Author Topic:   Is the Name of Jesus Pagan?
emjanzen

 

 
Although I think this is going to be a "ticklish" topic, I nevertheless am going to post an article that has recently came across my desk on this topic. My reason for doing so is because I believe that like with any other topic, in the multitude of counsel there is safety. I would appreciate any comments - for or against - what the author of the article has written. Thank You.

Matthew Janzen

P.S. The Hebrew and Greek fonts will not come across properly, so I will place the transliterations instead.

------------------------------------------

Yeshua & Jesus
A study on the transliteration of the
Christ’s Name from Hebrew to Greek.

Many people in what is commonly known as the Sacred Name Movement have taken the stand that the name which the current English versions of our Bible give as the name of the Christ is in actuality a name of pagan or heathen origin. I have heard or read, by different people at different times, that the name Jesus is a derivative of names Zues or Dionysius; Zeus being the chief sky god of the Greeks, while Dionysius was the son of Zeus.

On the surface we may notice that there is a similarity, in some sense, between the sound of the name Jesus and the sound of the names above. The easiest similarity is found in the ending portion of the names with the -us sound. What we need to ask ourselves is this: is the fact that the name Jesus sounds similar or looks similar in any way to the name of certain pagan deities throughout time evidence that this is where the name originated? That is the question we will attempt to answer in this short article.

Yehoshua

I would like to begin our search with a Hebrew name, namely Yehoshua. This is the name that was given to the man who took the place of Moses after his death, to lead the children of Israel. It can be found in the book of Numbers 13:16 which reads:

quote:
16These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua.

Here Moses calls the name of the son of Nun - Jehoshua - or without the English letter J we have the name Yehoshua. Yehoshua’s name beforehand was Oshea spelled in the Hebrew language – Hoshea. The significance of this is that the name change, made by Moses, was a very minute name change. Moses actually added only one single letter to Oshea’s name. This letter is the Hebrew letter yod. The name Yehoshua in the Hebrew language appears as follows: Yehoshua. Once again, notice, that the letter at the beginning of this name (Hebrew being read from right to left) is a very small letter and this letter in Hebrew is called a yod. What Moses did was take a man’s name that meant deliverer or salvation, and changed it to mean Yahweh delivers or Yahweh saves.

The name that Moses gave to the sun of Nun in Numbers 13:16 can be directly transliterated from Hebrew to English quite easily, and we can come up with the name Yehoshua. This is done by taking each letter in the Hebrew name and bringing them down into the corresponding letters in the English language, and also bringing down the appropriate vowel pointing from Hebrew to English.

What we need to do now is acknowledge that the name Yehoshua itself is definitely not the name of a pagan deity at all, but rather a name which means Yahweh saves or delivers , and is the name chosen by the man Moses for the sun of Nun.

Yeshua

Now that we have established Yehoshua as the name of the son of Nun we need to also establish that the son of Nun’s name is Yeshua. “Wait a minute!” you may say, “That’s a double standard!” Before you make such an assertion and accusation, please allow me to explain why I believe both Yehoshua and Yeshua is the name of the son of Nun. Let us begin here by quoting the text of Nehemiah 8:17:

quote:
17And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness.

Notice that the son of Nun is mentioned in this Nehemiah passage. Yes, this is the same man mentioned in Numbers 13:16, spoken of as Oshea and Yehoshua. Here, the KJV of the Bible refers to him as just - Jeshua. Once again, by removing the English letter J and replacing it with a Y causes us to get the name Yeshua. In the Hebrew language this name reads as follows: Yeshua. This name in Hebrew has the meaning of “he will save”. What we are looking at here is simply a contracted form of the name Yehoshua into Yeshua. Some comparisons may be found in the name Robert to Bob, Johnathon to John, Samuel to Sam, etc. The son of Nun was called Yeshua in Nehemiah 8:17, and because of that Hebrew rendering we know that it was an appropriate practice for people to call him that at the time of the restoration of Jerusalem upon the Jews return from the Babylonian captivity, as recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Evidently, when they said Yeshua, meaning “he will save”, they understood that the he had the meaning of Yahweh will save, as is the definition or meaning of the name Yehoshua. For those who may be skeptic of my saying that Yeshua is a contraction from Yehoshua, allow me to quote from Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament.

quote:
Yeshua [Jeshua], a contracted form of the pr. n. Yehoshua used in the later Hebrew, Gr. Iesous – (1) of Joshua, the leader of the Israelites, Neh. 8:17 – (2) of a high priest of the same name; see יְהוֹשֻׁעַ No. 2, Ezr. 2:2; 3:2; Neh. 7:7 – (3) pr. n. of other men, mentioned in the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

Here we see that not only can we know that Yeshua is a contraction of Yehoshua from Hebrew Scripture, but we also see that much more learned men, such as H.W.F. Gesenius’ (A Hebrew Linguist) understand this as well. Therefore we see that Yeshua is simply a shortened form of the name Yehoshua, much as we said before, as Sam is a shortened form of the name Samuel. We should also add that this name – Yeshua – is not a name of paganism, but rather a name used in Scripture that means “he will save”: Nehemiah 8:17.

