Is the name of Jesus Pagan? Well, the true name of the Messiah is Yahushua. The meaning of his name is “YHWH is salvation”. I realize that there is a teaching, that the name “Jesus” is an imperfect transliteration, but the fact of the matter is, the name Jesus does not mean “YHWH is salvation”.

Christianity uses the excuse, saying that the new testament was originally written in Greek; so therefore, the name of the messiah started as Iesous, but this is not true. Yahushua was a Hebrew and Aramaic speaking Yehudi (Jew) of Palestine. Concerning transliterating his name into English, it should have went directly from Hebrew to English, instead of from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English!

Yahushua made a comment about him coming in his Father’s name:

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Question: who could this other be? Is there anyone that could “fill the bill”? Has the world gone after another one, other than the anointed one of YHWH? If we look objectively at the world of religion today, the fact is that Christianity is by far the world’s largest religion:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/religion-by-country

With this fact in mind, how can anyone come up with any other answer to the question, “Who is this other, that comes in his own name,” other than “Jesus Christ”?! I realize that “Christ” is a title rather than a name, but it is usually used as a name by the world! In fact, as I sit here typing this post, using Microsoft Word, while I type the word “Christ”, in lower case, it is automatically “capitalized”…hmmm, I wonder why? (It seems apparent that Christ is treated as a name, as much, if not more, than the word “god”.

By the way, in case you haven’t already done so, you might want to check out TBN (the trinity broadcasting network) on television. There, you can get an idea of what Christianity has to offer. TBN is broadcast to many places around the world. On it, you will see many televangelists preaching their various lies. I am convinced, that one of the big reasons that they do this, is because they refuse to accept the truth concerning the name of the Father and his son, and they also refuse to accept the law of YHWH, because they follow the antinomian “Jesus”.

In conclusion, I do believe that the name “Jesus” is pagan.

Sincerely,
YermeYah

Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2004

I would like to comment on some things you wrote.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Is the name of Jesus Pagan? Well, the true name of the Messiah is Yahushua. The meaning of his name is “YHWH is salvation”. I realize that there is a teaching, that the name “Jesus” is an imperfect transliteration, but the fact of the matter is, the name Jesus does not mean “YHWH is salvation”.

---

I reply: You wrote above that the name of the Messiah was "...Yahushua..." The name Yeshua literally means "He will save". It is from this name that the name Jesus derives, and thus Jesus means "He will save". The longer form of the name Yeshua is Yehoshua meaning "Yahweh will save" and I do believe that when the shorter form is used in relation to the Messiah it is understood that it is ultimately Yahweh that is saving.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Christianity uses the excuse, saying that the new testament was originally written in Greek; so therefore, the name of the messiah started as Iesous, but this is not true. Yahushua was a Hebrew speaking Yahudi (Jew). He also spoke Aramaic. Concerning transliterating his name into English, it should have went directly from Hebrew to English, instead of from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English!

---

I reply: True enough, parts of the N.T. may have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, but that doesn't mean the Messiah's name cannot be transliterated into Greek. Don't forget the the first time the names Yehoshua and Yeshua were transliterated to Greek was not in reference to the Messiah, but rather to the son of Nun. This transliteration was made by Jewish scholars around 250 B.C. They were not attempting to hide anything or to insert paganism into the O.T. Scriptures. They were simply transliterating, just like they did with every other name in the O.T.

Also, why does the name Yehoshua/Yeshua have to go directly from Hebrew to English? I agree that this can be done, but where is the rule saying this is the only way to do it? Where the Jews in Alexandria, Egypt wrong for desiring the Scriptures in the language they spoke? Where the translators of the Septuagint wrong for translating the Scriptures from Hebrew to Greek?

You also wrote:

quote:

---

Yahushua made a comment about him coming in his Father’s name:

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Question: who could this other be? Is there anyone that could “fill the bill”? Has the world gone after another one, other than the anointed one of YHWH? If we look objectively at the world of religion today, the fact is that Christianity is by far the world’s largest religion...

