- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I would like to discuss about how important it is to call our Messiah by his Hebrew name. Is the Greek version 'Jesus' OK? Is Jesus another name for 'The Zeus' the Greek god as some believe? Why wasn't Yahshua's name transliterated as opposed to translated.
I know that through other discussions these points have been touched on. But they are hard to find and I thought it better to start a discussion that focuses on these questions.
Any ideas?
thxSurely it is the person who matters. A rose by any other name etc.
I think that by getting hung up on a name we run the risk of concentrating on the letter of the law, as the Pharisees did, rather than the spirit of the law, which Jesus taught us was the only important thing.
God hears your meaning when you pray, rather than just listening to the words you speak, and between you and Jesus, the name you use is irrelevant. Any associations that might be made by the use of a particular name are only going to be relevant to a small number of people, and if we were to worry about such things we would probably find that all names are flawed in some way – after all, all language is created by man rather than God.
That said, if you use the name 'Jesus', most people will understand who you mean.
God BlessActually, Yahshua isn't the correct Hebrew name.
The actual Hebrew equiv. to the Messiah's name would
be Yeshua [cp. Exo 17.9, 1 Chr 24.11, 2 Chr 31.15, Ezra 2.2, etc]
or even Yehoshua [cp. Num. 13.16, 1 Chr 7.27]Yahshua isn't a properly constructed Hebrew name!
So is Yahweh a real name?
Is Yehshua derived from Yahweh?I have read some writings on this subject but everyone seems to have a different opinion and all seem to think they are right.
This doesn't stop me from seeking though.
Quote (Caroline @ Jan. 07 2005,10:38) Surely it is the person who matters. A rose by any other name etc.
I think that by getting hung up on a name we run the risk of concentrating on the letter of the law, as the Pharisees did, rather than the spirit of the law, which Jesus taught us was the only important thing.
God hears your meaning when you pray, rather than just listening to the words you speak, and between you and Jesus, the name you use is irrelevant. Any associations that might be made by the use of a particular name are only going to be relevant to a small number of people, and if we were to worry about such things we would probably find that all names are flawed in some way – after all, all language is created by man rather than God.
That said, if you use the name 'Jesus', most people will understand who you mean.
God Bless
I would tend to agree that the heart of a person is really what counts. For surely you can have all the right words and have a corrupt heart.But if the name thing didn't matter too much, then one could change Jesus name to say Bob and if that got universal acceptance then would that matter, (if they knew who you meant)?
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 07 2005,05:43) Quote (Caroline @ Jan. 07 2005,10:38) Surely it is the person who matters. A rose by any other name etc.
I think that by getting hung up on a name we run the risk of concentrating on the letter of the law, as the Pharisees did, rather than the spirit of the law, which Jesus taught us was the only important thing.
God hears your meaning when you pray, rather than just listening to the words you speak, and between you and Jesus, the name you use is irrelevant. Any associations that might be made by the use of a particular name are only going to be relevant to a small number of people, and if we were to worry about such things we would probably find that all names are flawed in some way – after all, all language is created by man rather than God.
That said, if you use the name 'Jesus', most people will understand who you mean.
God Bless
I would tend to agree that the heart of a person is really what counts. For surely you can have all the right words and have a corrupt heart.But if the name thing didn't matter too much, then one could change Jesus name to say Bob and if that got universal acceptance then would that matter, (if they knew who you meant)?
Personally, I think that you could call Jesus 'Bucket', and as long as it was understood where it needed to be, and done with respect (which, admittedly, could be difficult with a word like bucket!), it would make no difference at all.Jesus is not The Zeus. When transliterating Yeshuah into greek it couldn't be done because There is no Shu or Ah in greek. So it became IESOUS. In latin I believe it is IESUS without the o. The letter J in english has its origins from the letter I.