Yehoshua & Yeshua in the Septuagint

We need to now turn to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, which began to be accomplished around the middle of the third century B.C. A brief explanation of the reason for the Septuagint will now follow; being taken from the book entitled How We Got the Bible:

quote:
The following seems either factual or plausible concerning the Septuagint. Aristeas describes the origin of the Septuagint with the translation of the Pentateuch. This was done in Alexandria, where there was a large Jewish population and where a translation from Hebrew to Greek would be needed. Ptolemy II in some way may have been connected with the translation; he was well known as a patron of literature. Demetrius likewise may have been involved. He may have suggested the translation to Ptolemy I, but the project may not have been completed until the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy II. There are other factors to consider. According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated in the third century B.C. This date is quite reasonable. The names of the translators fit in with known names in the third century B.C.; and Philo reports that in his day, the first century A.D., an annual festival was still being held on Pharos to honor the place “in which the light of that version first shone out”.

Basically, we see that around 250 B.C. in Alexandria, Egypt there was a mass of Jewish people who spoke Greek rather than Hebrew and therefore the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek would be very beneficial to these Greek speaking Jews. Knowing this we should take note that those men who made the translation must have known both the Hebrew and the Greek language – and would therefore be scholarly men, able to make the translation. How did these men treat the names Yehoshua or Yeshua when transliterating them from Hebrew to Greek?

We will simply use both Numbers 13:16 and Nehemiah 8:17 to make the proper comparisons in the transliterations. In Numbers 13:16 where the name Yehoshua appears in the Hebrew Scripture, the name Iesou appears at this place in the Septuagint. The only difference being that the last letter of this Greek transliteration is the Greek letter nu, which is simply the case ending of the name of Numbers 13:16. What we see here is that this is the transliteration that Hebrew/Greek scholars of the third century B.C., 250 plus years before Christ, chose to use in transliterating this particular name from Hebrew to Greek.

In looking at Nehemiah 8:17 where we find the contracted form of the Hebrew name of Numbers 13:16 we also find the Septuagint, once again using the Greek name Iesou, which is simply another form of the above Greek name with simply a different case ending because of its use in the grammar of the Greek language.

Now we need to better define how this particular Greek name is pronounced. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible gives ee-ay-sooce as the pronunciation of this Greek name. Most other Greek lexicons give Iesous as the exact English transliteration of the Greek name. The most proper pronunciation we could give would most likely be pronounced yey-sooce (Yesous). Notice particularly that this transliteration does not come from someone transliterating with the Messiah in mind, but from Jewish scholars of the 3rd century B.C. which transliterated the name of Moses’ successor. These scholars weren’t trying to pull some kind of “switch-a-roo” with the text of Scripture when they came to such passages as Numbers 13:16 or Nehemiah 8:17; they were simply transliterating the Hebrew name into the Greek language, using the corresponding Greek letters in the best possible way. Why would Jewish scholars transliterate the name of the leader of Israel after Moses incorrectly?

It may be needful at this point to define what exactly transliteration is. Here are the definitions of transliteration in a couple of English dictionaries:

quote:
Transliterate… 1: to represent or spell (words, letters, or characters of one language) in the letters or characters of another language or alphabet… {Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1981}

Transliterate… to represent (a letter or word) by the alphabetic characters of another language… {Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, V2, 1984}


Here we see that transliteration consists of taking a word in one language and spelling it with the corresponding characters of another language. Nothing is stated in these definitions about the sound of the original word being retained as some would suggest, only the letters as best as possible. There is nothing in the meaning of the word transliterate showing that the sound is retained from one language to the next. The sounds from one language to the next may remain the same or similar in many instances, but this is not always the case for all languages do not contain the same sounds. Such is the case with the name at hand. How did the name Iesous come from the name Yehoshua? It did so by the process of transliterating the short form of the name Yehoshua – Yeshua – from Hebrew into Greek. The process would go like this:

יְ - Ἰη / שׁ – σ / וּ - οῦ

Here we see the transliteration into Greek as Iesou but we are missing the final letter of the Greek name. This is known in Greek as the final sigma, and is placed often on the end of male names as it is a Greek ending for masculinity. Thus we get the name Iesous. Mr. John K. McKee in his article entitled "Is the Name of Jesus Pagan" explains the transliteration process thusly:

  • y (yod – “ye”) becomes Ih (iota-eta – “ye” or “ee-ay,” Koine or Attic dialect)
  • v (shin – “sh”) becomes s (sigma – “s” [there is no “sh” sound in Greek]
  • w (vav – “u”) becomes ou (omicron-upsilon – “oo”)
  • It is necessary for a final sigma - ς - to be placed at the end of the word to distinguish that the name is masculine
  • Greek grammar rules require that the (ayin – “ah”) sound be dropped

Mr. McKee goes on to write the following:

quote:
It is important to note that this same name is used for the title of the Book of Joshua in the Septuagint, which serves as definitive proof that Iesous is not of pagan origin, but rather is indeed a Greek transliteration of Yeshua developed by the Jewish translators! For, Iesous is also the Greek transliteration of Yehoshua [יְהוֹשֻׁעַ] as demonstrated by the Septuagint.