---

I reply: The statement "I am come in my Father's name..." does not mean that an individual's name was also the Father's name, else David's name would have also had to have been Yahweh seeing he said in 1 Samuel 17:45 to Goliath, "...I come to thee in the name of Yahweh..." Coming to someone in the name Yahweh means who have come using that name as your authority. In other words David spoke the name Yahweh to Goliath and the Messiah spoke the name Yahweh to the people he preached to. David's name did not contain any part of the name Yahweh, yet he still said he came in the name Yahweh. The Messiah was simply stating in John 5:43 that he had come in the name Yahweh, i.e. Yahweh had sent him to preach in his name, and if another came in his own name, i.e. without the name Yahweh in his own authority not being commissioned, the Pharisees would have received them.

You then wrote:

quote:

---

With this fact in mind, how can anyone come up with any other answer to the question, “Who is this other, that comes in his own name,” other than “Jesus Christ”?! I realize that “Christ” is a title rather than a name, but it is usually used as a name by the world! In fact, as I sit here typing this post, using Microsoft Word, while I type the word “Christ”, in lower case, it is automatically “capitalized”…hmmm, I wonder why? (It seems apparent that Christ is treated as a name, as much, if not more, than the word “god”.

---

I reply: The other that comes in his own name couldn't be Jesus, seeing that Jesus is just a tranliteration of the Greek name for the Messiah - Yesous. The other coming in his own name, would be someone claiming their own authority, not having been commissioned by Yahweh and not using Yahweh's name.

Also concerning Christ, the N.T. uses it by itself as representative of Yashua. One such passage is in 1 Corinthians 15:3 where it says, "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." Notice it just says that Christ died for our sins, however the meaning is that Yashua died for our sins... right? Another point is that in the Greek text (Green's Interlinear) of 1 Cor. 15:3 the word christos is capitolized as Christos. Most likely because it was used in reference to Yashua and thus in an honorable way capitolized. Just like I capitolized the title "dad" to "Dad" when I was growing up and wrote a letter to my Father. It was to give him respect.

You then wrote:

quote:

---

By the way, in case you haven’t already done so, you might want to check out TBN (the trinity broadcasting network) on television. There, you can get an idea of what Christianity has to offer. TBN is broadcast to many places around the world. On it, you will see many televangelists preaching their various lies. I am convinced, that one of the big reasons that they do this, is because they refuse to accept the truth concerning the name of the Father and his son, and they also refuse to accept the law of YHWH, because they follow the antinomian “Jesus”.

In conclusion, I do believe that the name “Jesus” is pagan.

---

I reply: TBN gives you what modern-day "Christianity" has to offer. They don't teach the majority of the things found in the Bible and therefore give people a false sense of security in salvation. However, that doesn't mean they teach everything wrong does it? They do teach that the Messiah died for the sins of the world, is that incorrect? To say the name Jesus is wrong because televangelists/TBN uses it, is like saying it is wrong to use the sun or moon for Yahweh's calendar because pagans worship and use both.

I also say to you, why do you believe the name "Jesus" is pagan? I personally believe that anyone who believes this just has not looked at all the facts. I once believed this, but after careful study of the Scripture I cannot say this at all. It may sound different than Yashua, but it is merely because the Greek language did not and does not have the same sounds or grammatical rules as the Hebrew language. When people saw Yesous in Greek they pronounced it "Yey-sooce" which is exactly how it would be pronounced in Greek. People didn't do this because they didn't like the name Yashua, but simply because that was the sound the name made in the transliteration into their language. I believe the doctrine of the name Jesus being pagan is a tradition of men most readily taught by some in the Sacred Name Movement. Us involved in this movement need to let go of our traditions just like any other movement in religion.

Love You Friend,

Matthew Janzen

[This message has been edited by emjanzen (edited 01-09-2005).]

Posts: 129
Registered: Aug 2000

Matt,
Let me address this. I agree but also lets stress the getting the beam out of our own eye first. I see these as salvational issues between people. Not there are multiple scriptures as to what will keep one out of the Kingdom so I would personally draw the line on corrections and judging there. When we come to these issues I don't see tassles, beards and headcoverings mentioned.