Pastor Adam said,
“”
Quote Actually, Yahshua isn't the correct Hebrew name. The actual Hebrew equiv. to the Messiah's name would
be Yeshua [cp. Exo 17.9, 1 Chr 24.11, 2 Chr 31.15, Ezra 2.2, etc]
or even Yehoshua [cp. Num. 13.16, 1 Chr 7.27]Yahshua isn't a properly constructed Hebrew name!
I already explained that earlier, but it too was ignored.
The Names of Yehoshua( the Son) and Yehovah( the Father( Strongs Conciordance) were vowel pointed combined with the title of Adonia meaning ' lord ' which produced these names, however, thee original scriptures were not vowel pointed at all, as there are earlier inscriptions like the Moabite Stone which contains on it the original name of ' YHWH ' without the vowel point markings, and examinations of Lexicons will also verify this too.
This is how the name of Jehovah== Yehovah( Strongs) came into being in the 14th Century, as the translators combined the vowel points of Adonia meaning 'lord ' with the four letters of YHWH , as Encyclopedias and Lexicons will also verify too.
The Messiah had the same name as Yahushua( without the vowel point markings)son of Nun, and ( Acts 7:45 ; Heb.4:8), that the Old K.J.V. translators confused and wrote the name of ' Jesus', and those verses are plainly talking about “Joshua ” son of nun.
James H.Strongs made the same mistake as the translators of the Old K.J.V. by merely coding his Concordance to its words, however, James H. Strongs then corrects his error when he transliterates the Name ( 3091 Hebrew) from Hebrew to English, except he left the vowel points combined with both names.
Very few people have noticed Mr. Strongs mistake from Greek to English concering that name( If they do they have not acknowledged it), but then Strongs corrects his error from Hebrew to English of 3091, which without the vowel point markings is Yahushua.
How can there be 2 transliterations from Yahoshua the Hebrew into the English of BOTH ” Joshua “ and ” Jesus”?
There are very few people that have noticed such mistakes, and those in teaching seminars will avoid it like the plaque, because it disproves modern traditional beliefs of Theology that is taught and which is traditionally accepted by the masses of people.
This gets into the same as ONESPIRIT said concerning truth is substituted and accepted for the traditions of the people, and that is exactly what is taught today to the masses of people too.
And concerning calling the Messiah or the Father Yah by the title of bucket as Caroline said, then why did Paul object to those in” Acts 14 “ when they used their Jupiter Theos , for did those people( Acts 14) not think that Jupiter =Zeus was the supreme Theos ?
Those who think that ye can call the Creator by any title or name deity as you see fit or think in ye own minds commits blasphemy( Rev.13, Rev.17), as Paul himself said that Yah's Name was continually blasphemed daily among the unconverted Gentile peoples( Remember?).
Then, those who think such as David quoted Wade Cox's Article from the C.C.O.G. in the Baal Gad Topic, which Mr. Wade Cox referred to the Creator as a ” BULL”, as that is where the title of ' god ' was worshipped by the Teutonic( Germans ie-Asyrians) races upon conversion to christianity( Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 and a host of others will verify too).
Is it really ok to call the true Creator Yah( Psaoms 68:4) and Messiah by the names or titles of anything? Even bucket, dog, zeus, jupiter, horse, cow, BULL, e.t.c., and is not doing such blasphemy( Rev.13, Rev.17) ?
Eliyah C.
Greetings T8,
You have asked some very important questions here that are being ignored, however I will show an explaination of a couple of your questions, but then you can research for yourself concerning the separated suffixes of the true Saviuor's Name, and how through Greek and Latin that the names of ” Jesus and Yeshua” came in use today.
You are correct in using the Name of 'Yahshua' as this is thee original name that was mutilated or butchered by earlier translators who detested anything Hebrew and Jewish, and which used their own language suffixes to translate rather than transliterate the Names of Yahshua and Yahweh of the true Father and Son.
Almost any scholarly reference work will acknowledge that Rabbinic tradition has suppressed the true Name Yahweh.