In Old English, “Iesous” was rendered “Iesus” (pronounced Yesus), which is remarkably close to Yeshua. However, it was spelled with a beginning letter “J,” which at the time had a “Y” sound. Later, when the “J” began to have a harder sound, the name became “Jesus.”

Transliteration is not an exact science. However, it does prove that the Greek name Iesous from whence we derive the name “Jesus” is not pagan. Iesous is the Greek transliteration of [Yeshua], and the English transliteration of Iesous is Iesus, which became Jesus.


Another author, Dr. Daniel Botkin, in an article entitled, "The Messiah’s Hebrew Name: “Yeshua” or “Yahshua”" writes the following in association with the issue at hand:

quote:
The English form Jesus is derived from the New Testament Greek name Iesous, pronounced “Yesous.” According the Strong’s, Yesous (Strong’s #2424) is “of Hebrew origin” and can be traced back to Joshua’s Hebrew name, Yehoshua (#3091, יְהוֹשׁוּעַ. But how do we get the Greek Yesous from the Hebrew Yehoshua? Someone armed with nothing more than a Strong’s Concordance may have difficulty answering that question. Someone who reads the bible in Hebrew, though, knows that the name Joshua sometimes appears in its shortened form, Yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ. In Neh. 8:17 it is apparent even in English: “Jeshua the son of Nun.” (The letter J was pronounced like a Y in Old English.) Strong’s does not tell the reader that the Greek Yesous is actually transliterated from this shortened Hebrew form, Yeshua, and not directly from the longer form Yehoshua. The process from “Yehoshua” to “Jesus” looks like this:

  • Hebrew Yehoshua – Hebrew Yeshua
  • Hebrew Yeshua – Greek Yesous
  • Greek Yesous – English Jesus

There is no “sh” sound in Greek, which accounts for the middle “s” sound in Yesous. The “s” at the end of the Greek name is a grammatical necessity, to make the word declinable.

In Neh. 8:17, Joshua’s name is 100% identical to the name which today’s Messianic Jews use for the Messiah, Yeshua… Strong’s confirms this pronunciation, and tells us that there were ten Israelites in the Bible who bore this name (#3442). Therefore the shortening of Yehoshua to Yeshua predates the Christian era by at least 500 years, and cannot be the result of a Jewish conspiracy to hide the Savior’s true name. To claim that the shortened form Yeshua is the result of a Jewish conspiracy is to ignore the facts of history and the facts of the Hebrew Scriptures. The form Yeshua existed for several hundred years before the Messiah was even born. Even in the pre-Christian Septuagint we see the Greek form… (Yesous) in the title of the Book of Joshua. (This is also proof that Yesous has no connection to the pagan god Zeus.




We can now conclude that this Greek name Iesous is not of pagan origin, but was developed by Jewish scholars in the third century B.C. as a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yehoshua or Yeshua into the Greek language. This then is the name that the Christ was given in Matthew 1:21. In Hebrew we could say that his name was Yehoshua or Yeshua, in Greek his name would be Yesous, and in English we could legitimately say that his name was Jesus. These names mean Yahweh is salvation or just simply salvation. I feel inclined at this point to show the similarity of the transliteration in the Hebrew name for Moses. In Hebrew this name is Moshe, but when transliterating it from Hebrew to Greek you must drop the –sh sound and then add an s at the end for masculinity and/or declinable purposes. This allows us to get the Greek name Μωϋσῆς and in turn from Greek to English the name Moses. Even though we do not see a complete and exact pronunciation in English as in Hebrew we do see that Moses is a proper transliteration from Hebrew to Greek to English. The same applies with Yeshua, to Yesous, and finally to Jesus.

Zues

We should also note that in the Greek language the name Zues is spelled entirely different than the name Jesus. According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon the name Zues in Greek is spelled Ζεύς and Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines it as follows:

quote:
G2203 / Ζεύς / Zeus / dzyooce / Of uncertain affinity; in the oblique cases there is used instead of it a (probably cognate) name Δίς Dis deece which is otherwise obsolete; Zeus or Dis (among the Latins Jupiter or Jove), the supreme deity of the Greeks:—Jupiter.

We might also note that the name Dionysius, which some believe Jesus is a derivative of, is also spelled in Greek differently than Jesus. It is spelled - Διονύσιος. Thus we see that the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yehoshua or Yeshua is not associated with either the Greek name Zues or Dionysius and did not stem from either, but like we have stated before, is an accurate transliteration (carrying the letters of one language into another) from Hebrew to Greek (Yesous). From the Greek Yesous we get the Old English Yesus and then the English Jesus.

 

katy

 

 

We did alot of research on it and being a language major in HS and learning NT Greek later on I see no significant research that the name is of Pagan origin. Out of respect I do not use it as was not my custom anyway. We always used Christ.
However the main part is lets get rid of the condemnation and arrogance surrounding the Sacred Name Movement. It seems that so much is steeped in ritualism and ceremony. Ex. headcovering a woman uncovered in some circles prayers are not heard. Beards must be worn, tassles and the list goes on. Some go as far as can't say the days of the weeks etc. I respect and don't condemn those who do so yet the same consideration for me.