Katy

Posts: 412
Registered:

I will comment on some of your responses:

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
Why does the name Yehoshua/Yeshua have to go directly from Hebrew to English?

---

The purpose of transliteration is to convey the exact sound of a name from one language to the other. The problem with going from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English has mainly to do with the fact that Greek lacks the sounds required to make an accurate transliteration of the Messiah’s name. For that reason alone, it doesn’t make any sense to go through Greek to get from Hebrew to English. But like I said, the excuse that Christianity makes, is the lie that all of the New Testament was originally written in Greek.

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
"I am come in my Father's name..." does not mean that an individual's name was also the Father's name, else David's name would have also had to have been Yahweh seeing he said in 1 Samuel 17:45 to Goliath

---

I agree that David came in the name of YHWH, because he said he did. But Yahushua came in the name of YHWH because he said that he came in his Father’s name, and to prove it, his name means “YHWH is salvation”. Jesus does not come in the name of YHWH, he comes in the name of “The Lord”, as does his followers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
The other that comes in his own name couldn't be Jesus, seeing that Jesus is just a tranliteration of the Greek name for the Messiah - Yesous.

---

“Jesus” is a mistransliteration; a guise of the devil! This “Jesus” teaches something other than the truth of YHWH!

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
Also concerning Christ, the N.T. uses it by itself as representative of Yashua.

---

The word “Christ” is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew word “Mashiach”. If you check the etymology of both words, you will discover that the word “Christ” does not have an honorable origin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
TBN gives you what modern-day "Christianity" has to offer. They don't teach the majority of the things found in the Bible and therefore give people a false sense of security in salvation. However, that doesn't mean they teach everything wrong does it?

---

All religions of the world have some truth. But the problem with Christianity is that it takes the truth of YHWH, and perverts it.

The following is something I said in my last post, which you quoted…

quote:

---

Originally posted by YermeYah:
On it, [TBN] you will see many televangelists preaching their various lies. I am convinced, that one of the big reasons that they do this, is because they refuse to accept the truth concerning the name of the Father and his son, and they also refuse to accept the law of YHWH, because they follow the antinomian “Jesus”.
In conclusion, I do believe that the name “Jesus” is pagan.

---

You see above, the term, “antinomian Jesus”. According to Webster’s Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: an·ti·no·mi·an
Pronunciation: "an-ti-'nO-mE-&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin antinomus, from Latin anti- + Greek nomos law
1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation

If you are objective, you must agree that the above definition is exactly what most of Christianity teaches.

Love in Yahushua,
YermeYah

Posts: 72
Registered: Apr 2003

Webster’s New World Dictionary: "To declare untrue; contradict; refuse to accept as true or right, reject as unfound, unreal, etc.

Many of us today are denying His name! We are refusing it! But we have to realize there is salvation in only one name! (Acts 4:12)

Posts: 297
Registered: Jul 2002

quote:

---

emjanzen wrote: “I agree with what these translators are doing. For instance, a man's name can be said or pronounced in every language in exactly the same way. Even Hebrew-speaking people can pronounce the letter "J" even though it's not part of their aleph-bet.”

---

quote:

---

emjanzen wrote: “However, when a name is transliterated from one language to the next, it is done as best as possible. It is a fact that all languages do not contain the same sounds.”

---

quote:

---

emjanzen wrote: “However, the name Jesus does indeed stem from this original name of the Messiah and not a pagan deity as many involved with the Sacred Name have propogated.

It is a fact that the English name Jesus stemmed from this Greek transliteration of the son of Nun's name. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.”

---

quote:

---

emjanzen wrote: “The name Jesus comes to us by going from Hebrew, to Greek, to English.

Also, why does the name Yehoshua/Yeshua have to go directly from Hebrew to English? I agree that this can be done, but where is the rule saying this is the only way to do it?”

---

quote:

---

emjanzen wrote: “The Jewish scholars of the 3rd century B.C. transliterated Yeshua's name into the Septuagint the best they could. They came up with the name Iesous, pronounced in Greek as Yey-sooce. Had the Greek language contained the "sh" sound the transliteration would have been Yey-shooce, and we may not be having this conversation right now.