Writing Yahweh’s Name in the Hebrew, Jewish scribes inserted a shewa (:) instead of the proper qamets (T), thus changing the vowel sound “ah” in “Yah” to “eh.” This has concealed the true Names so , thus yielding the improper Yehovah( ie-Jehovah) and Yeshua( ie-Jeshua).
Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary clearly shows the erroneous vowel pointing of YAH to 'YEH' in the first column of page 48 where the resulting “YEH” is obvious. In every name in this column, a shewa (:) appears under the Hebrew letter yod (y:), and the pronunciation given following the Hebrew spelling begins with the prefix “YEH.”
Using the “e” instead of the proper “a” is another ploy of the Adversary to do away with the true Name YAH, the first syllable of both Yahweh’s and Yahshua’s Name.
This explains how the “e” came about in the name 'Jesus'. The next letter in Jesus is the letter,' s ', results from the fact that Greek has no “sh” sound, only “s” (sigma) sound. This was incorporated into the Latin text. The “u” in Jesus comes from the u in Yahshua.
The final “s” in “Jesus” is the Greek nominative masculine singular ending. Matthew 1:8-11 contains the genealogy of Joseph’s line, where we can find similar examples of “s” added to produce Greek-inflected Hebrew names: Uzziah becomes Ozias; Hezekiah becomes Ezekias; Jonah becomes Jonas, etc. The errors that we find among names in most versions can be traced to translators. The early Christian translators relied upon the Greek translation called the Septuagint as their source of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Is it not significant that even though these Hebrew names were Grecianized, that they still are recognizable? Why then in English versions does Yahweh’s Name become changed to a completely foreign title of “God,” while “Yahshua” mutates into “Jesus,” a substitute that is not even close to the original?
Why the change, when even the name of the Adversary – Satan – retains its original Hebrew form and close pronunciation? (Saw-tawn, Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary No. 7854).
Adam Clarke’s respected comments on the inferior early translations are informative: “Through the ignorance and carelessness of transcribers innumerable mistakes have been made in ancient names. These also have suffered very greatly in their transfusion from one language to another, till at last the original name is almost totally lost…Besides, neither the Greeks nor Romans could pronounce either the Hebrew or Persian names; and when engaged in the task of transcribing, they did it according to their own manner of pronunciation,” Clarke’s Commentary, vol. 3, pp. 393-394.
Clearly, some over-zealous scribe tampered with the text of the King James Bible and what we have is a New Testament in which the Name of Yahshua has been adulterated and almost obscured.
For an example of this, look at (Acts 7:45) in the Old King James Version. The sentence reads, “Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles whom [Elohim] drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David.” But the account is actually speaking of the Old Testament Joshua, the son of Nun!
Another example is found in (Hebrews 4:8), “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” Many study Bibles will have notes on these two verses pointing out that the more correct name is JOSHUA the son of Nun.
Certain translations other than the King James have corrected this error and inserted “Joshua” in the text. Thus, we can see that this name is the same as that given by Moses to his successor in Numbers 13:16. It is also the name of the Savior (corrected with the “Yah”). This shows how the translators overzealously changed all the “Yahshua’s” to “Jesus”—even when it referred to someone in the Old Testament and not the Savior.
Go to Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary and peruse page 47, taking special note of the second name from the top of the right column, No. 3050, YAHH. Notice this is the correct spelling and pronunciation of the short form YAH and includes the qametes under the yod: (3050. Yahh, yaw).
Although the author James H. Strong is noted for his classic concordance, his understanding of the Name was lacking and he used the erroneous 'Jehovah' which is vowel pointed to the Hebrew ' Adonia “. However, his is correct in listing No. 3050 YAHH, spelling it with the vowel 'a 'instead of 'e' and the double' hh' to bring out the “ahh” sound.
Very few common people have really investigated this, and as ONESPIRIT said ” truth is substituted for tradition”.
