Jesus' New Name during the Second Coming..

It states in the book of Revelation that Jesus told John, the author of Revelation, that when he returned during the end times or during the event called the second coming of Christ that he'd have a new name, a name which no man knoweth until that time came, ie; the end times. I do not feel like hunting down the exact verse but believe me, it's in there.

I always thought that was a cool unfulfilled prophecy, but just recently in the past couple of days I've realized something, something which has provoked me to create this thread. I realized that in the past few years, everyone has been calling Jesus "Yahshua", saying this was his real name, not Jesus. I was wondering if every ATS member reading this can ask themselves a question for me; When did you first hear anyone referring to Jesus as Yahshua, and how long ago was that? For me, I only started hearing/reading that a few years ago, maybe the mid 2000's. I reckon he could've been called that for quite some time, or it is a more recent discovery, that is .. within the past 2 or 3 decades. If it is more recent, I'd have to wonder if this is not the prophecy of his "new name" for the end times being fulfilled in front of us.

So, when was the first time you ever read or heard Jesus being referred to as Yahshua? Where did you experience that?

Thanks in advance for participating.

[edit on 6/26/2008 by runetang]

Yahshua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWikipedia

Here is a link to the origin you asked about. You should consider Googling before you open a speculative thread.

What part of "No man knoweth his new name", don't you believe is true?

I would assume many who look up and see his mother Mary's Mother ship, will be screaming something very close to it wondering what and who it is. I suppose it will have it written on it for all to see. "USS MARY MOTHER OF GOD 1" or USS OMG 1 or USS OMeGa 1.


Coming down in the clouds in all his glory does sound like a really huge space craft to me. I wonder what color and model they chose?

So then, it started being pronounced in the 1930's according to opponents of it.

Opponents claim this pronunciation of יהושע first came into use during the early days of the Sacred Name movement in the 1930s, perhaps developed by leaders such as Angelo B. Traina and C.O. Dodd. Christians, historians, and linguists outside the sacred name movement for the most part reject the term Yahshua in favor of Yeshua (ישוע) as the original pronunciation.

Revelation 19:12

And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head are many diadems; and he hath a name written, which no one knoweth but he himself.

Though I do not partake in this phenomenon you speak of, I have noticed that people have been using "Yeshua" instead of Jesus ever since the release of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ".

I think in part it is an attempt to appear more holy than mundane users of "Jesus".

I think in part it is an attempt to appear more holy than mundane users of "Jesus".

Actually, let me explain this for you so you know what the true intent is behind this. Do you hear people, typically of non-european descent, claiming that Jesus is fabricated by the White Christians, that Jesus wasn't really white skinned and looking like a European, and that all of the Jesus worship and rituals that go on in Churches such as Catholic ones is actually wrong and bad? Like the sacrament? If you do not believe that the wafer becomes the literal flesh of Christ, you are doing big time evil according to them. And the wine? That's for the priests only, the blood of Jesus is too precious .. only the priests can drink of the blood of Christ. And they believe it literally becomes the blood, not that it IS the blood itself, but in representation thereof is equal to the blood, and treated as such.

So .. the movement AWAY from and against the Idolatry of Jesus, the Europeanization of Jesus appearance, the falsification of some of his teachings and some of the events surrounding his life and death, the Idolatry of Jesus and the Crucifix, the transformation of the sacrament into the literal flesh and blood representation .. the movement away from all of this which is wrong in mainstream, oblivious, abiding Christianity; these are those that refer to Jesus as Yeshua. Heart of the nation, compassionate conversative, evangelical Christianity, and their Mormon offspring have corrupted the teachings. And the global Catholics have corrupted the very practice itself, through and through! .. practicing idolatry and abominations? So that is why Yeshua is used, because it denotes the "True and Official" Jesus as he existed, his true name.

This makes "Jesus" someone fictional if you will, a distortion of the real Yeshua, which was Jesus' real first name, you see. So thereby worshipping a European looking Jesus is kind of .. missing the mark, when the real Jesus said do not pray to me, pray to my father, aka God? And also that his name was not even Jesus, or that he had tanned skin and curly hair, Jewish appearance?

Now tie this into the deception of the people by the evil Church, mainly Catholicism and the Vatican. Let's say "Jesus" is really anti-christ. Okay, they've already got an entire perverted practice based upon pagan holidays of Barbarian Europe / Dark Age Europe, idolizing Jesus and his dying body on the Crucifix, symbolically cannibalizing his flesh and blood? How twisted is this? Do you truly think if "Jesus" (Yeshua) came back for his long awaited second coming, that he'd be pleased with these workers? Nay, he'd find them luke warm and spit them out, just like it says in the text..

[edit on 6/28/2008 by runetang]

I am fairly certain that the Aramaic-speaking Christians have been calling Jesus the Nazarene "Yehshua" or "Yehoshua" since the beginning of the Christian movement during His lifetime. Those Aramaic-speaking churches include Christians in Iraq, Syria, the Lebanon, and perhaps a few are still alive in Turkey. I suspect if you ask a Maronite, Chaldean Catholic or Assyrian Church of the East priest or deacon you would get a definitive answer rather quickly.

reply to post by runetang


I understand the sentiments that you convey. However I am of the thought that God is almighty and thus whatever guise or appellation you use for him, he does not cease to be God.

As such, I thought it seems somewhat superficial to make a distinction between the two in ultimate terms.

I think it is pretty clear here..