...therefore the process of transliteration is carried out in the best possible, letter-for-letter way.”

---

If Iesous is pronounced in Greek as Yey-sooce then the written Greek needs outside help in order to correctly communicate the proper pronunciation of the Messiah’s name.

quote:

---

emjanzen wrote: “However, when the name Yehoshua is used in its short form Yeshua meaning "He will save" it is still understood that ultimately it is Yahweh that saves.”

---

quote:

---

emjanzen wrote: “I reply: Do you really believe that Nehemiah or a translator derogatorily changed Yehoshua's name? I believe it was the Holy Spirit that wrote the name Yeshua in Nehemiah 8:17. It's simply the short form of the name Yehoshua. There is no attempt to hide the Creators name by doing this at all.”

---

I’m not blaming Nehemiah because we don’t even have his original copy but are you denying that Yahweh’s name is not left out of the name “Yeshua”?

Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2004

You wrote:

quote:

---

The purpose of transliteration is to convey the exact sound of a name from one language to the other. The problem with going from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English has mainly to do with the fact that Greek lacks the sounds required to make an accurate transliteration of the Messiah’s name. For that reason alone, it doesn’t make any sense to go through Greek to get from Hebrew to English. But like I said, the excuse that Christianity makes, is the lie that all of the New Testament was originally written in Greek.

---

I reply: If this is the true purpose of transliteration it is not possible in all languages, because as you yourself said the Greek language lacks sounds that are found in the Hebrew language. Therefore as I contended before, they do the best possible transliteration. letter for letter.

I agree that we can go from Hebrew to English; however, it is not wrong to go from Hebrew to Greek arriving at Yesous, and then from Greek to English arriving at Jesus.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I agree that David came in the name of YHWH, because he said he did. But Yahushua came in the name of YHWH because he said that he came in his Father’s name, and to prove it, his name means “YHWH is salvation”. Jesus does not come in the name of YHWH, he comes in the name of “The Lord”, as does his followers.

---

I reply: Your contradicting yourself. If the Messiah's coming in the name of his father means his name must contain a part of the Father's name, then when David said he came in the name Yahweh, it has to mean that David's name contained a part of Yahweh's name. But we know David's name doesn't contain any part of Yahweh's name, thus for someone to come in the name Yahweh does not mean that their name is Yahweh too.

When you say Jesus does not come in the name Yahweh, you are in essence saying that Yeshua or Yehoshua did not come in the name Yahweh. This is because Jesus is a derivative of Yeshua.

You wrote:

quote:

---

“Jesus” is a mistransliteration; a guise of the devil! This “Jesus” teaches something other than the truth of YHWH!

---

I reply: Sorry, YeremYah, but this is false. Jesus stemmed from Yesous, which is how Jewish (not non-Jewish) scholars of the 3rd century B.C. transliterated the son of Nun's name from Hebrew to Greek.

You wrote:

quote:

---

The word “Christ” is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew word “Mashiach”. If you check the etymology of both words, you will discover that the word “Christ” does not have an honorable origin.

---

I reply: Please give documentation. As far as I see it the Greek word christos is a translation of the Hebrew word mashiyach. Christos then translates into English as annointed. Furthermore, the point I was making with 1 Cor. 15:3 was that this title, by itself, was used at times in the N.T. as referring to Yashua. If I'm not mistaken the word christos is also used in the LXX.

You wrote:

quote:

---

All religions of the world have some truth. But the problem with Christianity is that it takes the truth of YHWH, and perverts it.

---

I reply: Agreed. Modern day "Christianity" perverts many truths.

I also agree that modern day "Christianity" is antinomian for the most part.

Love you friend,

Matthew Janzen

Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2004

You wrote:

quote:

---

Would you then agree that Greeks could and can pronounce the Messiah’s name as he himself pronounced it even if their alphabet lacks an “sh” sound?

---

I reply: Yes, a Greek person can say "sh", just like a Hebrew person can pronounce the letter "J". The issue though is with the actual language. The Greek language does not have the "sh" sound in it, likewise the Hebrew language does not have the "J" sound in it.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Thus the necessity for pronunciation guides in dictionaries or even the need to actually be told how to pronounce a name. Do you agree with Chuck Baldwin’s point concerning “Sioux” pronounced “Sue”?