The custom of reading a substitute name when the Tetragrammaton was encountered in the Hebrew Scriptures was carried over into the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the LXX (Septuagint). The translation was said to have been made by seventy Hebrew translators for the King of Egypt who wanted a copy of this great book of the Hebrews for the grand library of Alexandria in Egypt. The letters LXX (meaning “70”) are often used as an abbreviation for the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.
In making the Greek translation, the copyists inserted the four letters YHWH of the Hebrew, namely hwhy, wherever the name Yahweh was to appear. However, the pronunciation was pointed with the vowels of Adonai, which how the Hybrid butchering name of ” Jehovah ” came in existance.
After the death and resurrection of the Messiah, there was a Latin version of the Hebrew Old Testament, however, these early translators were not skilled in the Hebrew language, and actually detested the Jews and refused to learn the Hebrew tongue. They were ignorant of Hebrew and were often ridiculed by the Jews for their ludicrous pronunciation of Hebrew.
In the Hebrew, Scriptural names all have meaning. At times Yahweh or Yahshua (or sometimes parents) changed the name of individuals, giving them a special name that had new meaning. For example, Abram means exalted father; later his name was changed to Abraham, which means “father of a multitude.” Isaac means “laughter” (because his mother laughed when promised a son in her old age). Jacob (Yacob) means “heel-grabber” or “supplanter,” because he supplanted his firstborn brother Esau. His name was changed to Israel, meaning “contender” or “perseveres with El,” when he wrestled with the angel in (Genesis 32).
An eye-opening study of the names of the 12 tribes of Israel appears in (Genesis chapter 29-30). Situations surrounding the birth of each of these sons is reflected in their individual names. The Hebrew Dictionary found at the back of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance provides a fascinating exercise in the meaning of names.
Because there is no J sound in the Hebrew, the prefix “Je” does not exist in Hebrew. The combination word “Jesus” is not Greek, it’s not Hebrew. In fact, it is completely without philological meaning in any
language. Yet, Gabriel told Miriam and Joseph that the Messiah’s Name, being given from the very highest Authority in the heavens, was special. It had a specific connotation, a precise and very important MEANING. The angel said He would be given this Name because “He shall save His people from their sins.” Scholars acknowledge that the name given through Gabriel was the Hebrew Yahshua. (See any good study Bible with marginal notes on (Matt. 1:21 and Luke 1:31), “Yahshua” means “Yah is salvation.”Look at the center reference column on the Old K.J.V. of ( Matt.1:21), that NAME is SAVIOUR, not the name 'Jesus' there.
When you do a study in the Strongs Hebrew Concordance on the suffixes of the Hebrew Numbers 1954,3050, 3068, 3091, 3442, 3467, you will see that the correct meaning and transliteraton of the first syl. of “Yahh” and “shua “ mean exactly the meaning of ( Matt.1:21) verse.
The true Messiah's Name is exactly what the Father's Name Means, and this is why the Jews wanted to stone Him ( See John 10:31-33).
This is undeniable, and those who argue against it are either ignorant( not knowing) or they want to stay with tradition.
A primary goal in translating Names from other Languages, is to bring the sound of names ( which are proper nouns) across unchanged into the next language, usually in a foreign alphabet. Names are not to be 'translated ' as are common nouns, and names are not to be changed from language to language. Instead, proper noun names are to be closely and correctly transliterated.
The Messiah was given a Hebrew Name, not a Greek- Latin name.
Eliyah C.
Quote (Eliyah @ Oct. 05 2005,07:56) Pastor Adam said, “”
Quote Actually, Yahshua isn't the correct Hebrew name. The actual Hebrew equiv. to the Messiah's name would
be Yeshua [cp. Exo 17.9, 1 Chr 24.11, 2 Chr 31.15, Ezra 2.2, etc]
or even Yehoshua [cp. Num. 13.16, 1 Chr 7.27]Yahshua isn't a properly constructed Hebrew name!
I already explained that earlier, but it too was ignored.