Katy

leejosepho

 

 

Shalom, Matthew.

Having first heard these kinds of things several years ago, and having since heard even more, I am no longer convinced the word/name "Jesus" is actually pagan even though it is definitely often used for pagan purposes. To wit:

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum1/HTML/002352.html

 

Yahwehwitnesses

 

 posted 01-07-2005 01:00 PM     

Joe, earlier I heard you saying you were once in a Jesus cult. There are many of those, but not everybody that uses the name Jesus is a cult. I think all manmade churches have some truths and some errors in them, even the many bibles of today don't all say the same things. I have seen great works of YHWH being done through people who speak the name Jesus. YHWH works in ways that we don't always understand. Sometimes he gives his children dreams, and he tells/shows us things that we don't always understand at first.

Here is an example of the power of YHWH that you might understand.

The fire of Satan might put certain men in jail, but in that jail that man might recieve the Word of YHWH from somebody that uses the name Jesus. After getting out of that jail, that person might latter find himself in a school or job place of somekind. Then YHWH might work through someone at that school or workplace, and it might even be a woman. He works through his children to continue to call others out of the fire that got them in that jail in the firstplace.

I do believe some of his children use the name Jesus. We all take one step at a time on the path of righteousness. YHWH has called you, and he knows your heart. He sent his only begotten son, and don't ever hang up on him.

Shalom in YHWH,

Yohanan

[This message has been edited by Yahwehwitnesses (edited 01-07-2005).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

leejosepho

Posts: 2500
Registered: Jul 2001

  posted 01-07-2005 05:13 PM    
quote:
Originally posted by Yahwehwitnesses:
Joe ...
... not everybody that uses the name Jesus is a cult.

I am well aware of that, Yohanan, hence, I had said the name "Jesus" is often used for pagan purposes, not "always". Please read more carefully.
-----

Matthew: It has just struck me that "the name of Jesus" and "the name 'Jesus'" are not identical expressions, and with that considered:

Yes, "the name[-likeness] of Jesus" known by most around the world today is quite pagan ... just look at the bearded-lady pictures hanging all over the place.

However, and as Yohanan has pointed out, merely speaking the name "Jesus" in ignorance of one thing or another does not bring on instant destruction.

Shalom.

 

chuckbaldwin

 

 

Regarding whether the name "Jesus" is pagan, i appreciate Matthew posting the article above. It shows that we Name-believers sometimes do go overboard in trying to prove things "pagan". I have also read Daniel Botkin's article and others, and have concluded that "Jesus" is just an unfortunate 2nd or 3rd-generation transliteration, as mentioned (Hebrew-Greek-Latin-English).

However, i believe the proper way to render a Hebrew name in English is to transliterate it directly from the Hebrew, skipping the intermediate languages. This would produce and "English" rendering that would be much closer to the original than "Jesus". Going through intermediates reminds me of the game of "gossip", where something is whispered from one person to the next around a table, and the last person says out loud what they heard, and it seldom resembles the word or phrase that originally started out.

Also, i would comment on the following:

quote:
... transliteration consists of taking a word in one language and spelling it with the corresponding characters of another language. Nothing is stated in these definitions about the sound of the original word being retained as some would suggest, only the letters as best as possible. There is nothing in the meaning of the word transliterate showing that the sound is retained from one language to the next.
While the above is technically true, that's only because transliteration deals only with writing, as opposed to speaking.

However, there is an unwritten, but observable "law", that when we are told someone's name, we try to pronounce it the same way it was told to us. This is done out of repect for that person. This "law" could be called "transvocalization", and admittedly, we don't apply it in a consistent manner (e.g. we "anglicize" most biblical names). Even if English doesn't have the exact letters to match the sound, we still try to preserve the sound vocally.

Here's a crude example: There's a nation of Indians called the Sioux. This is a very poor transliteration (i'm not even sure what language it came from - it looks like maybe French), since it's not prounounced anything like its spelling. But we do "transvocalize" the sound, and prounounce it "Sue". If we didn't know better, we would pronounce it "Sigh-owx" or something similar. The only way we know better, is if someone tells us the proper pronunciation.

Therefore, my contention is that the Greek name "Iesous" was actually pronounced "Y'Shuwa" (with whatever case endings applied), even though the Greek spelling is deficient, simply because those who were familiar with it had been told how it should be pronounced. As the centuries passed, familiarity gave way to ignorance (simply pronouncing it the way it looked), and resulted in the Greek-Latin-English "Jesus".

So when someone asks me why i don't use the name "Jesus", i simply reply "because that wasn't the Savior's Name".

I hope the above comments are useful. YHWH bless.

------------------
Chuck Baldwin

 

leejosepho


posted 01-07-2005 07:21 PM    
quote:
Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
I hope the above comments are useful. YHWH bless.

In my own opinion, those comments are excellent! Certainly the messenger mentioned in Matthew 1:21 said something completely different than "Jesus".