---

I reply: I see no reason to disagree with what Chuck posted. I even did an experiment by asking a good friend of mine how to pronounce "Sioux". I wrote it on a piece of paper and he said... "Sigh-owx". He pronounced it how he saw it, i.e. how the letters sounded. The same is true for Yesous. Originally it was pronounced Yashua, but in the literal Greek language letters it is pronounced "Yey-sooce" because of the difference in the Greek language.

You wrote:

quote:

---

The rule is called common sense. Why would any one make a photocopy from a copy of a copy of a copy of the original when the original was lying next to the copy machine? Why would anyone paint a copy of a copy of a copy of a Rembrandt if the original was hanging next to them? Why would anyone transliterate a Hebrew name from the Old English that was transliterated from the Latin that was transliterated from the Greek that was transliterated from the original Hebrew when the original Hebrew was sitting on their desk in front of them? The only reasons are either stupidly or they wanted the inferior result.

---

I reply: You make a good point, and that's why I choose to use the name Yashua in leiu of Jesus. However, do you think that someone who calls on the name Jesus is calling on another mighty one and forfeits their salvation? After all, don't you agree that the name Jesus stemmed from the name Yashua?

You wrote:

quote:

---

And because languages are so different in grammar, alphabets, etc. transliteration cannot be a perfect science. That is why there is a need for pronunciation guides and often a need to actually pronounce the word to correctly convey the proper pronunciation.

If Iesous is pronounced in Greek as Yey-sooce then the written Greek needs outside help in order to correctly communicate the proper pronunciation of the Messiah’s name.

---

I reply: Agreed, transliteration is done the best as possible. The fact remains, though that transliteration is done by bringing down the letters of the original, and not the sound. The sound could be exact or similar, but the process involves letters.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Understood by those who already know but not understood by those who hear it without also having it explained to them.

---

I reply: You have to explain to people what Yahshua means too, and even what Yahweh is or means.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Attempt or no attempt that is immaterial since it can not be seen if it is not there and the Creator’s name is not in “Yeshua” as you have said, unless “he” is Yahweh’s name. And if the Creator's name is not there then it’s not revealed which means it’s hidden.

I’m not blaming Nehemiah because we don’t even have his original copy but are you denying that Yahweh’s name is not left out of the name “Yeshua”?

---

I reply: The spelling yod, shin, waw, ayin is how both the hebrew and aramaic texts of the N.T. spell the Messiah's name. This name transliterates into English as Yashua or Yeshua. This name means "He will save" and although the name Yahweh is not part of this name, it does not mean that there was an attempt to hide the creators name with the name Yashua.

I am not denying the name Yahweh is left out of the name Yeshua. However, what you are attempting to convey by the words "left out" is that the name Yeshua is an attempt to remove the creators name from Scripture. With this I disagree wholeheartedly. The texts of the N.T. say the Messiah name is Yeshua/Yashua - yod, shin, waw, ayin. If you disagree with that name you will have to take up the disagreement with the Holy Spirit; He's the one that placed it there.

Love you friend,

Matthew Janzen

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Posts: 412
Registered:

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
If this is the true purpose of transliteration it is not possible in all languages, because as you yourself said the Greek language lacks sounds that are found in the Hebrew language. Therefore as I contended before, they do the best possible transliteration. letter for letter.

---

I agree, that because of the nature of the Greek language, the name Yahushua/Yeshua cannot be accurately transliterated into the Greek language. Therefore, the Greeks needed to be “taught” the correct pronunciation of the anointed one of YHWH. His name is that important! But instead, the name was corrupted by mistransliteration. Then it was transliterated from Greek, in its corrupted form, to almost every other languages on the face of the earth. As I said before, I believe that the mistransliteration was a guise of the devil.