The Names of Yehoshua( the Son) and Yehovah( the Father( Strongs Conciordance) were vowel pointed combined with the title of Adonia meaning ' lord ' which produced these names, however, thee original scriptures were not vowel pointed at all, as there are earlier inscriptions like the Moabite Stone which contains on it the original name of ' YHWH ' without the vowel point markings, and examinations of Lexicons will also verify this too.
This is how the name of Jehovah== Yehovah( Strongs) came into being in the 14th Century, as the translators combined the vowel points of Adonia meaning 'lord ' with the four letters of YHWH , as Encyclopedias and Lexicons will also verify too.
The Messiah had the same name as Yahushua( without the vowel point markings)son of Nun, and ( Acts 7:45 ; Heb.4:8), that the Old K.J.V. translators confused and wrote the name of ' Jesus', and those verses are plainly talking about “Joshua ” son of nun.
James H.Strongs made the same mistake as the translators of the Old K.J.V. by merely coding his Concordance to its words, however, James H. Strongs then corrects his error when he transliterates the Name ( 3091 Hebrew) from Hebrew to English, except he left the vowel points combined with both names.
Very few people have noticed Mr. Strongs mistake from Greek to English concering that name( If they do they have not acknowledged it), but then Strongs corrects his error from Hebrew to English of 3091, which without the vowel point markings is Yahushua.
How can there be 2 transliterations from Yahoshua the Hebrew into the English of BOTH ” Joshua “ and ” Jesus”?
There are very few people that have noticed such mistakes, and those in teaching seminars will avoid it like the plaque, because it disproves modern traditional beliefs of Theology that is taught and which is traditionally accepted by the masses of people.
This gets into the same as ONESPIRIT said concerning truth is substituted and accepted for the traditions of the people, and that is exactly what is taught today to the masses of people too.
And concerning calling the Messiah or the Father Yah by the title of bucket as Caroline said, then why did Paul object to those in” Acts 14 “ when they used their Jupiter Theos , for did those people( Acts 14) not think that Jupiter =Zeus was the supreme Theos ?
Those who think that ye can call the Creator by any title or name deity as you see fit or think in ye own minds commits blasphemy( Rev.13, Rev.17), as Paul himself said that Yah's Name was continually blasphemed daily among the unconverted Gentile peoples( Remember?).
Then, those who think such as David quoted Wade Cox's Article from the C.C.O.G. in the Baal Gad Topic, which Mr. Wade Cox referred to the Creator as a ” BULL”, as that is where the title of ' god ' was worshipped by the Teutonic( Germans ie-Asyrians) races upon conversion to christianity( Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 and a host of others will verify too).
Is it really ok to call the true Creator Yah( Psaoms 68:4) and Messiah by the names or titles of anything? Even bucket, dog, zeus, jupiter, horse, cow, BULL, e.t.c., and is not doing such blasphemy( Rev.13, Rev.17) ?
Eliyah C.
Hi,
In Acts Paul objected to the false impression that the crowd gained they were supporting their idolatrous worship and so he preached the Living God to them.
Blasphemy is not defined as calling our God by any other term that the exactly revealed name. That was YHWH was it not but you claim precedence for Yahweh?or Yah or Yahh?
The reason the Name of Yahweh was being blasphemed does not relate to the wrong use of any name for God, but because those who claimed to serve God were poor examples as His servants and brought shame to that name.
Yahshua was a common name in the time of Christ so why were not all the others stoned?Quote Hi,
In Acts Paul objected to the false impression that the crowd gained they were supporting their idolatrous worship and so he preached the Living God to them.
Blasphemy is not defined as calling our God by any other term that the exactly revealed name. That was YHWH was it not but you claim precedence for Yahweh?or Yah or Yahh?
The reason the Name of Yahweh was being blasphemed does not relate to the wrong use of any name for God, but because those who claimed to serve God were poor examples as His servants and brought shame to that name.