Question: What do you (or what does anyone else) think of this statement someone once made to me:

quote:
... you will eventually discover that "Yahshua" is a hebrew impossibility and is yet another fiction of the sacred-name christians. Yeshua ben Yoseph is his name.

Shalom.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Shlomoh

 

posted 01-07-2005 10:28 PM    
Question: What do you (or what does anyone else) think of this statement someone once made to me:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... you will eventually discover that "Yahshua" is a hebrew impossibility and is yet another fiction of the sacred-name christians. Yeshua ben Yoseph is his name.


Answer: The quote is accurate enough, as far as it goes. Yeshua is the name that appears in the Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the NT, including the oldest copies. Y'hoshua does appear in the Munster Hebrew version of the book of Hebrews as well as in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in Hebrew copies of the NT that are translations from the Greek or Aramaic into Hebrew. The spelling Yahshua was bestowed upon us by men like A B Traina and C O Dodd who really did not know much Hebrew.

Good Shabbath,

Shlomoh

mbanak

 

  posted 01-07-2005 11:59 PM    
Brother Matthew has righfully indicted the false theory that Jesus=Zeus. Then Katy uses that as a pretext to launch into a wrongful indictment of commandment keepers.

While the facts support Matthew's findings, katy's indictments of the commandments will not stand. Be careful, now. To disparage tassles and woman's headcovering as ritual, when they are ordained of Heaven, is to judge the Law, as warned by James.

The form "Jesus" must be rejected simply because it does not conform to the Scriptural principle of transliteration.

We have vast numbers of pagan gods and kings, whose names are transliterated into Hebrew in the inspired Word. In some cases, we do not even know what those names mean. But we do know their sound.

Yahweh's Name would sound very different, if constructed with Hebrew from Moses' era (i.e., Yodh + Hayah = Yahyah). But, that matchless Name was constructed anciently with an ancient form of the vern "to be" (i.e., Yodh + Hawah = Yahweh). Thus even the Name of Yahweh is transliterated scross the ages, regardless of updates in the Hebrew language.

Peace to all, and katy too.
Michael

 

emjanzen

 

posted 01-08-2005 06:46 AM   
Shalom, All,

I am very appreciative of each person's comments in regards to the article above. I would like to respond to a few things written.

quote:
Originally posted by Chuck Baldwin:
Therefore, my contention is that the Greek name "Iesous" was actually pronounced "Y'Shuwa" (with whatever case endings applied), even though the Greek spelling is deficient, simply because those who were familiar with it had been told how it should be pronounced. As the centuries passed, familiarity gave way to ignorance (simply pronouncing it the way it looked), and resulted in the Greek-Latin-English "Jesus".

I reply: Chuck, I think you make an excellent point. Even the Greek form Yesous is pronounced "yey-sooce", while the English form Jesus is pronounced "gee-sus". It is possible that after the Greek form took on the pronunciation "yey-sooce" that this was originally how the English form was pronounced, but as you say, people pronounce things as they see them.

The issue with me was that the name does not have pagan origin as some have suggested throughout my quest for truth. I do not want to cut someone off from salvation because they speak a name that was initially derived from Yahshua. There simply using the transliteration from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. I personally don't see me ever referring to Christ with the name Jesus, because I don't think it is necessary, however, for those who choose to do so, I really don't think they forfeit their salvation, unless someone can show me otherwise.

quote:
Originally posted by Shlomoh:
The spelling Yahshua was bestowed upon us by men like A B Traina and C O Dodd who really did not know much Hebrew.

I reply: Shlomoh, you're probably correct when you say the spelling "YAH-shua" was used first by these men, however the pronunciation "YAH-shua" definitely goes back further than the early 1900's. I've noticed that while some reject the pronunciation Yahshua they have no problem referring to the son of Nun as Joshua; a name that is spelled differently but makes the same exact sound. This name Joshua is found in the 1611 KJV as well as the 1599 Geneva Bible and thus was most likely pronunced Joshua or "YOH-shua" then as well.

In my 1611 KJV reprint at Hebrews 4:8 it reads "Iesus" but gives a footnote at the side which reads "...that is, Iosuah" I would vocalize this as "Yo-soo-ah". You can also find the spelling "Ioshua" in the book of Joshua 1:1.

I am also curious as to why Strong's Concordance gives the pronunciation as "yah-shooah" at #3442 in the Hebrew Lexicon? Would it be more correct to spell it "Yashua" seeing that this spelling removes the hey from the Hebrew which has to be vocalized when added in?

quote:
Originally posted by mbanak:
While the facts support Matthew's findings, katy's indictments of the commandments will not stand. Be careful, now. To disparage tassles and woman's headcovering as ritual, when they are ordained of Heaven, is to judge the Law, as warned by James.

I reply: I completely agree. I do not want my statements concerning the name Jesus to branch into thinking "everything's okay". I'm in this for truth, and I cannot prove that the name Jesus is pagan. However, I do believe it is a shame for a woman to pray uncovered, and a sin for a man to shave his face. I also believe it is a sin to not wear fringes.

