knows that none exist. These are the two issues that we addressed debunking Welker as an ignorant faker, and these are the two issues Gomez Cooley avoids.

How can someone offer a rebuttal without a rebuttal? This man is clearly as ridiculous as is Carmen Welker.

Unable to refute us on either point, Gomez Cooley circumvents the issues confusing two different languages (Aramaic and Hebrew) in the process.

This is a heretical man from a heretical cult whose demonic heresy is eclipsed only by his absolutely laughable ignorance.