Yahshua was a common name in the time of Christ so why were not all the others stoned?Nick, how was those in ( Acts 14) claiming to worship Yahweh, when they were clearly worshipping their ” Theos Jupiter and thinking they were worshipping the true supreme Creator?
Also, how many of those with the common name( as you claim and mis-understand) was performing all those miracles that Messiah was doing among the people?
Sometimes, I think you don't even know yourself what you are talking about as you want to argue all the time.
Quote (Eliyah @ Oct. 06 2005,00:12) Quote Hi,
In Acts Paul objected to the false impression that the crowd gained they were supporting their idolatrous worship and so he preached the Living God to them.
Blasphemy is not defined as calling our God by any other term that the exactly revealed name. That was YHWH was it not but you claim precedence for Yahweh?or Yah or Yahh?
The reason the Name of Yahweh was being blasphemed does not relate to the wrong use of any name for God, but because those who claimed to serve God were poor examples as His servants and brought shame to that name.
Yahshua was a common name in the time of Christ so why were not all the others stoned?Nick, how was those in ( Acts 14) claiming to worship Yahweh, when they were clearly worshipping their ” Theos Jupiter and thinking they were worshipping the true supreme Creator?
Also, how many of those with the common name( as you claim and mis-understand) was performing all those miracles that Messiah was doing among the people?
Sometimes, I think you don't even know yourself what you are talking about as you want to argue all the time.
Hi eliyah,.
Quite the reverse in fact.They thought their false gods had visited men.
Acts 14.11
“…..'The gods have become like men and have come down to us.' And they began calling Barnabas 'Zeus' and Paul' Hermes' …”Quote Hi eliyah,.
Quite the reverse in fact.They thought their false gods had visited men.
Acts 14.11
“…..'The gods have become like men and have come down to us.' And they began calling Barnabas 'Zeus' and Paul' Hermes' …”That's ( Acts 14:12) Nick.
That is the point Nick, those people still thought in their minds that ZEUS or Jupiter was the supreme theos, and he was to them.
Now, since one on here seemed to think calling the Creator or Messiah either a bucket, do you think the true Creator would want to be called by the name of ZEUS or JUPITER too?
What about “” ALLAH “” ? Or, does people think it's ok to call Him by those above title names too?
Nick,
Clearly, to these people they believed that the deities of ZEUS and HERMES was their THEOS, or otherwise WHY would these people have called Paul and Barnabas by these title names of their deities?
That is not an assumption, it is a scriptural quote of fact that is stated, and Nick, sometimes its almost un-believable that you can be so blind as to not see this.
I asked a questions.
Quote Now, since one on here seemed to think calling the Creator or Messiah either a bucket, do you think the true Creator would want to be called by the name of ZEUS or JUPITER too? What about “” ALLAH “” ? Or, does people think it's ok to call Him by those above title names too?
You do not want to answer the questions, rather, you choose to avoid them, and reply back that these questions are assumptions, however, they are questions asked of scripture quoted texts, not assumptions.
Hi eliyah,
What is written is what we teach and not what we derive from what is written. It is fine to draw conclusions but you must say they are opinions and not teach them as fact.Nick,
Quote Hi eliyah,
What is written is what we teach and not what we derive from what is written.Your statement of this scripture
Quote 'The gods have become like men and have come down to us.' And they began calling Barnabas 'Zeus' and Paul' Hermes' …” .” Then what title names of these ' gods '( Greek theotos)did these people call Paul and Barnabas ? Was it not ZEUS and HERMES?
Then WHY would these people call Paul and Barnabas by these pagan 'gods' names of ZEUS and HERMES, if these people did not think that ZEUS and HERMES was ” gods=( Theotos deities)?
Then what do you think this scripture you quoted says?
Quote 'The gods have become like men and have come down to us.' And they began calling Barnabas 'Zeus' and Paul' Hermes' …” ??
Is not the scripture you wrote is exactly as my question above?
Unbelievable what you want believe reading with your own eyes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