Mike, since you brought up the name "James" this one's also baffled me. How in the world did the translators get James out of Iakov or Iakobos?

Love you friends,

Matthew Janzen


katy

 

posted 01-08-2005 08:27 AM    
Mike and Matt,
You missed my entire point there was no condemnation onmy part however I guess I just got fired from everyone else. I said let's research these things not jsut go along wiht the crowd but if you already have decided I am wrong in my example then so be it. Why when those examples of research are given then it strikes a nerve?

I've done my research on some of these issues of which I do not share for that exact reason. My entire point was let's not judge and condemn in the Sacred Name movement and you proved my point exactly.

What I am trying to say is if a woman comes to visit a SN congregation lets not toss a head covering at her and demand it. It's an insult. BTW I own many headcoverings but I don't condemn visitors. However I don't believe He doesn't hear prayers if it's not on.

What is wrong with looking into the whys we do things.
Katy

 

leejosepho

 

posted 01-08-2005 09:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for leejosepho     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

quote:


Originally posted by katy:
What is wrong with looking into the whys we do things.

Nothing at all, Katy, and it is also important to consider the "hows"!

In my own opinion, Michael, you read far too much into what Katy had said.

And to you, Matthew, I would say my "words and deeds" at times help to keep others just as reminded of Torah as occasionally do Yo'el's fringes!

Shalom.

Dave52

 

posted 01-08-2005 10:34 AM    
quote:
chuckbaldwin wrote: “However, there is an unwritten, but observable "law", that when we are told someone's name, we try to pronounce it the same way it was told to us. This is done out of repect for that person. This "law" could be called "transvocalization", and admittedly, we don't apply it in a consistent manner (e.g. we "anglicize" most biblical names). Even if English doesn't have the exact letters to match the sound, we still try to preserve the sound vocally. “

That is indeed a “law” or a translator’s rule that is enforced when translators transliterate names (proper nouns) from one language into another. The name must be pronounced exactly as it sounds when it is given to you by the owner of the name. Contact this company or check with the United Nations Communications Director if you think names can be pronounced in several different ways.

Spectrum Multilanguage Communications, Expert Translation and Foreign Language, New York Phone (212) 391-3940.
“In translation from English into other languages, personal, corporate, and brand names frequently appear, whether on an executive's business card or in descriptive material about a company, and proper rendering is of vital importance.
If the foreign language involved is one that is printed with the Latin alphabet, personal names do not change, even if the name has a translatable meaning or an "equivalent" in that foreign tongue.
In languages printed with other scripts, such as Russian, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, or the Oriental tongues, the translator's job is to render personal names phonetically in the foreign characters so that they sound as close as possible to the way they sound in English. Regardless of the script and the accepted conventions or lack of them, it is essential that the translator know how the individual's name is pronounced in his own language; Unless it's clearly apparent, please be sure to advise how a name is pronounced when you need it rendered into another script as part of a translation assignment.”

So you see mispronounced names of foreign leaders can result in embarrassment or at worse a foreign relations crisis and that is why people insist their own names be pronounced as they themselves pronounce it. If world leaders deserve to have their names correctly pronounced why should we not make an effort to pronounce our savior’s name as he would.

quote:
chuckbaldwin wrote: “Here's a crude example: There's a nation of Indians called the Sioux. This is a very poor transliteration (i'm not even sure what language it came from - it looks like maybe French), since it's not prounounced anything like its spelling. But we do "transvocalize" the sound, and prounounce it "Sue". If we didn't know better, we would pronounce it "Sigh-owx" or something similar. The only way we know better, is if someone tells us the proper pronunciation.

Therefore, my contention is that the Greek name "Iesous" was actually pronounced "Y'Shuwa" (with whatever case endings applied), even though the Greek spelling is deficient, simply because those who were familiar with it had been told how it should be pronounced. As the centuries passed, familiarity gave way to ignorance (simply pronouncing it the way it looked), and resulted in the Greek-Latin-English "Jesus".”



It might be a crude example but it certainly gets the point across (maybe someone can come up with other examples). Those that support the name “Jesus” often can’t get beyond the fact that the New Testament used Iesous which means the apostles (Paul I guess) must have pronounced it different in Greek then in Hebrew. But as you pointed out many written words actually require someone to pronounce them for you in order to know the correct pronunciation. That’s why dictionaries incorporate a pronunciation guide into their works.

TRANSLITERATE
The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989 vol. 18, p. 411.
Transliterate, to replace (letters or characters of one language) by those of another used to represent the same sounds

 

Dave52

 

posted 01-09-2005 12:02 AM     
quote:
emjanzen wrote: “I reply: Shlomoh, you're probably correct when you say the spelling "YAH-shua" was used first by these men, however the pronunciation "YAH-shua" definitely goes back further than the early 1900's. I've noticed that while some reject the pronunciation Yahshua they have no problem referring to the son of Nun as Joshua; a name that is spelled differently but makes the same exact sound. This name Joshua is found in the 1611 KJV as well as the 1599 Geneva Bible and thus was most likely pronunced Joshua or "YOH-shua" then as well.