The fact of the matter is, Yahushua (yod heh waw shin [waw] ayin) and Yeshua (yod shin waw ayin) are accurate transliterations, whereas “Jesus” is not. “Jesus Christ” is not the same “spirit being” as is “Yahushua ha Mashiach”. You might not agree, but the evidence bears it out. “Jesus” does not come in the name of YHWH. I challenge anyone to show us a “Jesus Church” that worships YHWH in spirit and in truth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
I agree that we can go from Hebrew to English; however, it is not wrong to go from Hebrew to Greek arriving at Yesous, and then from Greek to English arriving at Jesus.

---

But what is the logical reason for doing so? What you end up with is a name that is not a true transliteration; it is not even a translation. I contend that it is the name of another spirit being. (The other, who came in his own name). Like Yahushua said, “I have come in my Father’s name, and you receive me not.”

Have you ever stopped to think about how small the number is, of people that follow Yahushua (Yehoshua/Yeshua)?

Yahushua continues: “if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” (John 5:43)

Again, Christianity is by far, the world’s largest religion. So Yahushua’s prophecy has already been fulfilled. The world has received “Jesus Christ”.

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
Your contradicting yourself. If the Messiah's coming in the name of his father means his name must contain a part of the Father's name, then when David said he came in the name Yahweh, it has to mean that David's name contained a part of Yahweh's name. But we know David's name doesn't contain any part of Yahweh's name, thus for someone to come in the name Yahweh does not mean that their name is Yahweh too.

When you say Jesus does not come in the name Yahweh, you are in essence saying that Yeshua or Yehoshua did not come in the name Yahweh. This is because Jesus is a derivative of Yeshua.

---

I do not believe that I am contradicting myself Matthew. Let me rephrase what I said: David did come in the name of YHWH. How do we know that he did? Because he said he did. I am not saying that the only way that someone can come in the name of YHWH, is by having YHWH in their name. I am saying, however, that it surely does prove that Yahushua did indeed come in the name of YHWH (because Yahushua/Yeshua means “YHWH is salvation”). Again, go to any Christian church, and ask the question, “Whose name did “Jesus” come in?”, and see what kind of response you get.

When I stated that “Jesus” was a mistransliteration, you said:

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
Sorry, YeremYah, but this is false. Jesus stemmed from Yesous, which is how Jewish (not non-Jewish) scholars of the 3rd century B.C. transliterated the son of Nun's name from Hebrew to Greek.

---

I still contend that Jesus is a mistransliteration. It does not accomplish what a transliteration was intended to accomplish. I will say again, “Yahushua and Yeshua are correct transliterations in English; Jesus is incorrect.

Concerning my comment about the transliteration of “Christ”, you said:

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
Please give documentation. As far as I see it the Greek word christos is a translation of the Hebrew word mashiyach. Christos then translates into English as annointed.

---

The following is the Etymology of the word “christ”:

[ME. & OE. crist < LL. (Ec.) Christus < Gr. christos, the anointed (in NT., MESSIAH) chriein, to anoint < IE. base *ghrei-, to spread over, smear, whence GRIME].

It says that it comes from the Indo European base “ghrei-”. When you look up the word “ghrei”, you get the following:

*ghri- To rub. Oldest form *hre1i-, with variant (metathesized) form *hrei1-, whence zero-grade *hri1-, contracted to *hr- (becoming *ghr- in centum languages).
The #1 Etymological definition is:

1. GRISLY, from Old English grislc, terrifying, from Germanic *gris-, to frighten (< "to grate on the mind").

When looking up the word “grisly”, we see:

1. Inspiring repugnance; gruesome. See Synonyms at ghastly.

When we look up the synonym "ghastly" we see:

1. Inspiring shock, revulsion, or horror by or as if by suggesting death; terrifying: a ghastly murder.

2. Suggestive of or resembling ghosts.

3. Extremely unpleasant or bad: "in the most abominable passage of his ghastly little book" (Conor Cruise O'Brien).

4. Very serious or great: a ghastly error.

Now for the #2 etymological definition: "grime":

2. GRIME, from Middle English grime, grime, from a source akin to Middle Dutch grme, grime, from Germanic *grm-, smear.

When we look up the word "grime", we see:

n. Black dirt or soot, especially such dirt clinging to or ingrained in a surface.
tr.v. grimed, grim·ing, grimes
To cover with black dirt or soot; begrime.

