That simply does not comport with historical fact. There is ample archaeological evidence in the way of surviving documents, inscriptions and ossuary carvings to indicate that Aramaic was the colloquial language in the first century and Hebrew was actually less used that both Aramaic and Hebrew outside of the Temple and Synagogues. I would highly recommend that you visit the Holy land and see the actual places and artifacts. Alternately, I can provide you with ample citations if you would like.
Peace be with you
No, aramaic was at no time a spoken language in Judea.
Your position as a part of Mystery Babylon from being a catholic must be impeding your understanding.
Yeshua has called you out of that “church,” and into his.
Correct.There is ample evidence that traces this back even further
Courtesy Of UPENN Professor Robert Kraft/ Kurt Treu
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/notrak/Treu.htm
Excerpts...
We can trace most fully the situation which the rabbinic efforts encountered, and the way in which these efforts developed, in the inscriptions of the Jewish catacombs in Rome and Italy. Identifying such inscriptions as Jewish is much easier than with the papyri. The catacombs as a whole are Jewish, and consequently so is each individual grave stone, without needing to show characteristically Jewish elements. Moreover, Jewish symbols help to confirm the identification, even when the text itself is neutral. Of 205 Jewish epitaphs from the catacomb of Monteverde in Rome, 161 are Greek, 38 Latin, 5 Hebrew-Aramaic. The Catacombs of Randanini and Torlonia have nothing at all in Hebrew. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the imperial period, we see a situation in which the traditional Greek, which the Jewish migrants brought with them, was still clearly predominant, but the native Latin was beginning to gain ground....From this point things develop in two directions. Latin gains strength at the expense of Greek, and Hebrew presses on. The inscriptions from Venosa, already now in the 6th/7th centuries CE, mark a clear stage; here Latin and Greek still predominate, but, alongside the formulae, whole texts are also found in Hebrew.
More.... From Palestine we have Qumran Cave 7, Nr. 1. containing Exodus, and Nr. 2 containing the Epistle of Jeremiah, both papyrus scrolls from the period around 100 BCE, in addition to further unidentified fragments\65a/; from Cave 4 three texts: one from a leather scroll of Numbers, and two from scrolls of Leviticus, leather and papyrus respectively; finally the parchment scroll of the Minor Prophets from Murabba'at [actually, Nahal Hever], the latest of these manuscripts, from the middle of the first century CE [at latest].
\65a/ Compared to the other Qumran caves, 7Q has a special distinction, since only Greek fragments have been found there. The attempt by J. O'Callaghan to identify New Testament fragments among them does not appears to me to have succeeded.
Two points concerning these manuscripts should be noted: 1) With regard to text, deviations from the LXX move in the direction of the Hebrew text. 2) In orthography, the name of God is represented [in Greek letters] by ΙΑΩ in 4QLev\b, by the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew square script in P.Fuad and [in paleo-Hebrew letters in two different hands in] the scroll of the Minor Prophets. At the same time, in both instances the script used is unfamiliar to the copyists. The two copyists of the Minor Prophets scroll created letters which are described as imaginative and distorted. In P.Fuad, the copyist first left some free space, and thus showed no confidence in his ability to make the letters. But the second hand also, who inserted them, appears completely unskilled, and in any event inexperienced with the Hebrew. This is an important witness for the predominance of Greek. For the seven [now 10 or 11] scrolls, their Jewish origin is directly established by their antiquity.