In my 1611 KJV reprint at Hebrews 4:8 it reads "Iesus" but gives a footnote at the side which reads "...that is, Iosuah" I would vocalize this as "Yo-soo-ah". You can also find the spelling "Ioshua" in the book of Joshua 1:1.

I am also curious as to why Strong's Concordance gives the pronunciation as "yah-shooah" at #3442 in the Hebrew Lexicon? Would it be more correct to spell it "Yashua" seeing that this spelling removes the hey from the Hebrew which has to be vocalized when added in?”



Does the name of our saviour mean “Yah saves” or does it mean “he saves”? Why would Israel drop Yah’s name from Yahshua and put in the generic “he”? Were they ashamed of the name of their creator?

Isa. 48:11 - For how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
Jer 23:27 (Yahweh speaking of lying prophets) Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal.
Jer. 34:16 - Ye turned and polluted my name.
Ezekiel 39:7 (He speaks of the end time) So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that Iam Yahweh, the Holy One in Israel.
Eze 43:7 - My holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile.

But they didn’t stop at “causing His people to forget His name” but also caused His name to be forgotten from His son’s name too.

It matters not if Nehemiah himself changed Joshua’s name or the scribes or the priests or the translators of the Septuagint because we know it was changed and so we don’t have to follow their lead but stand up for what has been revealed to us and use the true name of our saviour.

JOSHUA Strong’s #H3091 Yehowshuwa` (yeh-ho-shoo'- ah) from H3068-Yahweh and H3467-save. Definition: “Jehovah is salvation"
JESHUA #H3442 Yeshuwa` (yay-shoo'- ah) for H3091-see above. Definition: " he is saved"

We know undeniably that #H3442 (Yeshua) is a substitute for the proper #H3091 (Yahshua).

JESUS #G2424 Iesous (ee-ay-sooce') of Hebrew origin H3091. Definition: " Jehovah is salvation"

Jesus (Iesous) is not derived from #H3442 (Yeshua) but from #H3091 (Yahshua).

YAH #H3050 Yahh (yaw) contraction for H3068, and meaning the same. Definition: Jah (Jehovah in the shortened form), used in many compounds, names beginning with the letters ‘Je’, names ending with ‘iah’ or ‘jah’.

With #H3050 Strong’s get it exactly correct with, “Used in many compounds, names beginning with the letters ‘Je’.

 

YermeYah

 

posted 01-09-2005 12:05 AM    
Shalom all,

Is the name of Jesus Pagan? Well, the true name of the Messiah is Yahushua (Yehoshua/Yeshua). 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:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

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

Author Topic:   Is the Name of Jesus Pagan?
emjanzen

Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 01-09-2005 05:07 AM    
Hi, Katy,

I'm sorry I misunderstood what you were trying to convey, I honestly did not get what you said in your second message, out of your first message.

I agree that we shouldn't meet visitors at the door with headcoverings for the women or tassles for the men/women etc. People must have time to learn and grow (Acts 15:21). I also agree that we should study things out before accepting them seeing that if we do not we could be laying aside Scripture to keep our tradition. I believe that everyone from the Baptists to the Catholics, to the Sacred Name Movement has traditions. We need to attempt to rid ourselves of any and all traditions. On a side note, it seems that the people in the Sacred Name Movement would be the ones that would most readily agree with this statement, and for that they are to be commended.

I also believe we are permitted to judge people. The Messiah said in Matthew 7:5 that when we remove the beam from our own eye first, we can then see clearly to remove the speck from our brothers eye. Other passages teaching us to go and rebuke (in love) are found in Lev. 19:18; Jacob 5:19-20.

Your friend,

Matthew Janzen

 

emjanzen

Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 01-09-2005 05:36 AM    
Shalom, Dave52,

I would like to comment on some of the things you wrote.

You wrote, quoting from the heading Spectrum Multilanguage Communications

quote:
...In languages printed with other scripts, such as Russian, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, or the Oriental tongues, the translator's job is to render personal names phonetically in the foreign characters so that they sound as close as possible to the way they sound in English... {emphasis mine}

I reply: 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. 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. Such is the case with the Greek language and the sound "sh". The Greek language just does not have this sound in their alphabet. Therefore when they bring this sound down from Hebrew to Greek they do so the best possible way they can into the letters of their (the Greek) alphabet. the closest they can come to is the "s" sound, and therefore you get the names Yesous, Moses, etc.

You also wrote:

quote:
If world leaders deserve to have their names correctly pronounced why should we not make an effort to pronounce our savior’s name as he would.

I reply: I completely agree. We should give our Messiah honor and respect by using His original name. That is what I do. 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. The name Jesus comes to us by going from Hebrew, to Greek, to English.

You then wrote:

quote:
Those that support the name “Jesus” often can’t get beyond the fact that the New Testament used Iesous which means the apostles (Paul I guess) must have pronounced it different in Greek then in Hebrew. But as you pointed out many written words actually require someone to pronounce them for you in order to know the correct pronunciation. That’s why dictionaries incorporate a pronunciation guide into their works.