*The preceding information can be found at:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/roots/zzg03500.html

Love in Yahushua,
YermeYah

Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2004

You wrote:

quote:

---

What I am saying: If Yeshua is a contraction of Yahushua (Yehoshua), then they both have the same meaning: “YHWH is salvation.” (by contracting a word, it does not change the meaning).

---

I reply: Agreed, I have no problem with this.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I agree, that because of the nature of the Greek language, the name Yahushua/Yeshua cannot be accurately transliterated into the Greek language. Therefore, the Greeks needed to be “taught” the correct pronunciation of the anointed one of YHWH. His name is that important! But instead, the name was corrupted by mistransliteration. Then it was transliterated from Greek, in its corrupted form, to almost every other languages on the face of the earth. As I said before, I believe that the mistransliteration was a guise of the devil.

---

I reply: So you believe the Jewish translators of the Septuagint were being "used of the devil" to write Yesous? I cannot accept that. I believe they did the best they could.

You wrote:

quote:

---

But what is the logical reason for doing so? What you end up with is a name that is not a true transliteration; it is not even a translation. I contend that it is the name of another spirit being. (The other, who came in his own name). Like Yahushua said, “I have come in my Father’s name, and you receive me not.”

---

I reply: What you're saying is that if someone pronounced the Greek name Yesous as it was written then they forfeit their salvation, even though their calling the Messiah the name that is written in the Scriptures.

There is no way that Jesus is another spirit being. Jesus stemmed from Yashua, not another spirit being. People arrived at the name Jesus from transliterating Yashua, not from transliterating the name of another spirit being.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I do not believe that I am contradicting myself Matthew. Let me rephrase what I said: David did come in the name of YHWH. How do we know that he did? Because he said he did. I am not saying that the only way that someone can come in the name of YHWH, is by having YHWH in their name. I am saying, however, that it surely does prove that Yahushua did indeed come in the name of YHWH (because Yahushua/Yeshua means “YHWH is salvation”). Again, go to any Christian church, and ask the question, “Whose name did “Jesus” come in?”, and see what kind of response you get.

---

I reply: When Yashua said he came in his Father's name it meant he came preaching the name of his Father by his father's authority and power. He spoke the name Yahweh much like David. What it does not mean is that his name had to be Yahweh.

The reason churches wouldn't say that Jesus came in the name Yahweh is because they just don't know any better. Most every intelligent pastor I've asked in churches today, readily acknowledge that the Messiah name is Yashua and the Father's name is Yahweh. Now, most will not use the name Yahweh, but they will at least acknowledge that this is the Father's name.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I still contend that Jesus is a mistransliteration. It does not accomplish what a transliteration was intended to accomplish. I will say again, “Yahushua and Yeshua are correct transliterations in English; Jesus is incorrect.

---

I reply: Yashua is correct going from Hebrew to English, I agree. We could also legitimately say that Jashua (Joshua) is a correct transliteration. However, Jesus is a correct transliteration going from Hebrew to Greek to English. It does indeed accomplish what a transliteration was intended to accomplish. The Greek brought down the corresponding letters of their alphabet when transliterating Yashua into the Greek language. That's what transliteration is.

In Yahweh's Love,

Matthew Janzen

PS. The etymology you gave for Christ obviously has the meaning of the rub or smear because of annointing with oil. The word christos is the Greek word meaning to annoint. If it is not the Greek translation of mashiyach what is?

Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2004

I really appreciate the link you gave to the dictionary, I can see it is a very helpful internet dictionary source.

Notice what it states for the name Jesus:

quote:

---

Je·sus1 Listen: [ jzs ], 4? B.C.-A.D. 29?

A teacher and prophet whose life and teachings form the basis of Christianity. Christians believe Jesus to be Son of God and the Christ.

[Middle English, from Late Latin Iesus, from Greek Iesous, from Hebrew yesûa', from yehôsûa', Joshua ; see Joshua1.]

---

From Yehoshua to Yeshua to Yesous to Yesus to Jesus. This is not the name of another "spirit being".