Yeshua prayed to God himself when he was alive, it says it numerous times in the scriptures. This whole concept of Jesus being God in the flesh, God walking as man, while simultaineously being his son, as if Mary cheated on Joseph with God or something, is so hard to accept.

The reason it is that way is because it isnt true. Yeshua prayed to God. Why would God pray to himself, or call to himself?

So the post-dead Yeshua, who after death was THEN give this godly status, and his name became more commoly Jesus.

Therefore,

Yeshua: The Jesus who lived and died in Israel.

Jesus: The corrupted version of Yeshua who was God incarnate in the flesh.

This is how I differentiate it .. so FYI:

Id theres ever a time a man comes on the scenes that many of the world's people truly believe is Jesus returned, pay *very* close attention to the man's behavior, specifically in regards to whether he decrees that prayers should be made to God only, not him or any Saints. Thats what he should do. If he sits there and says .. "Yes I am God incarnate" and just happens to be on the Temple grounds at the time .. you've just gotten yourself a ticket to the abomination of desolation!

[edit on 7/1/2008 by runetang]

I only heard of this name Yeshua before christmas 2007! not long hey!

I was raised catholic and never heard it!


There are people here in Australia that call themselves the 'called out ones' because they have no other name that live off the grid and the women wear hijabs and they are very interesting... lost contact with them tho... but they are the ones that taught me about the different names.

reply to post by Morrigan


haha! i LOVE your avatar pic!


oh, right, jesus being another name. i never heard that name until coming here. although i only socialize w/ "sort of christian" types, so that may be why i missed it.

More rightly so Ioshaua, translated Joshaua was the earth name of the man that was also known by the roman name JESUS. It's been well documented for the past 2000 years "Yeshua" is nothing at all new.

The Unknown name is Michael.

Michael is the only name to appear in the book "The Revelation of Jesus Christ". Also in the associated book of Daniel. It really is a nobrainner, but I'm sure you'll not see even the simplest thing clearly.

Jesus new name will be...
Booger McChrist -Super hero savior who's super powers include the power
to make his hands bleed at will and blind his enemy,
walking on oil slicks and the ability to leave facial imprints on paper towels.

Who, what his name is, and where he will sit will be deterimined by and most likely be in israel.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by IvanZana]

you all are pretty much going to hate me if you love jesus but I read a book which I will not mention because of the controversy. In it it breaks down the bible into ages the most recent ones I will mention, (jesus) was called shiva or the destroyer. this lead to what we know of as passover, the second was called jehova and the third was called jesus he will have a new name because it will be a new age. It has to do with astrology and you are not supposed to know because astrology is evil and the c Amen people who do not know this are the slaves of the people who started the whole thing...this consists of most of us.

reply to post by seek4 truth


There is alot of opinions.

What Jesus was trying to say is that there is no diffrence between you and him. His potential is the human potential. He is buda, shiva, satan, bush, mother theresa.

He taught not to worship the cross. When he healed people he would tell them that he did nothing but it was the faith and belief that Jesus could heal, when it was they who healed themselves.

He also said not to look to the heavens for him for he will not return like that, you cannot say he is here or there. He said we are all slivers of light comming from one source. He also said to be diligent for people will come in his name and demand to be called father, make you bow down and kiss their rings, they also will dress in blacks and reds and demand money and convince you that you need them to talk and have the blessings of god.

SO i dont blame people for hating religion for that is why the people who killed jesus and his teachings ment for the world to worship a religion that when you reach a certain type progression your realise how silly it is to kneel down and preform rituals. That is not the real us.

Jesus/(god name here)is me and you. We can walk on water, move mountains, heal, but we must first open all doors, hide nothing, live without evil and negative emotion and all powers that govern the universe will govern you in ways you could not of imagined.

The coming of Christ is the coming of the new conciousness. It even says in the bible that the new world is already here and it is us that has to awaken.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 1-7-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by Incarnated
It really is a nobrainner, but I'm sure you'll not see even the simplest thing clearly.

Gee, thanks for the side swipe there buddy ole' pal ..

I was just wondering if people had been calling him that all along, or if it was a relatively new development, thats all. You and other repliers have informed me quite well, thanks. So no need to imply that I cannot see clearly.

As to your opinion of Jesus' "special name" that no man knoweth until he returns, I'd have to say you are incorrect in saying it is Michael. This is because no man knoweth the name until he returns as it states in the book plainly. Why would John make such a statement in the text, then turn around and say it is Michael in a different chapter? That would be like him writing "no man knoweth the time or day that Jesus returns", then 2 chapters later writing "he cometh in 9 threescore 5 years from the day of the completion of the third temple" or some jazz like that, lol. In short, it just doesn't seem to work well, unless you're saying John was a liar.

[edit on 7/2/2008 by runetang]

Curiously, Isaiah 7:14 says his name was to be Immanuel in the first place, not Jesus.

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Right, some people like to say that Jesus' "spiritual name" was Immanuel. Or that it wasn't a literal prophecy, that the word Immanuel in hebrew or some such means something like .. he who saves .. dont quote me there. So since it translates into such a statement, they like to say this must be Jesus, because .. Jesus was / is he who saves! Derrr ..

I think that is a silly approach, but people twist religion and prophecy immensely in every which way just to make it look like things are about to go the way they think, or that they are right and everyone else is wrong. That they are chosen, saved, and special, while everyone else is lost, hopeless, left.

I think thats a poor way to see the present reality, and he who does ... sucks?