I reply: The name Iesous, may have been originally pronounced Yeshua by those Hebrews who knew that this was the original name of the son of Nun. However, that is not the sound these letters make in the Greek language. 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. 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.

I also do agree with the definition you gave from the Oxford Dictionary. I'm almost certain that if you asked the person who gave that definition of the word they would agree that all languages do not contain the same sounds in their respective alphabet's and therefore the process of transliteration is carried out in the best possible, letter-for-letter way.

You wrote:

quote:
Does the name of our saviour mean “Yah saves” or does it mean “he saves”? Why would Israel drop Yah’s name from Yahshua and put in the generic “he”? Were they ashamed of the name of their creator?

I reply: As the first article on this thread showed, the name Yeshua is a shortened form of the name Yehoshua. The name Yehoshua is spelled yod, hey, waw, shin, ayin while the name Yeshua is spelled yod, shin, waw, ayin. The son of Nun is called Yehoshua (meaning "Yahweh will save") in Numbers 13:16, and he is also called Yeshua (meaning "He will save") in Nehemiah 8:17. Both names are used in Hebrew Scripture, therefore both names are acceptable for the son of Nun.

When you examine the Septuagint you will see that Yesous is the Greek transliteration given by the Jewish scholars for both names. I do believe the name Yesous best represents Yeshua in the Greek language. 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.

You wrote:

quote:
It matters not if Nehemiah himself changed Joshua’s name or the scribes or the priests or the translators of the Septuagint because we know it was changed and so we don’t have to follow their lead but stand up for what has been revealed to us and use the true name of our saviour.

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.

You then wrote:

quote:
We know undeniably that #H3442 (Yeshua) is a substitute for the proper #H3091 (Yahshua).

JESUS #G2424 Iesous (ee-ay-sooce') of Hebrew origin H3091. Definition: " Jehovah is salvation"

Jesus (Iesous) is not derived from #H3442 (Yeshua) but from #H3091 (Yahshua).


I reply: Yeshua is not a substitute for Yahshua, Yeshua is the shortened form of Yehoshua or if you'd like Yahoshua.

Also, Jesus (Yesous) is derived from 3091, but how? It is not directly derived the the long form (Yehoshua) but rather from the shortened form of that name - Yeshua. It is a transliteration of Yeshua from Hebrew to Greek.

In Yahweh's Love,

Matthew Janzen

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

 

emjanzen

Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 01-09-2005 06:06 AM   
Shalom, YermeYah,

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 (Yehoshua/Yeshua). 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 (Yehoshua/Yeshua)..." 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 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!

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).]

 

katy

Posts: 129
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 01-09-2005 07:44 AM     
I also believe we are permitted to judge people. The Messiah said in Matthew 7:5 that when we remove the beam from our own eye first, we can then see clearly to remove the speck from our brothers eye. Other passages teaching us to go and rebuke (in love) are found in Lev. 19:18; Jacob 5:19-20.

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

 

YermeYah

Posts: 412
Registered:

posted 01-09-2005 02:05 PM   
Shalom Matthew,

I will comment on some of your responses:

quote:
Originally posted by emjanzen:
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".

Yeshua is actually a contraction of Yahushua. Joshua (Yehoshua) was called Yeshua in Nehemiah 10:17

quote:
Originally posted by emjanzen:
Also, 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

 

friendofyah

Posts: 72
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 01-09-2005 02:24 PM     
Revelations 3:8 "I know you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name."

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)

 

Dave52

Posts: 297
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 01-09-2005 03:12 PM     
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.”

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?
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.”

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”?
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.”



I don’t think too many people take the extreme viewpoint that Jesus is derived from Zeus for that argument is weak with no structural support.
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?”



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.
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.”



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.

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.”

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

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”?

 

emjanzen

Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 01-09-2005 05:48 PM    
Hi, YermeYah,

You wrote:

quote:
Yeshua is actually a contraction of Yahushua. Joshua (Yehoshua) was called Yeshua in Nehemiah 10:17

I reply: The Scripture is 8:17, I'm sure that's what you meant. I agree with the above statement. Is this an admonition on your part that Yeshua is the shortened form of Yehoshua?

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

 

emjanzen

Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 01-09-2005 06:03 PM     
Hi, David52,

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

YermeYah

Posts: 412
Registered:

posted 01-09-2005 11:04 PM    
Shalom Matthew,

You wrote:

quote:
Originally posted by emjanzen:
The Scripture is 8:17, I'm sure that's what you meant.

Yes, thank you Matthew.

quote:
Originally posted by emjanzen:
Is this an admonition on your part that Yeshua is the shortened form of Yehoshua?

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).

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

emjanzen

Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 01-10-2005 08:53 AM     
Shalom, YermeYah,

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?

 

emjanzen

Posts: 242
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 01-10-2005 09:08 AM    
Shalom again, YeremYah!

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

 

leejosepho

Posts: 2500
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 01-10-2005 09:29 AM     
Shalom, YermeYah and Matthew.

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?!

YermeYah

Posts: 412
Registered:

posted 01-10-2005 10:48 AM    
Shalom Matthew,

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).]