Love you friend,

Matthew Janzen

Posts: 2500
Registered: Jul 2001

quote:

---

(M) So you believe the Jewish translators of the Septuagint were being "used of the devil" to write Yesous? I cannot accept that. I believe they did the best they could.

---

Possibly so, but our adversary has certainly played on that while selling to the world the entity/spirit now known around the world as “Jesus” ...

quote:

---

(Y) ... the name of another spirit being. (The other, who came in his own name).

---

quote:

---

(M) What you're saying is that if someone pronounced the Greek name Yesous as it was written then they forfeit their salvation, even though their calling the Messiah the name that is written in the Scriptures.

---

Salvation is neither gained nor lost on the pronunciation of any name, and the name “Jesus” does not appear in “the Scriptures” (only in “the Bible”).

quote:

---

(M) There is no way that [the entity] Jesus is another spirit being. [The name] Jesus stemmed from Yashua, not another spirit being.

---

First distinguish the matter of the entity from the matter of the name, Matthew, and the truth of this next statement of yours become crystal clear:

quote:

---

(M) People arrived at the name Jesus from transliterating Yashua, not from transliterating the name of another spirit being ...

---

... and somewhere along the way, our adversary slipped the entity/spirit “Jesus”, the false messiah, into the picture, with the world now knowing him by that name.

quote:

---

The reason churches wouldn't say that Jesus came in the name Yahweh is because ...

---

... mind-bender coming ...

... is because that Jesus came in the name of his own father, Lucifer, and YHWH will not allow that even the ignorant might say otherwise.

quote:

---

Most every intelligent pastor I've asked in churches today, readily acknowledge that the Messiah name is Yashua and the Father's name is Yahweh. Now, most will not use the name Yahweh, but they will at least acknowledge that this is the Father's name.

---

... and if that kind of thing is not driven by the spirit Jesus, then what spirit actually does drive it?!

Posts: 412
Registered:

First, it is obvious that you and I have differing opinions. It is really not my desire to continue this debate between you and I for an extended period. The way I see it, you believe that it does not make any difference whether we call the anointed one of YHWH, “Yahushua the Messiah” or “Jesus Christ”. You apparently believe that they are equal. I absolutely disagree.

Am I saying that all Christians are headed for the lake of fire? Absolutely not! I am not judging them. The thing that I am judging is their doctrines, based on the fact that they are deceived. I was there once myself. I know that I was deceived. I know that I believed in “another” besides the anointed of YHWH. Having said that, I will respond to your most recent posts…

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
So you believe the Jewish translators of the Septuagint were being "used of the devil" to write Yesous? I cannot accept that. I believe they did the best they could.

---

I will agree that the Jewish translators did “the best they knew how”. However, it is obvious that the name “Yahushua/Yeshua” cannot be accurately transliterated from Hebrew to Greek. Because of that “fact”, I contend that the name “Yahushua/Yeshua” should have been transliterated directly from Hebrew to English. It would have been so much better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
PS. The etymology you gave for Christ obviously has the meaning of the rub or smear because of annointing with oil. The word christos is the Greek word meaning to annoint. If it is not the Greek translation of mashiyach what is?

---

Strong’s Greek #3323 “messias”

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
Notice what it states for the name Jesus:

Je·sus1 Listen: [ jzs ], 4? B.C.-A.D. 29?
A teacher and prophet whose life and teachings form the basis of Christianity. Christians believe Jesus to be Son of God and the Christ.
[Middle English, from Late Latin Iesus, from Greek Iesous, from Hebrew yesûa', from yehôsûa', Joshua ; see Joshua1.]

From Yehoshua to Yeshua to Yesous to Yesus to Jesus. This is not the name of another "spirit being".

---

Even though the word “Jesus” can be traced etymologically back to “Yehoshua”, the name “Jesus” is a perverted transliteration. I contend that satan has used this perversion to deceive people into worshipping another spirit being. I cannot prove it scientifically, but if one looks objectively at Christianity, it is obvious.

Love in Yahushua,
YermeYah

[This message has been edited by YermeYah (edited 01-10-2005).]